Thank you so much. >> Super excited to be here tonight. Director Eddie for for schools finance department. Uh excited if anyone's in the hallway and needs to hear truth and taxation. Want to make sure you're able to get in here and hear the information. Important that people understand what the school's taxing and why. Uh so tonight we're going to start out by uh looking at why we're here. So we're here because it's a state statute that has the requirement that between November 25th and December 29th we hold this truth and taxation hearing for the residents of our school district. It has to be at 6 p.m. or later which we did this year. May be a part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Must allow for public comment and then we may adopt the levy in the same meeting which is the plan for this evening. uh we will do a presentation of the current year budget and then also the proposed tax levy information. So our agenda for tonight, we're going to start with a little bit of background on school funding. Uh we're going to go on to the district's budget as stated in the statute needing to be presented, the proposed tax levy information, and then we'll end with public comment that the board will take from the audience. The Minnesota system of education is set up that the legislature determines how it's going to be funded. So, we have to educate all students and they're going to tell us how that's going to get done. With that, they set up formulas. They set up formulas for state revenue. So, that's going to be your p per pupil allowance and any additional revenue that they put in from specialized programs or other areas. Also, they're going to set tax policies for local schools. That can include the maximums that they authorize, including what they can levy for based on non-order approved and voter approved areas. The voter approved areas are mostly operating and capital needs and the non- voter approved areas are programs like ATPs, career and tech, uh areas like that. When we talk about that funding, we know that the per pupil allowance in the state of Minnesota since 2002 to today has not kept up with inflation. So that's part of the reason why when we look at our tax levy and we look at the need for local funding, that comes in to play as the difference between what it is. If it would have kept pace, there would have been another $1,420 per pupil that would be allocated if it had just kept pace with inflation. We see that we made some ground up and that narrow gap and then as inflation rose, we did get 2% in the 2425 school year and 2.75 in the 2526 school year. However, the gap still widened on what that means. So again, that need for local funding local. The other area that really drives this is special education. We know that the 2023 legislative session did a great job of helping with the cross subsidy. 44% was covered. We still know that means that part of the cross subsidy is not covered. And so in 2024 statewide that was about $53 million. And then by 2028 it'll be about $524 million. So big numbers of what we have to use of our local tax dollars to pay for federal mandates. Again, in special education, we're never going to do an expense or anything that is not required by students >> on the district. >> Chrissy, can I interrupt? And JP, can you invite anybody in the lobby in if they want to hear the truth and taxation? Make sure people have access. >> Yeah, I know. I'm just asking for a quick reminder. Thank you for that because I saw some new people. >> I don't care. >> They can go. >> Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, as I said, we want to make sure to get people in. >> Here's one here. >> There's two over there. >> We're good. Okay. Out of the district's budget again. So the uh important thing in the district budget is to understand that there are differences in the funds that we have. So when we talk about the levy tonight, we're going to be talking about only four of the categories listed on the screen. So the levy encompasses our general fund. So that's all of our operating expenses for education. Food service fund, again doing our nutrition services department, that's not part of the levy. Community service does have a very small portion of the levy that they get based on early childhood and then also adults with disabilities. So they do get a little bit of the levy. Building construction is going to be the bonds that we sell and then pay for construction not part of the levy. Dent service is how we're going to pay for those bonds. So that's fund seven. Um internal services are medical dental again not part of the levy. And then OPED is our postemployment benefits and the debt service part of that fund is part of. So again, different categories have different areas of funding. Overall in the budget when we look at what we have last year is the maroon side and then the gold side is going to be the current school year's budget. So when we look at what we had last year overall in the general fund our operating, we had about $99 million worth of revenue that came in. We had expenses in about 96 uh excuse me 96 million. We will have the audit be accepted here in just a little bit. So we're going to get a lot into those numbers as part of that process. But overall our fund balance in that sits at about 11 million total fund balance. Food service has a fund balance of about 1.3 community service of about $2 million. Overall our construction fund has about 23 million at year end last year. And then debt service has about 3 million and OPAD has about 100,000 200,000. So now moving into the 2526 budget, we presented a balance budget last May to be approved for this school year. We know we'll be making adjustments uh based on enrollment that I'm sure we'll talk about later. Um and also some of the expenditure areas. We did have some expenditures that you'll hear about in the audit that didn't get done by June 30th. So those are going to be have to be paid out of this fiscal year's budget. So again looking at that balance budget now know that we have budget adjustments coming overall food service is going to remain pretty steady in what they have along with uh community education. Community education up to a $2 million fund balance. They typically like to sit around 1 1.5. So they're going to try to spend that. They do a great job of programming in our community education area. So the more programs they do and the more revenue they bring in and they try to spend it down but they just get more revenue. So it's kind of one of those things that a good problem to have. Uh building construction will be spending those bond dollars down. We saw great things at the high school and education center. We'll move on to Wyoming next summer for that. And then uh we see our internal service fund medical and dental go positive in the 2526 school year which is really exciting. And then our oped trust. Again, just looking at how much money we have left for those postemployment benefits. On to the proposed tax levy for payable 26. So again, these dollars are used in the 27 school year, fiscal year 27. So 26 27. Each school has limited authorities authority. So we started off by talking about how the legislature sets all these formulas up. And so again, they're the ones that determine what we are able to levy along with the taxpayers if they come in with an operating referendum for a building. And so overall, MDE calculates all those categories, both the state law and voter approval area. They do that over the summer. By September 8th, they have to have those calculations and drafts formed in the school districts. On September 18th, the school board approved a preliminary levy and that's so that it can go out on tax statements to the community. Hopefully, everyone in the room has received their tax statement in the mail um with their estimated amounts. So, those go out mid November. Today, we're here for the public hearing and then following that we will certify the final less. This is an example of the property tax statements. I offer to anyone if you'd like to come in, I'd love to sit down with you, run through what it looks like, if there's any changes, kind of explain them, see what it is. But again, each property in the district uh receives that from either Anoka, Chicago, or Washington County. Overall, our levy this year, I believe, was really great. 2.4% increase in the levy. So, very reasonable. The school district really tries to keep that levy as flat as possible. So you'll see in the upcoming slides um how we do that and ways that again we look at different funds to be able to offset each other and again keep that tax stable for our households. So this is our overall levy. Again I talked about the fact that we have general fund dollars. Those are voter approved like the operating referendum and also our bonds would come down in debt service. But again, other areas I talked about ATPs, long-term facility maintenance, operating capital, all of those are in the general fund area. I will go into detail about what those changes were on the upcoming slides. So, this one's just an overview. Community service, again, a small portion, about a million dollars, and again, they have it early childhood, adults, and school age child care. Debt service pays those bonds that we sell for construction. And again, staying on that was a huge commitment that we made to our voters at the 2015 um bond money. And so again, try and keep ahead of the project so we don't have to go up for a big sum doing it as we go versus. And then again, that op just a very small at the end. So the major changes that we saw, you saw that 10% decrease in the general fund. We have a long-term facility maintenance adjustment that's coming through. It's something that we know and have talked about for the last three years. So, not a surprise in any way, shape, or form. But what we're able to do is as that adjustment comes through the general fund, we see that big negative amount there. Uh we can also go over to the debt service fund then and do some bond payments that are a bit bigger at this chunk in time so that we're able to offset them. The other thing that we use to offset them in the debt service is we have to levy 105% of our debt payments to make sure that we make them. So that 5% because we always make our payments always just sits there and starts to gather. So at certain times we're going to take that extra 5% that we got and we're going to kind of put it back in potent. And so this negative adjustment does that. So between in debt service the first slide just over four million and this one of a negative 1.4 we see that we're about at that $3 million mark of being above from the previous le and again that's all planned outers is our municipal advisor and they work through all of this with us to make sure again that households are not seeing this tax that goes way down way up way down way up. So again, just keeping it steady, getting the projects done that we need, the operating referendum going and all of that. Again, getting into the individual. What does it mean for me as a person that's paying the taxes within the school district? Always when people sit down with me, I'm looking at, okay, on your tax statement, was there a change in the individual value property? Because we say it's a 2.4% change, but that may be different based on what your household has. Again, if your value increases, you might see more than 2.4%. If your value decreases, you would obviously see less. And so again, the total value within the school district property is also important. And then increases and decreasing the individual levy amounts um based on again what we're looking at for debt service and other areas. So all those can factor into what people see on their individual statements. This chart just runs through since 2023 what those taxes have been on sample properties. So again, a residential homestead, your home, anywhere from $100,000 to a million dollars. And you can look at what it is. The last two columns are what I like to look at. So on a million dollar home, then taxes in those years from 23 to 26 would go up $96 if the value did not change. So overall change from last year it would have gone down for what it is commercial property again similar uh the last two columns are going to be your change they do tax different rates on different types of properties and so that does matter in what we're looking at. This is an example very specifically um just in the geographical form of again that concept of $250 house. If that house was still 250 in 2023 and in the estimated taxes for 2026, you would have gone from $844 to $838. So you would have seen a decrease in your taxes during that time frame. The $500,000 house, you'll see that it's just a little bit above. So again, right within that flat tax is what we're looking for. We know that that's uh this is the commercial property area. So again, we saw a little spike in 24, but again, that flat trying as flat as possible um to be able to provide those taxes for our taxpayers. We do know that not everyone's value stays the same. Mine's changed over the last four years of my house. And so I know that plays into how much I'm going to owe. So this chart shows that again, if I had a change in my property tax value, we do a 9.2% looking at a metwide average on what it is. So 9.2 to uh cumulative change in property value. So you go from a house that's 229,000 to the house that's 250,000 and you'll see there your taxes went from 767 up to 838. So again minor changes in that with change in value. Also if you had a $500,000 house again you go from about 1607 to 178. So, minor changes, the $180 on a property that went from $450 up to 500,000. >> You lost it. >> Lost it. Okay. >> Really important that everyone understands that um we know that if there are big shifts luckily as I said the school district portion of this year 2.4% very minimal change in taxes. We know that there's been years in the past 5 years that have been closer to that 9% mark. So again, we always talked in this hearing about people who may be on limited incomes, people who may need assistance with a change in their property taxes. It's really important that we support all the homeowners within our district. And so this slide has our homestead credit refund, our special property tax refund. as a senior citizen deferral tax option. And then also um based on your income tax and your deductions, you can look at getting some relief back. So um if anyone is interested in any of these programs, I encourage you to give me a phone call and I can help you with the process on how to apply again if it's a um hardship on any of the taxes that have gone up. So overall, that's the presentation of the tax information. The board will now accept public comment on that and then again later tonight we will look to approve the levy. