Kent School District holds executive session, approves finalists for public interviews

Kent School District convened a special meeting that opened with an executive session to evaluate qualifications for public employment and then approved a slate of finalists for public interviews.

The district said the executive session was being held under the Open Public Meetings Act to consider qualifications for public employment and that the board would return to open session at 6 p.m. for a publicly noticed special meeting. A board member announced that public interviews of the selected finalists were scheduled for Tuesday, February 1, at the district office, and that candidates and attendees would receive notification by email the following day.

Why it matters: The board used a closed evaluation process permitted under state open-meetings law to vet candidates before scheduling public interviews. The decisions set which applicants will appear before the board in open session and establish the public interview schedule.

In open session the presiding official called for motions to move selected applicants forward as finalists. The board approved motions to advance a group of candidates to the interview stage; the meeting transcript records the vote as a standard voice/hand vote with the presiding official saying, “All those in favor please raise hand and say I,” after which the presiding official said the motion passed. The transcript does not record individual roll-call votes or named yes/no tallies.

The district identified the following individuals as finalists to be interviewed (names as stated in the meeting): Michael Tasky; David Stanford; Kateri Parker; Justin James; Trisa Graygri (as spoken in the record); Thomas Fogiy; and Eklif Clafen. The transcript indicates those finalists will be notified the next day and that formal public interviews will be open to attendees.

During the meeting a board member moved to briefly reconvene the executive session for an additional five minutes for further deliberation; that motion was seconded and approved, and the group returned to open session afterward. The transcript records the board’s return to open session and confirmation of the interview schedule.

The meeting record does not specify the exact position or job title the finalists are being interviewed for beyond references to a district director/“director” role in heavily garbled portions of the transcript; the transcript text does not provide a clear, unambiguous job title. The transcript also does not record named movers or seconders for the motions, nor does it list individual board member votes.

What’s next: The board indicated the finalists will receive interview information and official notice by email the next day; the public interview event was stated to occur at the district office on Tuesday, February 1. Any formal appointment or hiring decision would be recorded in subsequent meeting minutes or agenda materials.