An attempt to recall two Kent School Board members led to a nearly 90-minute discussion at last week’s board meeting about whether the Kent School District should pay attorneys to represent the two directors at an upcoming hearing.

After much debate that at times became quite heated, the board voted 3-2 March 12 to authorize the district to cover the attorney fees for Meghin Margel and Tim Clark, the subjects of the recall. Margel, Clark and new board member Teresa Gregory voted to cover the costs. Andy Song and Donald Cook opposed the district paying for the fees.

King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott will hold a sufficiency hearing at 10 a.m. April 11 to decide whether Margel and Clark committed acts of malfeasance or misfeasance under the law as claimed in the recall ballot filed with King County Elections.

If the charges are sufficient, the judge can either amend the ballot synopsis or approve it as is, according to a March 17 email from a King County Elections spokesperson. Once the ballot synopsis is finalized, the recall sponsors would have 180 days to gather signatures to put the recall question on the ballot.

Greta Nelson, Lori Waight and Michele Bettinger filed the petition to recall Margel and Clark. All three women live in the Kent School District and have or had children in Kent schools. Nelson is a regular watchdog and public commenter at board meetings over the past year. Waight runs a KSD Discussion Group Facebook private page that discusses education happenings in Kent, the state and the world. Bettinger is a former Kent School Board member who resigned in 2022.

The theme for the recall is “Holding Kent School District officials accountable for unlawful actions,” according to ksdboardrecall.com.

“From shady contracts to silencing board members like Donald Cook via Resolution 1669, the charges aim to expose a pattern of misconduct,” according to the recall group.

Parts of the recall are in response to the board’s adoption in 2024 of Resolution 1669, which the board passed to form a Labor Policy Committee that excluded Cook despite his presence on the board. The committee dealt with labor contracts and the board majority didn’t want Cook as part of the group because his wife teaches in the district. Cook said he would recuse himself from contract discussions with the teachers’ union, but he opposed his exclusion from other labor contract talks.

Nelson said that board action caused her to become involved in the issue and she became a regular at meetings to oppose Resolution 1669.

The recall claims Margel, currently the board president, and Clark should be recalled based on the following allegations:

• Abused authority in voting, along with the board majority, to create a committee that violated board policy.

• Violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and Constitutional rights, denied due process and abused executive session powers by holding closed committee meetings along with a majority of the board.

• Violated board policy and RCW 28A.320.015 by voting together with a board majority to adopt a resolution.

• In acting to suspend a board policy, violated First Amendment rights and failed to comply with board, OPMA and notice requirements.

• Violated board procurrent policy, RCW 39.26.140, and RCW 28A.400.315, and failed in her/his fiduciary duty to act in voting to hire consultant services, along with a board majority.

• Breached her/his fiduciary duty in voting, with a board majority, to approve a contract that posed a conflict of interest for the board.

The petition added one more item to Margel’s recall that alleges as board president she violated RCW 42.17A.555 for failing to stop public comments in support of a ballot measure at a board meeting.

“There will be a ‘Sufficiency’ hearing on April 11 in a King County courtroom to determine whether there is reason to send this onto the ballot,” Clark said in a March 19 email. “I believe this will put an end to the matter. Meghin and I have always done due diligence on all contentious issues. It is time to put this to rest.”

Margel has not responded to a Kent Reporter email for comment about the recall.

Voters elected Margel to a four-year term in November 2023. Clark’s term expires this year. He said at a Feb. 26 board meeting that he will not seek reelection.

A sufficiency hearing before a judge had been scheduled for March 24, but attorneys representing Margel and Clark filed a motion to move the hearing to April 23. Recall leaders opposed the delay. Judge Scott granted a continuance to April 11.

The recall group initially filed a petition earlier this year that included director Awale Farah, part of the three-member group with Margel and Clark that it alleges violated law. But the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office rejected that petition because Farah resigned from the board in December 2024 and that the recall of each board member needs to be a separate petition rather than combined.

Board controversy

The long discussion over whether the district should pay for attorneys to represent Margel and Clark at the upcoming hearing ended with what’s become a typical outcome, a 3-2 vote with Song and Cook in the minority.

Nelson, the leader of the recall, spoke at the March 12 meeting in opposition to the board’s approval of the district paying to represent Margel and Clark.

“If approved, the board risks committing public funds to defend potentially indefensible conduct,” Nelson said prior to the vote.

Then the board began its discussion, which included Song peppering Curtis Leonard, the district’s attorney, with numerous questions about whether the district should pay for private attorneys to represent Margel and Clark. Leonard said a board member can ask for the district to cover legal costs under state statute and the board decides.

After a continual back-and-forth conversation between Song and Leonard, Song stuck with his opinion that the district shouldn’t pay for legal costs at the upcoming hearing about the recall petition. He said an elected official should expect that a recall could happen and if it does, that official should raise funds for their legal defense.

“I think this is a relationship we should not be entering,” Song said. “If a board member is being recalled, it’d be different if the entire board was being recalled, it should be a personal action. This isn’t a relationship the district and a board member should be entering.”

Margel chimed in that the funds are just for the sufficiency hearing, not the entire recall process.

“If it’s insufficient, it’s done,” Margel said about the recall petition hearing before a judge. “If it’s sufficient, it moves forward. It’s just allegations (right now).”

Cook pointed out that the board turned down his request for help with legal fees when he sued over his exclusion from the Labor Policy Committee in contract negotiations. In part since he was denied, he said he opposed approval of the district paying for legal costs in the recall matter.

“The board voted against my legal fees,” Cook said. “We don’t pay legal fees for personal matters but now we do.”

Cook asked Leonard how much money it will cost the district to hire a private law firm to represent Margel and Clark.

Leonard said it would be less than $100,000 and that he has seen $20,000 to $30,000 in similar cases with other districts he has worked with. Leonard said district insurance doesn’t cover recall petitions.

Recalls are rare

The last recall in King County to make it to the ballot was Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant in 2021, according to King County Elections. Sawant held onto her seat.

The last successful recall in King County was in 2018 when Black Diamond voters recalled Black Diamond City Councilmember Patricia Pepper, according to King County Elections.