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there any public comment on the truth and taxation portion this evening? I'll ask three times here. Is there any public comment on the truth and taxation portion of the meeting this evening? I'm having a hard time hearing you. Can you get on the mic so I can hear exactly what you're saying? >> Oh, is that better? >> I heard you say something about taxation, but I'm not getting at all. >> Right. Um, I'll try to speak up here. Is there any public comment on the truth and taxation portion of the meeting this evening? You're talking about you're talking about how our properties being taxed and all that >> about what >> the presentation you just saw this evening. Yes. >> So the school district puts in for dollar amount if there's questions on values of the household and what that value is that would be done by the county assessor's office or the city tax would be done by the city of Forest Lake. But if there's a question on the school district taxes then we'd be able to help. And if you want, I'm happy to look at a statement and get you to the correct person if it's not. >> Okay. Because I almost said the other one for evaluating my property taxes when they had it. I think that Monday or Tuesday they had one. >> Yep. >> Then they were telling me to come over here about all the levies you guys are, you know, for all the time and all that. Okay. >> All right. I I'll go through that process again then. Is there any other public comment on truth and taxation uh portion this evening? Uh is there any public comment on the truth and taxation portion of the meeting this evening? And one last call. Is there any public comment on the truth and taxation portion this evening? All right. Seeing none, we will close the public comment portion. And I would entertain a motion to adjourn the truth and taxation hearing. >> So moved. Second. >> Second. >> A motion to second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. >> All right. That motion carries. We will adjourn the truth and taxation hearing. We will immediately recess until 6:30 p.m. at which point we will start our regular board meeting. Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, member clerk, will you please take the roll call of attendance? >> Yes. >> Member Corkran >> here. Member Rebeline >> here. Member Christensen >> here. >> Member Tyson >> here. Member Antonson is here and member Castle >> here. >> Everybody's here. >> All right, we have a quorum. I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> A motion in a second. Is there any discussion this evening? >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Those opposed. All right. Motion carries. Brings us to scheduled and unscheduled visitors. We'll start with the listening session report. Member Antonson. >> Yes. No. All right. So, there were se 13 people in the room. Um, at first everybody was there to listen and so we kind of had to stoke some conversation. Um, the questions that came up was what is the process going to look like tonight? Um, so we discussed a little bit about that as >> you were just talking about options of how this we could process it and that we would be discussing it as a board. Um there was concerns around um placement of Mrs. Duragu uh about her nomination and some people said things have changed since the election. Um I think and multiple people were concerned and thought we should be able to split the vote and were confused about this was on the board meeting tonight as something that was a confused about the special order of business. I will just say it like that. not understanding that this order of business needs to be addressed and resolved before moving on to regular board business. So there was a lot of discussion around that. Um um the question was raised if if there is an impass split vote can you bring back a candidate from last night's interviews. Um there was concerns among the community I think in general and especially one person about trust um trust lost on both sides and I think that's about it. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think about the only thing I would have to add to that is there seems to be a misunderstanding about the state statute that clearly states that we um when there's a vacancy on the board, it must be filled by a board appointment. Um there is no time frame specified in there, but the board did pass a resolution in November stating that that time frame was um that we would get that work done this evening. Um so that concludes my report on the uh uh listening session as well, which brings us to uh green cards. this evening. Um although the board is not legally required to offer public comment, we believe it's an important part of our community interaction and have included it on tonight's agenda. We ask that speakers keep their comments relative to the indicated agenda item, be respectful, avoid personal comments about board members, and we refrain from sharing private or sensitive information. This process is non-interactive. We request that everyone present be respectful of commenters and refrain from making their own comments or applauding to help keep things moving. Speakers will have three minutes. The clerk will give notification to speakers as their time is expiring and the chair will strike the gavl once your time has expired. I've shuffled the deck of green cards and will call speakers by first name and last initial. Please be ready when it is your turn. Um I have three green cards this morning. We will start with Claire L and on deck will be Joselyn M. >> Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Um, I'm here to talk about agenda item 7.1 as I feel a lot of folks are here for. Um, as we all know, uh, most of the applicants for the schoolboard vacancy prioritized the opportunity to interview with the school board last night and provided some perspective and motivation for applying for the position, which was a great transparent way to make the uh, for board members as well as the public to hear most of the applicants experience, background, and constructive experience in our schools. Experience ensures that leaders understand the complexities of school operations, budgeting, policies, uh, student needs, long-term planning, etc. Involvement shows that they are connected to the community, present in our schools, committed to listening to families, teachers, and students. Our schools thrive when leaders work together, uh, rebuilding trust after difficult moments, and choose cooperation over conflict. But experience and collaboration alone are not enough. Good school board members value evidence-based curriculum, extracurricular opportunities and the dedicated staff that make learning possible. We also need leaders who will uphold accountability and honesty. We need leaders who will fact check the information they put out to the public as truth. We need leaders who understand the power of words in general, especially within our schools. We need leaders who understand funding inequities that our district must compensate for because fiscal responsibility also means using funding sources wisely and openly. Finally, we need leaders who are willing to rebuild trust and the district's reputation with all district sta stakeholders, including business owners, families, and community members through transparency and integrity. I'm here tonight because I really want to encourage board members to really evaluate the skills, knowledge, and commitment that applicants Jim Smith and Andy Corna bring to the table because they are the really the only candidates tonight who tick all of those boxes. Mr. Smith and Mr. Corna are candidates who value inclusion, equity, transparency, honesty, and the success of every student in our school. And that strengthens not only our schools, but the future as well as the reputation of our entire community and school district. Every child, regardless of background, ability of or circumstance, deserves a high-quality education, a welcoming environment, and opportunities to reach their fullest potential. Our community thrives when our children thrive, and that begins with choosing leaders who believe in all of our students and our educators. Thank you. Thank you, Claire. Thanks, Claire. >> Um, Joselyn M. And on deck is Dean E. >> Hi. Um, I really don't like to follow that cuz I go >> Jeez, Claire. >> Yeah. Um, I was here last night and I really appreciated hearing from the candidates. I thought they did a nice job and it would be really beneficial if every time we had a vote for school board members, we had um an interview process like that in which everyone could see how people, you know, really felt and stood on the issues. But um I want to thank those members for their bravery and coming in front in front of you and the gallery behind them. And I'm sure that was really hard. Um it it's an eye-opening process and the questions that you had were very thorough and you did a nice job of presenting presenting those questions to the candidates. Um, I did feel that there were several candidates that were um, more qualified than others. And as an educator, um, I don't always, you know, understand the fiscal responsibilities that go into it with superintendent and principles. I'm a people person. and I connect with students and kids and families. And that's why I keep showing up in front of you at different meetings and listening sessions because I I want to see the future of our community really remain strong. Whether that's with academic integrity, um social emotional skills, it is the whole package. And so I'm hoping that you consider um Jim Smith or Andy Cornelia for the open position of school board member because I think they would be best suited to support you in your roles and ultimately shape the future of Forest Lake education. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um Dean E. And that is the last green card I have this evening. I'm going to read something, but I just like to convey to you uh an eagerness of myself and a lot of other people like me who maybe aren't here and represented um that we appreciated Luke and uh his perspective that he brought to the board. I know that the complexion of the board changed at the last election and uh so there was a quite a shock for a lot of people to see that change and it was hard to take but I think the voters chose that and uh and so there was an opportunity you know to you talked about um having maybe raising up one of the candidates who didn't got the most votes who didn't get elected maybe they would have a preferential treat I'm not saying that you need to do that I'm just saying that that person also represented a different mindset and that's reflected in the board that started here at the end at the beginning of the year. So from the voters's perspective there is a mindset there. I think all of the candidates probably would agree with the things that were said out here that uh those things are all important, but there is a mindset that the um the voters chose. And I want to strongly encourage the board to find another person, appoint another person with a like mind, one that you can all work with but has a similar like mind. And so I want to encourage you to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Dean. Thank you. >> Um that concludes the uh green card portion this evening bringing us to student achievement and positive happenings. Does anybody have any thing for positive happenings this evening? >> I have a couple of things. >> Yeah. Remember Tyson? >> Um I attended the immersion open house at Forest View Elementary. I talked with several parents that were, you know, wrestling with the decision. Um the kids were having a lot enjoying a lot of fun in the classrooms, checking them out, checking out what's in the rooms. And um one parent noticed that in the classroom it had really it was dark, but she said, "Wow, this classroom