The search for a new superintendent was at the forefront as board members deliberated over proposals from three consultancy firms—Rain Associates, BWP, and MSBA. The MSBA proposal emerged as a notable contender, offering the board flexibility to modify candidate lists and full access to all applications. The board expressed interest in determining if similar options could be provided by the other two firms. During this discussion, attention was drawn to the limited response to the board’s Request for Information, with only three out of the anticipated four firms responding.

Interim Superintendent Michael Balman’s candidacy for the permanent role sparked a debate. Some board members praised Balman’s leadership and connection with the community, highlighting positive feedback from staff and parents. However, concerns were raised about the fairness and transparency of appointing Balman without a comprehensive search process. It was argued that a formal application process was necessary to ensure all candidates could be evaluated equally and thoroughly.

The potential impact of Balman’s candidacy on other applicants was also discussed. Some board members feared that external candidates might be discouraged from applying if they perceived that Balman had an advantage due to his interim role. A commitment to a robust and open search process was emphasized as essential to maintaining fairness and attracting a diverse pool of candidates.

Parallel to the superintendent search, the board considered the implications of upcoming board elections on decision-making processes. With new board members set to take office on January 1st, some members advocated for delaying the superintendent selection to incorporate the perspectives of these incoming members. Concerns about continuity and the need for a superintendent familiar with the district’s operations were raised, alongside arguments for ensuring that the new board members could influence this critical decision.

The meeting also addressed the procedural aspects of appointing a new board member to fill a vacancy. The proposal to appoint the fourth vote-getter from the November school board election as a new board member was debated extensively. This method was seen by some as a way to respect community input, given the candidate’s anticipated public support. However, the proposal faced criticism, with concerns that it might not fully reflect community preferences or align with best appointment practices. Legal counsel confirmed the board’s authority to determine its appointment process, though it was noted that such a method had not been previously used in Lakeville.

The board’s discussions on the appointment process highlighted differing opinions on transparency, community involvement, and the importance of maintaining procedural integrity. A motion was eventually passed to interview the fourth vote-getter.

The meeting also touched on other matters, including a review of the school calendar and contract renewals for executive directors. The calendar discussion involved adjustments for maximizing instructional days, while contract renewals prompted concerns about timing given the absence of a permanent superintendent. Despite differing opinions, the contract renewals were approved with a split vote.

Finally, a detailed audit report was presented, confirming the district’s financial statements were fairly stated with no significant findings. The report noted an increase in student enrollment and corresponding revenue growth, sparking questions about fund allocation and financial management within the district.