The most pressing topic was the vacancy on the board following a resignation that left more than two years on the term. The board explored the appointment process, consulting legal counsel and the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA). The appointment could either fill the position until a special election between February and November of the following year or be deferred, allowing new board members to participate in the decision-making process. Concerns were raised about the timing of the resignation, which precluded placing the position on the November ballot. This led to frustration among some members who felt the process could have been handled differently.

A proposed timeline for the appointment was discussed, suggesting an October review of the application process, opening applications in November, and potentially appointing someone in January. This plan aimed to ensure a thorough and efficient process, allowing for community feedback before finalizing the appointment. Debates continued over whether the appointment should occur immediately or be deferred to involve newly elected members.

In a related and equally discussion, the board considered legislative changes affecting the appointment process. Recent updates in state statute expanded the timeframe for initiating the appointment if more than two years remained in the term. This change led to confusion about past appointments, emphasizing the importance of understanding the statute’s implications. A suggestion was made that new board members, elected by the community, should have a primary say in the appointment, although there were concerns about their lack of experience.

Interviews for candidates were proposed for December, despite concerns about new members’ preparedness. The possibility of a special election in the spring was also discussed, with apprehensions about the cost and practicality of appointing someone for a short term. The board aimed to develop a standardized method for evaluating candidates to ensure transparency and fairness.

Another major topic was the superintendent search process. The board reviewed a list of five potential search firms: MSBA, School Executive Connect, JG Consulting, BWP and Associates, and Ray and Associates. Members debated whether to send requests for proposals (RFPs) to all firms or post them publicly. Concerns were raised about the firms’ online presences and their professionalism. The board emphasized the need for transparency and the importance of reviewing applications submitted by candidates.

A timeline for the RFP process was proposed, including distributing the RFP by November 15 and reviewing submissions with presentations from selected firms before making a final decision. The board planned to hold additional working sessions to discuss the RFP process and ensure review and input. Members expressed a preference for understanding the firms’ processes and capabilities before making a selection.

The meeting also addressed the fiscal year levy. The board needed to approve a preliminary levy by the end of September, with final approval in December. The preliminary figures were subject to change, with financial implications if not approved. Current enrollment had not met projections, leading to anticipated revenue decreases.

The capital project levy, tied to the city’s net tax capacity, projected an increase due to growth in the tax base. If the district added 200 students, additional staff would be required, but funding for these students would not be received until the following year. The board aimed to manage the financial implications proactively, considering the anticipated enrollment increases.

Another topic was a temporary easement related to a roadwork project planned by the city. The expansion of 185th Street in front of Sentry Middle School would transform it into a four-lane road with added turn lanes. The city offered $4,800 as compensation for the inconvenience, and the project was scheduled to complete before the school year begins. The board needed to take action regarding the easement at the next meeting.

Finally, the board approved the contract for an interim superintendent, Mr. Balman. The contract included a simplified pay structure and significant cost savings for the district. It also allowed for a transition period, with Mr. Balman assisting the new superintendent for 20 to 30 hours per week. The contract’s duration was set for nine months, transitioning to a month-to-month agreement if a new superintendent was not hired.