has really big windows." And so the teacher said, "Yeah, it's a very sunny classroom." And then I got to tell her that in our 2018 bond when we touched that school building, we put bigger windows in those classrooms. So, one dad is lives in my area and he was there with his two little ones and he said, you know, this would be closer for me in terms of driving, picking up, whatever when they're sick. But he said, you know, we love Lino, so it's a really tough decision. So, they had a good turnout. Um, I want to say there was maybe 30 30 to 40 people kind of in and out. So, all good there. I also wanted to mention that I attend a bullying um anti-bullying working group. I've been meaning to do that when I have some extra time and is such great work how the anti-bullying messages go stronger in our district. It evolves. Um I really liked hearing that the MySpace is now district-wide that started in 2020. So, um I learned a lot of good things that day and a lot of good information was being shared which is so good to see. Um, the last thing I want to mention quickly is that it's a student council toy drive. Um, and they make it easy. You can order from Amazon if you want. Otherwise, pick something up. They've got a nice list on there and drop off in the high school front office. And that concludes my report. >> All right. Thank you. Does anybody else have anything? Member Parker? >> Well, I got I had the time to go to Anastasia, the wonderful musical at the high school. Um, I'm always so impressed by the talent. I mean, you forget you're at a high school. I mean, they're just so talented. And I went the second weekend. Um, and it was just I just think they were spot-on. The the music was great. The orchestra sounded fabulous. I mean, everything just was wonderful. So, and actually ran to Jill Cro, I was pronouncing name wrong. Croc Kro Kramer and her daughter was the lead. Um, she played Anastasia and she just was wonderful. And I guess it had been a dream of hers for quite a long time to play that role. So I thought that was just great and I just I try to support the arts as much as we can because we have such a wonderful arts program. So we have fought to keep that for over the years and I will continue to fight for that as long as I can. So uh but uh I just look forward to those those shows every year. So but uh yeah, so I got to at least do that. >> Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. member Corkran. I I know I mentioned this uh >> um I think during the uh the spring play, but >> my son in college right now um he's involved with the uh the arts and the the plays and the things that they have >> um at his college and it pales in comparison to what we offer our students here. >> Um in high school. So it was a bit of a let down for him to go there and realize that it wasn't the same. but uh um he's been able to elevate their program there >> based on the things that he learned in high school and and he's so he's helping that the arts program here is enriching the arts program um across the Midwest. >> Wow. >> And because I'm sure other students are doing the same. >> Yeah. Excellent point. Does anybody else have anything for uh positive happenings this evening? >> All right, we will move right past Paul's positive happenings then and go into reports. Does anybody have anything for workshops and conferences this evening? >> I'm going to report on the conference when it comes to MSBA. >> Um, do you want to save that for the MSBA report? >> Sure. >> Okay. We'll bounce over to City of Forest Lake. That's member Tyson and member Christensen. >> Um, I just had a a short uh mention that tomorrow night is the hometown lighting ceremony from 5 to 7, which is really exciting. They turn on the lights and it's a big deal. Um, so if you're available tomorrow night, something to do right here in Forest Lake. >> All right. >> And I just wanted to mention that the city's truth and taxation hearing is on December 8th at 6 7 p.m. if I can read my writing. And yeah, the hometown holiday is always fun. Santa visits. So >> great event. >> That concludes my report. >> Wonderful. Thank you both. You preemptively uh answered my question about the city of Forest Lake. Um unless anybody else has anything, we'll bounce right over to MSBA. Member Tyson. >> Yeah. So tomorrow as our um kicks off our delegate assembly and delegates statewide from the whole state, entire state of Minnesota come and member Corkran's coming and member Anton. So the assembly meets at 8 a.m. sharp and we go until all 36 resolutions have been talked about and voted on. So it actually starts tomorrow night at 5:00 p. am with some speakers and some different things to network with board members from throughout the state. Um, also we've seen this the exciting leadership conference is right around the corner. It's January 15th through 16th, but actually they moved the awards night with a social event. So that's actually Wednesday night. So, if you attend one of the early bird sessions, which look really, really good this year, um I could read them off, but I think everybody should take a look at what's available to take. It's just it's just amazing all the good governance, all the good speakers. I do want to mention the opening keynote speaker. He's got uh one of the early bird sessions. His name is Matt Lurman. He's a nationally recognized civic dialogue expert and he will guide us in in in moving from conflict to conversation helping boards foster meaningful dialogue. So I'll be attending that. Maybe I'll see you there. And then the closing keynote speaker is Renie Curran and he will share p practical tools to help leaders improve teamwork, build powerful connections and achieve lasting success. So anyway, if you haven't signed up with Joy, let her know. So hope to see everyone there. >> All right. Thank you. Member >> concludes my report. >> Member Edinson, >> can Dr. Massie remind us about when he and JP will be presenting at MSP? >> I do have that on a sticky note, but I don't have it with me. It's Thursday and it's the later session. It's 400 p.m. to 5 >> 15 >> and it's on 101, so it'll be on that bottom level. >> Okay. >> Okay, perfect. I was thinking the same thing. We we need to promote that at every opportunity we can between now and then. >> Yep. And that's going to be on our career pathways. So, I've already heard that from other um district directors that they want to attend that. They're very interested. >> All right. >> Do you know if they're recorded at all? >> Are they recorded those those breakout sessions or the >> I'm just curious. Would be nice. >> I I'm not aware of that. You can ask the board member. >> Yeah. >> No to ask Kirk about that. >> That would take a myriad of >> too much >> equipment. So they're not >> probably Okay. >> No, but that would be a good idea. I bet you could record your own if you wanted to. >> Just be good to bring that back >> to to everybody to be able to watch that. >> Could see if Renee could come and record it. >> Anybody have a GoPro? >> I'm I'm sure we also have the option that uh Dr. Massie and Director Jacobson could make a similar presentation to the board. We've seen it a couple of times, but uh it might be good to get it out in front of the public. >> Yep. And we'll have Mike Miran and Jim Caldwell joining us for the presentation as well. >> I see. >> That's great. >> And well, St. Paul public schools are doing something similar, but um I think ours is really peing people's interest because it's kind of getting well known. >> Yes. Looking forward to that >> for sure. Any other uh questions, comments on uh MSBA. >> All right, seeing none, we will pivot uh directly to Director Remberg Idi on the audit report. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'm here tonight with our auditor from LB Carlson. So, MMKR, as you know, transitioned to LP. So, the same auditors as we had last year. She's going to go ahead and go over the management report uh with the board and talk about the audit this year. Uh as we kick it off, I do want to do a quick thank you to the staff, finance staff. Uh they did an amazing job as always. But again, Maria leading the audit for us this year and a wonderful job. Uh we did present this information to the finance committee um which several of you sit on. um on the Thursday the last Thursday meeting and um did have a chance to look it over and ask any questions and also get feedback back to Jackie um before it became final. So um that all went well. I did not get any feedback so it is presented at the finance committee. So I will let Jackie thank you. >> Well, good evening and thank you for having me tonight. As said my name is Jackie Ho. partner that oversees the audit from LD Carlson and here to present the audit results for the year ended 230 in 2025. As we go through the presentation, you will see very positive audit results. As Chrissy mentioned, we did go through this report in detail at the finance comm. First slide here just summarizes a little bit about our role as an auditor. As an auditor, my role is to issue an opinion on the financial statements over that district auditing that they are clearly stated as a year end. your district does receive more than 750,000 of federal funding. So there's a separate federal audit or a single audit of federal boards. If you're looking at your audit reports, you're going to see right now those federal audit opinions are not included. That is because at the time of the issuance of these reports, the federal government has not released the 2025 compliance supplements. So no federal audits can be issued. That compliance supplement was just issued last Wednesday right before Thanksgiving. So at this point we will continue moving forward and be able to wrap up the federal audit opinions. So at some point we will get a small report of those. >> Due to the delay in the compliance supplement the department of education has released extensions on that through March 31st for all as part of the audit. Then we also test and review the internal controls and the compliance over that financial statement audit and also the Minnesota state laws and regulations with the audit results in here. This summarizes various audit opinions. The audit results over that district financial audit. We issue unmodified or clean opinions. That is the opinion you're looking for as part of that audit process. If you're looking at your audit opinion, you're going to see a paragraph in there about there was a new governmental accounting standard that was required to be implemented in the current year. So, Gazsby's statement number 101 related with compensated absences was required to be implemented as part of the 2025 audit. Um, this just changed the way that local governments are now recognizing and reporting compensated absences such as vacation and sick leave in your financial reports. Um this is only reported entitywide on those full acral financials. So it does not change anything within your fund financial statements or how your general fund or any of your operating um funds are being presented. But if you're looking on those full acral financial statements, you will see a change in accounting principle related to that. For the audit opinions over that internal control and compliance portion of that financial audit, um had no material weaknesses or instances of non-compliance to report there. And for the audit opinion over that Minnesota legal compliance, no audit findings to report in that area. So overall, it's part of all the audit opinions. All very good audit results with no findings to report for the 2025 year. Moving on, then I'll go through um several slides here that summarizes some of the financial position of the district. Starting with that general fund of the district. The slide shows the general fund financial position for the past 10 years showing that cash and investment balance as well as the fund balance and the expenditures in that fund. For the 2025 year, you saw your cash and investment balance end at about 23.5 million, which was an increase of about 4.9 million from the prior year. um your total general fund fund balance in the in that fund increased about 3.9 million from the prior year and that was compared to a budget that was approved to increase about 490,000. This next slide then summarizes the components of that general fund fund balance. So that total fund balance at year end as I said was about 11 a.5 million. There's the various components of fund balance starting with the non-spendable at the top about 195,000 in non-spendable. So that is prepaid items. Anything the district had prepaid by June 30th for the next fiscal year is in that non-spendable. The topline item a year in the district has about four million in that restricted fund balance. Most of that is dollars that are restricted for long-term facility maintenance and various projects. There's about three million in there. um you're seeing an increase from prior year because there's also dollars within that restricted budget per bucket where the district will have a future levy adjustment that will be reducing that amount. You have about 385,000 in assigned fund balance at year in those are dollars that are set aside for future severance payments of the district. That leaves about 6.9 million in that unassigned fund balance which represents about 7 and a half% of the total expenditures in the