Was It Worth It? Newberg School Board Wins 3 of 4 Claims but District Spends Over $300K

By Rebecca Wallis

NEWBERG, OR – March 2, 2025

For more than two years, the Newberg School District 29J found itself embroiled in a high-profile legal battle that drained its financial resources and sparked debates about government accountability. The lawsuit, filed by a group of plaintiffs including Beth Woolsey, Greg Woolsey, Jeff McNeal, Kathleen McNeal, Meghan Rogers-Czarnecki, Stefan Czarnecki, and Elizabeth Gemeroy, centered on allegations that members of the Newberg School Board violated Oregon’s public meetings law. The case, which concluded with a final settlement, not only cost the district hundreds of thousands in legal fees but also highlighted the broader implications of governance and transparency within public institutions.

The Lawsuit’s Origins

The case was officially filed on October 21, 2021, in Yamhill County Circuit Court (Case No. 21CV41198) against the Newberg School District and four individual board members: Trevor DeHart, Renee Powell, Brian Shannon, and Dave Brown. The plaintiffs alleged that these board members conducted private meetings outside of public oversight to deliberate and decide on retaining legal counsel, a clear violation of Oregon’s Public Meetings Law (ORS 192.630).

Over the course of the litigation, multiple amended complaints were filed, and the district vigorously defended itself against the allegations as did the board members. The case proceeded through hearings and motions, culminating in a trial held on November 28-30, 2023. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the school board on three out of the four complaints brought against them, significantly reducing the district’s legal exposure.

Financial Implications: Legal Fees and the General Fund

One of the most significant aspects of this lawsuit was its financial impact on the district. The plaintiffs’ attorneys originally sought $358,585 in legal fees, along with $1,435.15 in costs and $9,458.39 in litigation expenses, bringing the total request to nearly $370,000. These fees, if granted, would have been paid out of the district’s general fund, a budget intended for educational resources, teacher salaries, and student programs.

However, the court ultimately denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, costs, and disbursements, awarding only a nominal prevailing party fee of $105. While this decision significantly reduced the district’s financial liability, the cost of defending the case over several years still amounted to a substantial financial burden.

A comprehensive review of district financial records reveals that the total amount spent on the Woolsey case was:

• FY 2021-2022: $9,098.65
• FY 2022-2023: $61,111.80
• FY 2023-2024: $222,151.44
• FY 2024-2025 (Partial, through 02/13/2025): $17,922.40

When factoring in the $27,894 settlement repayment from the individual board members, the total net cost to the district amounted to $282,390.29.

The Settlement Agreement

After extensive litigation, the case was resolved through a settlement agreement signed on January 30, 2025. Under the terms of the settlement, the four individual defendants, Trevor DeHart, Renee Powell, Brian Shannon, and Dave Brown, were ordered to repay $27,894 to the Newberg School District. This amount covered the legal fees incurred by the district for the unauthorized hiring of legal counsel. However, the settlement raises an important question: Was it worth putting the district through years of costly litigation just to prove a point?

With a total initial claim of nearly $370,000 in attorney fees and litigation costs, the plaintiffs’ pursuit ultimately resulted in a minimal financial consequence for the individual board members. Meanwhile, the district itself bore the brunt of the legal expenses, diverting funds away from student programs and educational priorities. The $55,788 settlement underscores the broader debate over whether such legal battles serve the public good or merely fuel political and ideological conflicts at the expense of taxpayers.

Alternative Complaint Processes and Public Meetings Law Violations

The controversy surrounding this case is further highlighted by a separate matter involving Newberg School Board members Jeremy Hayden, James Wolfer, Debra Bridges, and Nancy Woodward. These individuals were found to have violated Oregon’s Public Meetings Law due to a serial meeting proven through email communications. The violations occurred in February 2024, when emails exchanged between board members demonstrated discussions and decision-making outside of a public meeting, a direct breach of state law. However, instead of a costly lawsuit, this violation resulted in the district being required to undergo two free training sessions conducted by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC).

This raises an important comparison—while the legal battle against DeHart, Powell, Shannon, and Brown cost the district significantly, the public meetings violation involving Hayden, Wolfer, Bridges, and Woodward was resolved through an educational remedy at no expense. This demonstrates that complaints can be handled through alternative processes that do not burden taxpayers with unnecessary legal fees.

Lessons and Future Implications

This lawsuit serves as a cautionary tale for school boards and public institutions. The improper handling of legal decisions behind closed doors can lead to costly legal battles, diverting funds away from essential educational services. The case also underscores the importance of adhering to public meetings laws to maintain transparency and trust in governance.

For the Newberg School District, the settlement marks the end of a contentious chapter, but it leaves lasting questions about fiscal responsibility and public accountability. As local governments and school boards navigate similar challenges, this case will likely serve as a precedent for ensuring adherence to open meeting laws and avoiding the financial strain of prolonged litigation. At the same time, the alternative resolution in the case of Hayden, Wolfer, Bridges, and Woodward highlights that similar violations can be addressed through corrective training rather than expensive legal battles, preserving public funds for the benefit of students and the community.

Editor’s note: This is article 2 in the series “Newberg School District vs. Taxpayer Dollars.”
You can find article 1 in this series here. 

Photo Credit: Yamhill County News File