fund. This next slide summarizes the ADM and the pupil units served by the district at year end for audit. You're closing out using an estimated ADM because those are not finalized by the Department of Ed until about January or February into this next year. So those estimated ADMs that close out the audit was at 5,630 which was a decrease of about 52 ADM or just under 1% from the prior year. Next two slides I have here then summarizes that general fund revenue and the next one will show the expenditures. The bar graph shows your current year actual comparing that to prior year as well as to budget. If you're looking for the current year your general fund revenues were about 99 million that was about 2.8 million over the final budget. A couple of the areas you're seeing some budget variances in state sources came in over budget about two million. Most of that was in that general education and special education areas. Other local sources were about 840,000 over budget. Um most of that is just with charges and fees that can be difficult to budget from one year to the next. When you're looking current year to prior year, you saw an increase in your revenues of about 5 million. You're seeing the property tax revenue was up as approved um by the district with the levy process. State sources, you're seeing increases in there with the general education and special education funding. And then other local sources, you saw some improved investment earnings at 25 compared to 2024. Shows a similar graph here just of the general fund expenditures by the various categories. overall your general fund expenditures end of the year at about 92 million which is about 3.8 million under that final budget. When you're looking at the budget variance, you saw a variance in capital expenditures of about 3 million. Most of that was just due to some long-term facility maintenance uh expenditures that were budgeted in the general fund but had to be shifted over to your capital projects fund in align with the department of ed guidance. Looking current year to prior year, we saw an increase of about 3.8 8 million in expenditures. Most of that was in capital expenditures as well, just the timing of those long-term facility maintenance project. Um, as well as you do have some bus leases, so just more equipment leases in the current year compared to previous year. And also, you're seeing your salaries go up as approved through some of those negotiated contracts. This next slide here summarizes a couple of the other operating funds the district has. That food service special revenue as well as the community service special revenue fund. You can see in 2025 both of these have very positive operating results. The food service fund ended the year with an equity increase of about 113,000. That was compared to a decrease that was projected in the budget of about 185,000 that ended the year with a year-end fund balance of about 1.3 million. And the community service fund ended the year with an equity increase of about 319,000. Most of that, if you're looking at your community service fund, you saw your revenues coming in more than anticipated in the budget, just more anticipation than was projected. But this fund ended the year with just under 2.1 million in fund balance. One item I want to comment on, I don't have a slide for this, just your internal service funds that the district has. So, you do have a couple internal service funds that shows the activity of those self-insured health and dental benefits. Um, at year end, the net position in that dental fund was a positive about 350,000. Um, at year end, the health fund um has a deficit of about 360,000. Um but that you did see if you're looking at your financials, you did see a significant improvement in that health fund. Um you saw an improvement in that net position of about 2.3 million from the prior year. >> Um but just a reminder that the district should continue to monitor that health fund. You want to make sure you're continuing to review the premiums in that fund and continue to have a plan to eliminate the remainder of the deficit and then start to build in that position in that fund. Then the last slide I have here summarizes the district-wide statement of net position. So these are those full approval financial statements. When you're looking in your audit report, you have all the various funds of the district that roll up into an entitywide presentation, a district-wide full approval presentation where it rolls in all the capital assets of the uh district, all the long-term liabilities, any pensions, bond liabilities. So overall when you're looking at this you're seeing a snapshot where your net position increased about 9.7 million from the prior year. If you're looking at the bottom portion of that table what we call the components of net position. You saw increases in all areas that net investment in capital assets is directly related with you know capital asset activity at the district and as you're paying down the bonds that were used to construct those assets. Um the restricted bucket is going up consistent just with your food service restrictions, your community service, the positive operations in those funds. And then you're seeing that unrestricted that position going up and most of that is with the improved fund balance in that general fund as well as the improved fund balance in that internal service fund, specifically that health fund in 2025. So with that, I can open it up if there are any questions. >> Yeah. Wonderful. Thank you. Um I think I'll kick off the the questions just to start with here. Um trying to remember here you you said our um general fund balance at the moment was right around that 7 and a half% mark. Um you spoke a little bit in the policy committee or the finance committee meeting about what the state average for that is and uh could you also provide a recommendation on where you think we should be? >> Yes. So, if you're looking at your audit report, um there is a graph in there that does have statewide averages. This the specific table that we have here that shows that fund balance of 7 and a half%. This is calculated of total expenditures. The state calculation is different. They exclude capital expenditures. So, they're not apples to apples comparison. >> Okay. How much does that change things for us? Because I think the statewide number was 20. Yeah, >> the statewide number is at 20 well from 2024 is at 23%. The numbers aren't available yet for 2025. >> Okay. >> Um your statewide number and according to their calculation is at 9.7% because they're excluding certain expenditures whereas ours shows total expenditures. >> So our statewide reporting number we're roughly half of what um most districts or the average district sits at. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, as far as recommendations, as an auditor, I can't give a recommendation for fund balance percentages. Um, but there are rule of thumbs out there. You can look on the state auditor's website. They give some rule of thumbs. The government finance officer association gives the 5 to 10% range or 1 to two months of expenditures. So, there are some guidance from different government organizations out there. >> Okay. >> I I appreciate that comment and I think it's an open question we have with our finance team. So, we'll leave that to them. I know they're exploring it in depth. Um, but thank you for addressing that. Does anybody else have any questions or comments concerning the audit? >> I just I just wanted to make a comment about the health insurance and how how much we have really and it's not it's been really hard on the staff and I want to say that we recognize that. I mean, we've heard it >> for a while now and I I I mean, it's just but we had to we really legally we had to get it under control. I know that. But I'm hoping that we can kind of ease into not having those huge increases and try to get some relief for the staff. So I just wanted to express my you know that that we understand and we you know it's >> I know it's been really hard. So hopefully that will not continue. We can kind of get a handle on that. So >> it's a big balancing act, right? Um as Jackie said though, we do have to get it positive. So we are still negative in that medical account. We will look to get it positive this year. So, um, in the truth and taxation, you saw that hopefully we'll have about 1.5 million in that. Typically, you like to see, um, around that 3 to 5 million in that fund. Um, so, yeah, we'll continue to do that and also balance it with what premiums can be for our staff. >> Right. Well, thank you so much. I know that's been, like I said, it's been a difficult challenge ahead, but um, and I, you know, just to reiterate that we have zero findings. We have a clean audit. I mean, that >> takes the work of a great finance team, a leader, and also your staff. And that if anyone could understand when you wanted to print the all the accounts and how many pages it really is of all the accounts and how the money how it flows through how much work it really is. It's impressive. So thank you so much for that. >> Yeah, I would add my congratulations to that as well. That's it's impressive that to make it through an audit cleanly. >> And thank you for the point on the the medical fund. We have a little bit of work to do there to catch that up. a little bit of work to do on the uh general fund unrestricted balance as well. And uh you know, candidly, we have a little bit of work to do on salaries, too. So, it's going to be a difficult balancing act because uh we we can't throw money at all of those things all at the same time. We have to find a way to to do that in a >> really controlled manner. Um does anybody else have any questions or comments on member Tyson? >> Yes, thank you. Um and thank you for an excellent report. And I missed the name change. I don't know how I missed that, but welcome to your name. >> Thank you. January 1. >> January 1. Okay. And you know, it is a big job, a big task. They're here a long time, our team working on getting all the information to you and I know you say that there's such a good working relationship there and we really appreciate that. Um, I have a question on page 14, I think it is. You mentioned that the special ed it says in there that the budget it is 14. >> I move to the front. No, I'm sorry 12. So it says state sources will overbudget mainly in general education aid and special education aid. Is that routinely that's routinely over every audit, isn't it? Because of the >> the um Minnesota department Yep. H is not the cross subsidy. Um, for this one, the Minnesota Department of Education has put out their reports on special education revenue for the last two years, uh, with a proration of 90%. And so the reports appear that way all the way through the school year. And then in July time frame is when they actually um, come through and take it off. So based on the legislative session, okay, is confirming if they're able to do the 100% aid or the 90% aid. For us, that's nearly uh, threequarters of a million dollars. And so, especially with the fund balance that we had, um, we can't count on those dollars until we know that they have been approved by the legislature and they're able to do the 100% versus the 90. So, when the report says 90, it does handcuff us as a district to make sure that we do get those funds in. >> That's that's very difficult. >> Yes. >> Just that waiting game and wondering if that money is coming in or not. Yeah, there's a lot of conversation about future proration that although the last two years they have put it through that with the state um budget in the state that it is in that that could stick next year with the 90%. So we will be in the same boat as we look at FY26. >> And then looking at Thank you for that. And then looking at the um food service revenue, are we still able the legislation allowed us to do cafeteria tables and different things? Is that >> Yes. So, if you've been over to the middle school at all, we have gorgeous tables there that were purchased by our food service department. Uh those tables that were at the middle school that were newer than our Forest View and our Wyoming tables. Uh took a little trip from the middle school over to those buildings. >> Um and so we'll be looking at what the building will be this year to purchase uh new tables for. So, yeah, very excited about that. >> That's good news. >> They do also charge some of the salaries. So, our noon duty staff um for supervising students in the lunchroom now can be charged there because we're past our three years since we've had a negative balance. So, definitely a help to the general fund. >> Wow, that is new. Is this the first year we're able to do that? >> Uh it is it was the first year um because we had a deficit. So, yep. Then for three years, you can't do this. So, back in business. >> All right. Well, thank you for a great report. Thank you for coming tonight. >> Thank you both. Yeah. >> All right. >> Thanks, Jackie. >> The Any other questions, comments on the uh the audit? >> No, it's great. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Um we'll pivot directly to the superintendent report. Dr. Massie, >> thank you. Um we are I'll start with a quick update on enrollment. Uh we are tracking really well with enrollment and on the way in I was having a brief conversation with member Castle pointing out that we are now in winter and the challenges that that presents for us and the opportunities as well and he reminded me that we're still in fall which I accept and but it sure doesn't feel that way. But I would point out before I get into the detail around enrollment that this is a kind of the the grind of the year, if you will. And you see educators here tonight um in the lobby and here they taunt all day. They'll teach tomorrow. We're not going to delay the start of the day. I can tell you that. Um it's a demanding job and it's a demanding job for our kids and what we ask of them. It's a demanding job of our educators. Um beyond that and in addition to that um our bus drivers are driving challenging conditions now >> and the toll that that takes on them. We appreciate their work. Um our food service staff are doing two meals a day, breakfast and lunch as we know. >> Um a vital service for our kids and our students. Our buildings are challenged with salt and grit that comes in. Our custodians are working extra hard. um our payers and educators as I mentioned our administrative assistants across the district in fact here in this district office alone every two weeks a whistle blows when they meet payroll and they're working almost around the clock to make that happen our administrators it's just an amazing operation when you think about close to 27 5700 kids >> that we serve in this district >> uh over last month enrollment is the same this month as it was last month we typically begin to see a little bit of decline of enrollment. We're not seeing that. We saw a little bit of a drop from October to November, but November to December, we are seeing steady enrollment. Specifically, elementary is down three kids month over month. Middle school uh excuse me, elementary is up three three students. Middle school is up three students. High school and community school are down three students. All that resulting in uh the same enrollment month over month. We are tracking 94 students over our budgeted number which is higher than how we were tracking last year. So really good news on the enrollment front. We are beginning the enrollment process for the 26 school year. Believe it or not, we're having a lot of conversation with families whose boundaries are changing, trying to help them understand that, make decisions on whether they're going to their newly assigned school or staying in their uh their current school. Uh so, a lot of work going on there with communication to families and beginning to set up the 2026 school year. Um as uh member Tyson mentioned, we are we've completed our second of three bullying prevention task force meetings. Uh, I really appreciate the time that staff and parents and board members are putting into that. Member Anthony and member Tyson have been attending that meeting. Um, some really good work there looking at what best practice around bullying prevention work, the work that we do comprehensively in our district to create schools of culture and uh, places where kids can thrive in a sense of belonging and kindness with each other. We know that's not always the case and we stand ready to intervene when kids struggle with bullying efforts and we're addressing that through this committee. And lastly, the holiday season is upon us. The high school holiday concert is scheduled for Saturday, December 20th. Uh a prod uh performance at 400 p.m. and another one at 7 p.m. Circle the date and please plan to attend one of those. And that concludes my report. >> Yeah, thank you, Dr. Massie. It's always such a good presentation. So, that's one that I'd like to be able to make. And with the uh um some of the publicized turbulence in some of the other area schools here, hopefully the enrollment trend continues. Uh does anybody else have any uh comments or questions for the superintendent on his report? >> All right, seeing none, that brings us right to um item 7.1, selection of an application to fill the board vacancy. Um >> I have a point of order. Sure. >> Um, a special um a special order uh requires us to take up the business at this meeting. It does not guarantee its success. Uh, and the appointment vote tonight completes the special order whether it passes or fails. Just wanted to get that into the minutes. >> I have a point of order, too. >> Sure. >> Um, Minnesota law requires only a quorum of seated members. A vacancy does not prevent us from doing our business, which is our agenda tonight. >> Okay. >> All right. We do have a quorum. We have six members here tonight. We have uh six total members appointed. A quorum would be four. Um to member uh Christensen's point, she is correct. A special order of business only requires that we dispose of the order of business, which I indicated last night. However, the resolution that we passed on um November 20th states that the special order of business adopting a resolution um naming one of the selected finalists to fill the seat will be made and note the key word of adopting the resolution. So, shall any resolution fail this evening, we come right back to 7.1 and the special order of business remains. So based on our own rules and the rules of order um we will be making an appointment this evening. So >> make another appointment. >> Um I believe that uh the role of the chair uh is a role um to maintain fairness, neutrality, proper procedures of running the board. And I feel that the and it's in Robert's order. The chair must avoid using their roles to dominate or to pressure the board. The chair must preserve order and decorum and ensure fair and equal treatment of all members. The chair cannot manipulate procedure to achieve a preferred outcome which I believe is what happened in this situation. >> In what way? We have no outcome. >> I believe that the um the resolution that you wrote um I believe that that was not made um in a fair and transparent manner. I feel like it was this long thing that you read that you wrote and um I just feel the the role of the chair is to not sneak in um some words that are going to come back at us uh which will be used against us at a later meeting. I don't believe that that is >> proper. I will agree, but since you did not make any point of order there, your point is not well taken and we will proceed with business this evening. >> Well, I have a point of order. >> Do you have a point of order or do you have a comment you'd like to make? >> I think it's I believe it's a point of order >> because we have not >> regarding um the board chair's role in this. You're here to facilitate, correct? >> Yes, >> that's your role. >> Yes. >> Um and I just want you to know that facilitating means helping all of us. >> Yes. Um, last night I was taken aback that member Castle knew what you were talking about, member Antinson, I didn't know. So, if you're here to facilitate like you just said you are, please facilitate all of us and include all of us in that. >> I have I had I asked extensively at the end of um the point on the the 20th if there were any questions. There were some amendments made to that resolution. Again, that is not a point of order, so it is not well taken. Can we please proceed with business this evening? Okay, we will finally get to 7.1. Minnesota State Statute 123B.09 subdivision 5 is very clear. Any vacancy on the board must be filled by appointment. That is what we are addressing tonight. As a reminder to the board and to the public, we are discussing this tonight because of the resignation of member Haggland. In October, the board agreed to take applications to fill the vacancy. We had 11 individuals apply for this vacancy. Following the applications, the board unanimously supported a resolution stating that the highest unelected vote getter in the 2024 election, Mrs. Laura Durango, would be the preferred finalist for the appointment and that she would be joined by up to four other finalists that were ultimately selected following the interviews that took place last evening. The additional finalists that were named include Mr. Jim Smith, Mr. Andy Cornier, Mr. Daniel Tu, and Mr. Scott Doenzinski. The November resolution also made it clear that the board would appoint one of these five finalists in our meeting tonight before considering any other business. Our legal obligation and the resulting task ahead of us is clear and I ask my fellow board members to remain open-minded as we finalize our decision tonight. To begin the appointment process, I would suggest that the board enter a period of discussion prior to considering any motions and that we do so by um we do so by each of us indicating our preferred finalist. I hope that this will provide some insight to the board to help narrow the field or perhaps to even identify a finalist that already has the majority support. Just as a quick reminder, the finalists include Mrs. Laura Durango, Mr. Jim Smith, Mr. Andy Cornier, Mr. Daniel Tu, and Mr. Scott Doveninski. Member Christensen, would you care to start off by um indicating your preferred finalist? >> Just so we're all clear here since I'm going first. >> We're not voting. We're not um >> of us are I just want to make sure that I'm completely understanding. Yep. That we're not >> N we are not voting. We're just uh we're going to kick it off by just uh stating the name of our preferred finalist so the the board is aware of who the preferred finalists are and that might help us narrow down the current pool of five. Um and then we we just kind of see where we go from there. >> My preferred finalist is Jim Smith. >> All right, Mr. or member Corkran, I'm sorry. >> Uh my preferred finalist is also Jim Smith. Okay. Um, my preferred finalist is Mr. Scott Doenzinski. Um, member Antonson. >> My top finalist is Scott Dazinski. >> Mr. Castle, >> Scott Dobinski. >> Okay. >> Jim Smith. >> All right. So with uh with that we had two individuals um reach favor. Um we also had the uh highest unelected vote getter, Mrs. Laura Durango named a preferred finalist. Um I guess I will ask if we include the preferred finalist or not. Um I'll start in the other end of the table. Uh, member Tyson, would you object to including the preferred finalist in the discussions? >> Um, can you clarify why you're doing that and why? >> Um, because we named her as the preferred finalist um due to the fact that she was the highest unelected vote getter. Um, I just want to understand, do we have essentially two finalists we want to discuss or are we also discussing the highest unelected vote getter? Well, when I consider that um the most recent election 2024, um my preferred candidate for the vacancy that I just named, Jim Smith, um was the next highest unelected vote getter by a difference of 403 votes. >> Actually, he finished two candidate a candidate be behind there. There was a candidate between Mrs. Durango and Mr. Smith. >> So, Mrs. Durango finished fifth >> and Mr. Smith finished seventh. >> Daniel, Chu Out was last and it was Rob. >> Yeah. >> And in in the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Two Out finished eighth in that election. >> 8275. 8,270 votes was the number that Jim Smith got in the most recent election. and it's a difference of 431 votes. So, >> okay. >> I mean, I don't think it's necessary to have another candidate. >> I think um having the two would be >> So, you would object to the consideration of Mrs. Dango. >> I I think you could drop that name. >> I don't I don't really object, but I think if you want to go voting voting on that. Okay. All right. Um, Mr. Castle, how do you or member Castle, how do you feel about that? >> I believe we should include the voters's choice. >> Member Antonson, >> I would agree with member Castle just to not take that off the table right off the bat >> because she I I would I would agree that we include the voters's choice. I think the community um was very clear. Um she was very close to being elected in both the last two elections. So, I I I feel that the board established a precedence to uh >> to have the voters's choice candidate considered in the finalists and I think we should uh adhere to that. >> Um >> I believe we changed calling her the highest unelected vote getter. >> Yes, the highest unelected vote getter. That that was just okay. >> Um >> I I believe I think the I think two is enough to talk about. I think having a third is also just going to cause more more trouble and a lot more time. Um, so I would like to exclude her. Okay. >> Make it easier between just two. >> Member Christensen. >> Yes, I would like to exclude her. I object to having >> Okay. Well, that makes it simple. We are split on including uh Mrs. Durango, which means we don't have majority support for Mrs. Durango. So, um, that brings us to uh the consideration of the other two candidates. Um I guess we'll start with Mr. Smith since he was uh the preferred candidate of the um first committee to begin with. Um so I'll go around and I'll ask I hear we have support from three board members. So um I'll ask the other three board members if there's an objection to Mr. Smith. Uh Mr. Member Castle, >> I would object to Mr. Smith because Mr. Durango got more votes. >> All right, member three more. Member Antinson, would uh your feeling on Mr. Smith? >> My feeling on Mr. Smith as far as >> would you would you support him um as our next board member? >> Well, no. I mean, in for I said that in the listening session as well for the same reason as Mr. Castle just said is Florida was the next unelected vote getter, highest vote getter. So to me that is what makes sense and just >> yeah I would agree with that settlement. I think if we go with any of the candidates and this includes uh uh Mr. Two out as well. If we go with Mr. Two out, Mr. Smith or Mrs. Dangu, I I think we go with the one that the voters selected among those three. Um I do think that uh that is not a requirement. I I think we do have two other alternative names that we could consider. Um but that is my feeling. >> Could you restate your feeling? That kind of confused me. Uh my feeling is is if we if we are going to appoint one of the individuals that ran in the last election that we would appoint the one that received the highest number of votes. We would not rece in in the order that that the individuals applied. We had four individuals that won that election. Um member Tyson, member Castle, member Antonson, and member Corkran all won. Um member or Mrs. Lord Dangu finished fifth. There was a candidate who did not apply that finished sixth. Mr. Smith finished seventh. And Mr. um two out finished eighth. U Mr. Two Out, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Durangu did apply. So I feel that if we were going to select one of those three individuals that we would go with the one that the community selected in that group and that would be Mrs. Durango. >> And so that would be community members of 403 people. Correct. >> No, there were >> 403 more voters >> difference. So we want to be clear what we mean when we're saying that. I think >> there were tens of thousands of votes cast in that election and that is taking the entire input of the community >> into consideration. >> Um >> a point of order. I mean did we already exclude Mrs. Dongu? Did we already do that? >> We haven't we haven't excluded anybody. Um all five all five individuals are on the table. I'm just I'm simply trying to find a consensus of support. But didn't we just go around and say three and three so then she would not advance. So then if someone is not advancing do we don't need to be discussing >> we haven't we haven't excluded anybody which is the the same. I'm just trying to find if there's a consensus around Mr. Smith. I'm not seeing a consens a majority consensus around Mr. Smith this at this point. >> Um we just simply indicated one of the reasons that we did not support Mr. Smith for uh the appointment and member Tyson wanted to peel that onion a little bit so we did. Um I think we've established that though. If we can move to uh Mr. Doenzinski. Um I'll start with member Christensen. Could you support Mr. Doenzinski >> as our next board member? >> I could not. Um because um although he he has um a good I I appreciate his military background, he does not uh have any uh experience with our schools. He does not serve on any any committees. Um he does not have any sort of um you know K through 12 educational background, anything like that. I mean you look at someone like Mr. Smith who has 42 years approximately teaching, curriculum development, been in the classroom, he's been on committees, our schoolboard committees. >> This question isn't do you prefer Mr. Dozinski over Mr. Smith. Could you support Mr. Dozinski in the role? >> I don't support Mr. Dobenzinski for the reasons that I just stated. >> Okay. Member Corkrant. >> Um I I also agree with Chill. I I don't feel like he is the right fit for our school board. Um so I would say no. >> Okay. Member Tyson. >> Yes. And I I want to echo that he does have a very professional looking resume and I think he did a great job of answering the questions. Um but I I feel like there weren't any dates or timelines in here as to when he got these degrees and where he got them, leadership work, when and where. I have questions of that. Um, and I also in reviewing my notes today, it just seemed like there was just a void of educational interest and background. He didn't talk about his daughter, how her years at Forest Lake Gary Schools was. Um, so it just seemed like I wouldn't be for Mr. Dovazinski because he doesn't have any educational background and he doesn't he hasn't participated in our Force Saga area school community. So no. >> Okay. Do we want to explore the other two candidates that we have not yet discussed? Then that would be Mr. uh two out and Mr. Cornier or have we essentially eliminated those two names since none of us listed them as our preferred candidate? >> I think it's best to just um focus on the two that we have already been discussing. Okay. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Do we have >> I concur >> that too >> would be good place to start. I mean, we can discuss them if you want, but >> Okay. If if we feel that uh Mr. Doinski and Mr. Smith are the two uh finalists that we want to focus on, um I'm certainly open to doing so. I would be interested in any suggestions on how we should proceed with the discussion on that. Do we just want to go around the table or um member? >> No. Okay. I have to say this before absolutely everybody leaves. Um I missed this part of the listening session. The request was that everybody on both sides listen more in in community and everything. So I just wanted to say that now. I think it fits within this discussion. And uh there I remember to say it. >> Thank you, Member Anderson. >> And I I think that's a really good reminder to all of us. I um I feel like this is a really important responsibility. And I feel like we can get it done this evening if we're all open-minded and willing to accept the discussion points that everybody around the table brings up. Um, would anybody like to speak? >> What are we see? >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. Um, so Mr. Doenzinski sent a thank you letter in email and uh so contrary to some thoughts um he says that through mentorship counseling and en encouragement I assisted many soldiers navigating educational paths to get their GEDs undergraduate and graduate degrees I routinely instructed skills training career path development and courses on ethics. This understanding of education from a teachers and students perspective will help me to fulfill the role of the school board member. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, member Cass. >> And I concur that I read that, but that is not anything to do with our school community, unfortunately. I would prefer someone that has worked in our district, been on our committees, been involved with our schools. I was kind of looking I've had phone conversations with him and asking him, you know, did you work at the high school with groups of students? Would did you do things when your daughter was? So, I I didn't get yeses on those answers. So, um but I did get his thank you note and read that today and I replied. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any comments? Member Christensen. >> To member Castle's point, I mean, yes, he wrote a thank you. So did Mr. Smith. So did Mr. Tua. I mean, you know, and um but Mr. Dobinski didn't say though, he might have said those things in the thank you note, but he didn't say anything no >> about those things um while he was sitting here. Um also, Mr. Smith, I believe, is I could be wrong, is the only candidate that's here this evening. >> Just a quick point of clarification, did Mr. Smith write a thank you letter? I did not receive one. If he did, >> maybe it went I don't have it either. >> Yeah, I didn't. I did not receive, just in the interest of full disclosure, I did not receive a thank you letter from Mr. Smith. I received one from Mr. Domenzinski. >> You did not send one. >> Okay. So, just for clarification, Mr. Domenzinski and Mr. Two Out were the only two. >> No, I got one from Andy Corna. I don't know if you guys did not get that. >> I did not receive one from him either. Okay. >> Okay. You were saying member Christensen, I sorry to have cut you off. Yeah, I I don't know. I mean, to Mrs. to member Antinson's point, I mean, to listening to each other and I think that's really great and I would love uh to listen to each other and have open conversations. Um, and I hope that we can still do that. Um, however, to me, um, just on paper, I don't care who the names are. You just put two people on paper. One has tons of educational experience volunteering to communicate, the other person has zero. So, I guess to me, it's I I'm seeing like some sort of disconnect there. I mean, to to be able to talk apples to I mean, it's, you know, oranges to zucchini. I mean, it's not even I don't know. It's not even the same. And I will also say um that as far as fostering an environment of collaboration and trust and all those things, member chair, I mean the way this has been brought up um is kind of difficult to swallow. Um as far as the whole trust and and communication, >> we are following the process that you recommended in October >> and you keep throwing throwing that back. was your process >> to this big long resolution that you conveniently wrote and conveniently stuck in special order of business. And I I fully admit I am not the master at Robert's rules of order that you are. And perhaps >> with all due respect, member Christensen, this book was published nearly 150 years ago. You've had every opportunity to understand the rules before accepting the resolution that was accepted unanimously. I think we need to focus on the point here this evening of appointing an individual to the board rather than um pressing the issue on how um certain individuals might feel that the process was unfair to them because they did not understand what they were voting on. >> Believe me, I won't make that mistake. >> So, >> okay, member member, please help us lower the temperature. You know, I I believe in compromise and listening to each other, but clearly I don't see I don't see how we're going to come to resolution because we are very stuck in the way we're thinking and to member Christensen's point to compare the two just because of the exper regardless of who they are. It's really hard when you look at someone like Jim Smith compared to Scott because of their background and and their expertise and where they've been and in the community involvement and and I believe Jim's the type of person that would could sit on any board and and he's not always going to vote in a certain way because I don't I believe he's always going to vote in the best interest of how he feels at the moment and he with his data and his way he processes I don't believe he's always going to vote a certain way over another way. I think of all both candidates, I don't know Scott well enough to know how he would vote or how he would feel, but I know Jim is is in a fairness and and and data. He's a data driven person. And I just feel like whether each side feels, I feel like the the right person is the one that's going to look at things objectively and be calm and collected and and analytical in his decision- making. That is the type of board member that I want to work with. And I think for our board right now, we need someone like that to kind of be in a middle person, a middle ground person. >> And I don't, like I say, I don't, it's hard for me to because I don't know Scott. I don't know him well enough. On paper, I said he looks he looks great. But as far as his his experience with our schools, he doesn't have that. He doesn't have that that knowledge to hit the ground running and to kind of jump into this position. It's only a one-year position. It takes a year to learn things really. And if you've experienced our committees and our know our staff and kind of can just kind of go into the position, I don't I just don't I think it's a hard hurdle to get over for someone for one year and I've been on the board many years and as as all you members know, it takes a good year, a year and a to really kind of really get the whole part of being on a board. So I think it's setting someone up for a lot uh to jump into this position. So That's my personal opinion. >> I see your point. I agree that we need to find somebody who will help unify us. I agree that it would be beneficial if we had an individual who had board level experience. Uh I do know Mr. Domenzinski has chaired Bors in the past. He has that experience. If we want to talk about leadership expertise, um I would argue first and foremost that none of us um even have the right to stand next to Mr. Dobenzinski. As far as leadership is concerned, he's a retired colonel. He's handled leadership in um in ways that none of us can even imagine in life or death situations where building a cohesive team is incredibly important. And I think that speaks well to the point that you just made, member, about how that could be so beneficial to this board. And to kind of counterpoint uh Mr. Smith. One of the questions I did ask him last night about was his rhetoric um in talking about this board when he referred to certain members on this board, three of them that still remain as ultra rightwing and ind and and indicated that their influence is harming students in the district. I think that is building walls. I don't think that's building bridges. >> And that is one of my major concerns with bringing Mr. Smith on here. And he owned that. He accepted that. And I think that shows a lot of integrity, but it also brings a lot of concern when we're trying to build bring somebody into the board that can help build bridges that they focused on the last year of building walls. That's concerning to me. >> I I I mean I I do Oh, is somebody else raised their hand? >> Okay. I thought we were just Okay. Um, I do appreciate Jim Smith and uh his level of expertise and uh understanding of schools and sometimes I think that can hinder somebody's possibilities outside of what they know and you're you're saying that we're embedded in our beliefs too. I think sometimes we can be hindered by the level of expert that we think or that we know ourselves to be. I'm not saying he's not. Okay. I just wonder sometimes about that particular bias. And I think I think more than anything what we need in here is somebody that can stand the highest level of heat and negotiate between the, you know, very high conflict situations because it kind of feels like we've been in one since I came in here. You know, it's not It hasn't been the funnest time. >> And so true. >> Yeah, that's what I wanted to say right now. I mean, I I think Scott being, you know, a man of principle and having that um when you're in the armed forces and you follow certain protocols and analyze and and I know that Jim Smith does that too with his data, but I just think what we need in here utmost is a high conflict resolution leader and I see that in Scott. >> All right. Um, member Castley, do you have anything to add or should I go to member Tyson? Um, I have with my experience in the military, I know that the officers have a great deal of conflict of the enlisted ranks to deal with and they need to solve these problems and they do. You don't get to be a major without being without doing these things very well. and all of the things that he's done and and his resume are are very impressive even from the officers that I can recall from when I my service time. And there are every different kind of people in the military far beyond the diversity that's in this community. It it outweighs it. I I can't even explain how how much it outweighs that. Um there was people in the that had a choice of the army or jail. And these officers have to bring them in line with the rest of everybody else and have them cooperate, have them perform, and have them be somebody that you can be in a foxhole with. and they do it. And we need people. We need somebody that can do this kind of work and thankfully not in such a strenuous >> environment. This is much less stress than what he's had to deal with. >> For sure. >> Member Tyson. >> Well, just to follow up on what Mr. passes said, "My brother-in-law is an officer in the Air Force and trains jet mechanics." That does not qualify him to come here and work in the education world. Um, I do believe militaries are highly respected and everything that they do. There's so much involved in that. But we're in the business of education. So, and the hallmark of Jim Smith's career has been education. Yeah. We can go dig up dirt on Facebook pages. I didn't go there. That I don't want to go that low. Um, which I think is low. You can laugh, but it is sitting and reading that. I'd rather find out more interesting points about them. But Jim Smith is steeped in education. He got 403 fewer votes than the person you're calling the next highest vote getter. and everything he does is very relevant to what we're in the business of doing. And to member Antonson's comment, yeah, it has not been fun. >> Are you kidding me? All the sweeping changes you guys have made. Yeah, it hasn't been fun. So, I want somebody that is going to work and be in the middle and yet voice their opinions. >> I do too. >> But it hasn't been that way, has it? >> So, member chair, I do want to comment. I just want to get this out there on member Christensen's point. I do feel like you strong armed this whole thing. And when you wrote up that resolution that night, it was me that said, "Please email it to all of us." >> Which I did, >> which you did do. But I'm a very visual person. When you're sitting there typing that and you're rattling stuff off and it's the very end of the meeting, that's difficult. And you're here and in your role, we're all equal here. >> So you're here to facilitate helping us, all of us, as a group. Yep. Which I did. I captured it. I wrote the resolution. I presented it to the board. And uh how much experience do you have on the board? How many years have you been here? >> 15. >> 15. >> This is my third year on the board. I think by now you would have figured out the rules and the process and the order and you'd be able to understand a basic resolution. And that's all I'm going to say on that. >> Yeah. And a resolution is for action. And after it's taken up, it's over. >> Um Yeah. except for the point that we agreed that we were going to actually resolve the situation before we moved on. >> You have to find language in >> that was part of the resolution. >> So >> I want to just can I say >> please >> uh there I mean I remember looking at the application for a school board seat and really you had to be a member of the community and like no prison or jail. I don't even remember exactly what it was. It's very simple. It's you do not need to be an educator. I'm not an educator. I'm a nurse. I mean, it's not like I didn't teach people during my nursing career, but that's re I think it's a a moot point that, you know, somebody has to have 40 years of education or because they do that they're the best person for this particular spot on the board. So, I just think that hammering that point home is pointless. >> I think that's a good point. >> And I think that's counterintuitive to what you said that you're impressed with Mr. Doazinski because of all of his degrees and training in the military. But you're saying >> I said I was impressed with Mr. Dobazinski because in his application and in his interview last night, it is apparent that he has that conflict resolution in high stress situations, able to keep his cool under pressure and that I think is the most impressive thing for him. Yeah, >> and I would agree with member Antonson's point on qualifications. The board qualifications are pretty simple. Uh especially those of us are in elected positions. Um I'm a business executive. I'm not steeped in the world of education. U but our job is not education. Our job is governance of an education system. We hire education professionals to make those choices and to advise us on those education decisions. I see many of them as I look across the crowd. We have a superintendent here that we hire to help us with those pre professional education decisions. Um, we do not need to be steeped or trained or have experience in the process or administration of education. We need to represent the community and provide governance and direction. And to your point earlier about uh um the pace of changes and how it hasn't been fun. While that may be true, enrollment is up, test scores are up, the budget is in a really good position, we're in a strong position to negotiate with our teachers, I would say the the business of the Forest Lake Area School District is going very well. And I think we should work um with all our might to continue the positive trajectory of our schools. and making this appointment tonight here um enables us to do that. Member Corkran, did you have something? >> Oh, I was just going to say we have to keep remembering it's just a one pretty much a one-year term. >> So, >> correct, >> which I've said before. It's only one year and we know Jim's not going to run in the fall. I mean, he's already expressed that. So, this is just a fill in for that opportunity. And as far as training and get and just the knowledge that he has, it just would be a better like I just feel like if Scott wanted to run in the fall, that's great. He he would then he could go through all the paces and and be the candidate then. But I think for our sake and just for the learning curve of trying to be on our board, it just be an easier transition for all of us as board members and also him because he has that background. He knows the people. He knows the processes. He He just It sounds like it just would be easier for everybody. I mean, I just think it would be an easier transition and we have to think that way because it's only a year because it like you say, it takes a year to even know >> what you're doing. >> I mean, I feel like I'm still learning. It's been 17 years. So, I as you clearly know, but um I just say for our sake and for the board, I think >> it would just make it easier for everyone and a better fit at this time. So you're saying that we should usurp the voters >> because that's kind of what it is. >> Then that this is now I feel like you keep going back and back. Things have changed as we really know. The world has changed. >> If we can go back, you know, 30 some years for power anymore. That's done in the that's over. That's years a I mean you can't keep going backwards to the past to me. I mean it's sure it votes then that's great. That's fine. But I don't think that's relevant anymore. I don't think it matters anymore. >> I concur. >> I think times have changed. I don't think we have to keep going backward. >> Well, to that point, let's remove uh let's remove Laura from that discussion and let's look at uh Mr. Smith and his support of the voters. >> And I'll acknowledge that he did receive some votes. But um I think we also want to remember the comments that Mr. Ericson made earlier this evening about the voters's deliberate intent >> to change the this board >> and to um empower a certain majority. So I guess I'm I'm going to ask flat out ask the question, do we feel that Mr. Smith >> um would give the community the representation that they requested? >> I think the time here and now, yes. But seeing the emails I've received, the support I've heard over the last one moment I want to finish making my point. Okay. You you feel that the voters would feel that way even though Mr. Smith wrote ran on a platform that was in direct defiance of member Hagland. >> Well, that was two years ago. >> That was last year. That was one year ago. >> Well, a year ago, I I have >> the Luke's from >> I have some major concerns about that. I mean, there was a lot of a lot of concernation brought up about the uh um the so-called funding from the Minnesota Parents Alliance. I'll I'll point out the fact I never took a dollar from them. I never took a dime from them. I had an endorsement from them that cost them literally zero dollars and it cost me literally zero dollars. But if we do look at uh um if you want to look at the balance of the board, I see a community member out here who is very vocal about there's MPA members and there's um teachers union members. U Mr. Smith is a teachers union member. Um, according to the FIN campaign finance uh contributions here, he received a maximum donation from the teachers union and he also um ended up benefiting from a mailer in the amount of $14,497.86 to promote his candidacy. >> Um, do we feel that's in line? >> Do we also have Mrs. Dang? >> Yeah. Point of order, not Germaine. >> You can pull it up on online. Yeah, we we can pull that up if you'd like. We're not discussing Mr. >> People in the in the gallery. >> I'm I'm I'm just asking the question I'm asking is do we feel Mr. Smith is an accurate um replacement for member Hegel considering their complete and total difference in backgrounds and really the the support that they received in being elected to this role. >> And I have a question for you um member chair. So let's say the roles were reversed. Let's say we're exactly the number sitting here and I had to leave or resign. You're saying member chair and folks that that you would vote to have someone likeminded like me? >> Yes, I would absolutely take into consideration the will of the voters. >> I would take the will of the voters into consideration and I would make sure that we were appointing somebody who shared their values, shared their commitment and shared their support base. If you want to talk about that that that scenario, um let's let's explore the options. Say say member Tyson were to have resigned instead of member Hagglund. I would be much more open to the idea of appointing Mr. Smith to that role because I know that um Mr. Smith and member Tyson share a lot of the same opinions. They ran together in an election and if we want to pull at that thread, which we possibly can, Mrs. Durango ran in an election with the three of us here and and member Hegeland. So if that's the precedence that you want to to utilize or the argument that you want to make and we can surely follow it, but it's going to result in us appointing Mrs. Durango. >> You can't disappoint. >> So >> I can't disappoint anybody. >> Well, that that is the thread that is the thread that you were pulling at. So I addressed it >> honestly. >> Well, it's not a member Tyson. So, I do need to add that, you know, you guys bring it up quite often. We're replacing member Hegeland. His term is over soon, >> less than a year. And you know what? He willfully vacated his seat. >> Yeah. >> There there's no reason we need to be talking about why we're replacing him. >> And to me's point, that's going backwards. So, if it's only a year, I keep hearing it's it's only a year. It's only a year. >> Um, >> yeah, you willfully vacated his seat. >> If it's only a year, he left. >> What's the concern >> with appointing somebody with such high stature as Mr. Dobinski? >> Is is he unqualified to for the for the role? Is that what I'm hearing? Well, like I said in his thing, he didn't answer my questions regarding his daughter's years at the high school working with the groups at the high school. I also have brought up that on this there's not dates on anything. This is a nice resume, but it's very incomplete to me in many ways. And no, I just like I would not appoint my Air Force brother-in-law who's been in for a long time to be on the school board. I would not consider him. >> Okay. Member Christian. >> Um well, first of all, do we know that Mr. Doeneski would for one year? I don't remember hearing that. >> Excuse me. What was the question? >> Mr. Doenzinski did not say that it was a one-year appointment. Do I believe he said I don't believe he said that? Did he >> I don't think that was addressed during his He was not asked if he was going to run for run for election. >> We don't know. It makes sense that you >> he would only you would only be guaranteed to finish the term just like all of us are only guaranteed the terms that we have. But he can run then is what I'm saying. >> Absolutely. >> Well, anybody can run. >> Well, you could run. >> Yes. I just wanted to clarify and Mr. Smith has made it clear that he is not running and I just would like to >> and I would argue that's that's a detriment. I I think not having an interest in the continued success of the district and wanting to simply fill a gap is a detriment, especially when you mention that you have family medical needs that you need to attend to. I know firsthand what that's like and I have concerns about being in this exact same position because somebody needs to vacate a role that they were appointed to because they had other family commitments come up. And that is another concern I have with Mr. Smith. I I hate to even bring up any personal family situations, but he brought it to us during the interview. >> So, I think it's fair >> to put that on the table. And it's very possible that we could end up being in the exact same position in 3 to four months and have to appoint another member should we select Mr. Smith. >> I had the floor and first of all, we can't speculate three months into the future. But you were asking um more about Mr. Dominski and the The thing that I keep coming back to is um back in October or whenever this was the meeting that member Hegeland um resigned the plan all along was to just appoint Mr. Mr. Doazitki with no discussion and that that was an agenda item. I mean that was going to happen and then it was found out that uh that that cannot happen. That was illegal that an legal maneuver it was not unlawful happen. I have I'm speaking so that wasn't going to happen. And so now we're brought back again back to him and again another maneuver with this special order of business. And so I just can't help but keep wondering what is it about Mr. Dozinski that that that you've tried different avenues to try to get him elected? Why? I mean, if this is the right person and if everything is so, you know, really good, I Why can't he just stand on his own face and he can be elected rather than trying to be appointed? Oh, wait, that didn't work. Now, let's kind of do this other thing to try to get him in there. So I'm just >> memorize >> memory. >> I think we're in my estimation or my way of thinking when this first came up and I learned about it, I said I would prefer Laura and I think and I think what my ultimately we were trying to avoid this situation right here. And the what is becoming somewhat potentially obvious is that was there ever really an intention to elect you know get somebody seated to the board seat or do you just want it to be 33? >> I would love to get Mr. Smith appointed to the board. That would be wonderful to me. I would love that. Then we'd have be back to um seven member board. Although I mean an NOA is a six member board if I'm not mistaken. There are boards that Five. >> All right. So, I I covered this in the listening session, but I'll cover it again. Um, Anoka is a six member board. Um, the Forest Lake Area Schools um perhaps member Corkran can help me remember this because I believe she was on the board when this resolution was passed to go out and ask the voters if they wanted to have a seven member school board. I think that was 15ish years ago. >> I don't remember that. >> Um, the voters, maybe it was member Raphael that uh was on the board at that Maybe it's before my time, >> but the uh the Force Lake Area School Board went out to the voters and they asked the voters, "Would you prefer to have a six member board or a seven member board?" The voters approved the process of having a seven member board. Once the voters have established their legal representation, we have a legal obligation to ensure that we maintain that level of representation. The statute, as I said, is very clear. We must appoint somebody. Um, we can complain all we want about the process and how we got here, but the board made a unanimous decision on who decision was going to be made and we are there now. >> It is now our obligation to appoint somebody this evening. >> So my question is we cannot agree what we do. I'm going to stay here for the next three weeks and talk because I don't feel like I'm ever going to change my mind. I just am not. I don't believe member Christensen or member Tyson are because I just don't feel like he is Scott is a good fit. So, I I don't think it's going to change. >> We have three other applicants that we haven't discussed. >> Okay. >> We can discuss uh um we can go back to the uh next highest vote getter and discuss Mrs. Durango. >> Well, I'm not going to support her either. So, I I just feel like when does it come to an end? I mean, can we just call for a roll call vote now and just do our business and move on or >> we can, but as I already explained in the resolution, Julie? >> Yeah, I think I am. As I explained in the resolution, should a vote on a resolution, >> you can't be coerced into this. >> We will we will simply roll over. So >> well then >> I think what uh I would like a six member board. >> Yep. We'll have to function and do our business. >> Chair, if I can >> sure >> we have to be done. >> So don't be saying that >> for the process of the group. Um, >> I think there's a worthwhile consideration that should there be a vote one way or the other. Um, and the outcome of that vote, um, if it if it identifies a candidate, that's clear. if it ends up being a split vote that that would essentially dissolve the question tonight >> and move it to the next meeting versus keeping us stuck in a cycle. >> Okay. I think a vote would um complete the process in my view and study of of Robert's rules and consultation that the vote would dissolve the one way or the other would dissolve the question and the resolution taken on November 20th and carried into >> to Dr. Massiey's point, would a majority of the board support dissolving the resolution directive that we made in November? Um, I personally would not. >> No, >> you would not. >> I would. >> I would. No. >> Member Anthony? No. >> Okay. We do not have a majority that would support doing that. I think what I'm going to suggest here is that we do a uh a 10-minute recess. Uh maybe gather our thoughts and see where we want to come back. Um we will reconvene at um 8:13 board and we can do our business. school board meeting for Thursday, December 4th. Back to order. Member clerk, will you please take the roll call of attendance? >> Sure. Okay. Um, member Christensen >> here. >> Member Castle >> here. >> Member Tyson >> here. >> Member Corkran >> here. >> Member Antonson is here. Member Reveline >> here. >> Everybody's here. >> We have a full quorum. We're still in discussion on item 7.1. I'm hoping that uh people were able to kind of have a little time there to reflect and think. Is there anybody who would like to pick discussion back up? >> I would like to make a motion to nominate Jim Smith. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the nomination? >> All right. I'd like to to make a piece here a little bit here. Um, we have a nomination of uh, Mr. Jim Smith. I assume that your motion is for the resolution. Um, I will point out that the special order of business of adopting a resolution is required for us to move on. I'd also like to point out that by carrying out the the vote here for Mr. Smith, we're unable to obtain a quorum or a a majority vote on Mr. Smith. I would um suggest that we proceed this evening by eliminating that candidate from consideration. Is there any further discussion? >> On what basis would you do that? >> If we can't meet a quorum on a vote then what is the uh the point in continuing to discuss that nomination? >> I move to eliminate them all then start over. Mhm. >> So if you go to Robert's rules, >> this res >> is this pertinent to the motion. Is this pertinent to the motion on the table? >> I want to bring this up. >> Okay, we have a motion on the table. Then that would be out of order. >> Why aren't we voting on the motion? >> I just asked, is this pertinent to the motion on the table? >> If not, is there any other discussion on the motion on the table, >> which is >> to nominate Mr. Smith? I would move that we just keep discussing or there >> unfortunately we have a motion in a second to nominate Mr. Smith on the table. >> So that would be out of order. >> Okay. H >> point of clarification. >> Um is your question on whether on if the vote fails does that eliminate the candidate? >> Um is that a amendment to the motion or is >> No, that was just a suggestion for board discussion moving forward. I call the vote. >> There's no second on that. I moved a table. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second on my table. >> It was a second to member um Tyson. I Let's just >> That motion had already been disposed of. We have a motion to table. Is there any Well, there is no discussion on motion table. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> I. >> Those opposed to table your vote >> to table your motion to appoint Mr. is the motion. >> So, I had a motion on the t I had a motion and you motioned to table it and three of you but three of you motioned to table it. So, it's a tie. >> We haven't included the vote. >> Well, I know, but you just all shouted I really quick. So, I'm trying to >> We have a motion to table. We do have three in the affirmative at this time. I will ask again. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed? >> No. No. >> Okay. The motion to table fails on a 3-3 vote. That brings us back to the original motion to appoint Mr. Smith. Is there any additional discussion on the motion to appoint Mr. Smith? >> Well, I want to add that his test scores went up to the highest when he was at Centennial. That's in his resume. You didn't find that on Facebook though, but that is a fact. Um >> just going back to education, education, education and there was no clarity >> in other resumes of people being considered. >> All right. Member Anderson >> I don't think anybody up here is well at least myself. Nobody can deny Mr. Smith's educational background. That is not a qualification to be on this board. There's very minimal qualifications to be a board member. It's about going out and doing the work and getting the votes and doing that part of it and and earning the votes from the voters. Luke Hagglin did that. Laura Durago did that. >> Jim >> Jim Smith did that. And we're talking about we all agreed to have Laura Durago put right up in there in this discussion because of the votes >> and I don't understand how >> is this pertinent to the >> You're talking you want to vote on Jim Smith. I'm talking about why >> Oh, I'm sorry. You were talking about Mrs. Dongo. I'm sorry. I'm talking about >> Yeah. So, I'm bringing it up like Okay. >> I'm saying no. >> I don't think I move to amend the motion to appoint Mr. Smith to read that we will appoint Mrs. Lord Durango. >> Go for a second. Okay. We have a motion and a second on a motion to amend uh the appointment for Mr. Smith to read that we will appoint Mrs. Durango instead. Do we have any discussion on that? I think for someone who mentioned in the Forest Lake Times that she was quite polarizing. I believe it was in the end of October. I don't think you yourself are very interested in um or you know you you Yeah. Go ahead. >> Let's call a vote. Do it. >> Any other discussion? >> I would Okay. If seeing no other discussion, I'm going to I'm going to point out that I'm making this motion to amend to appoint Mrs. Durango based on the input of the voters. >> Our voting public stated very clearly approximately one year ago that they had a preference for Mrs. Durago versus Mr. Smith. And I think that we would be selling ourselves short if we did not respect the voters in our community. and we went essentially behind their back and appointed somebody who received fewer votes >> than Mrs. did. >> It's not about >> not a requirement for this. >> What is it about them? >> It's about who has the best background who's going to work the best and collaborate with us. And do you want minimal requirements in your board vacancy fill someone that fills it? >> I don't think that's >> we want big requirements. >> We want someone steeped in education. I I believe this is this is out of order, isn't it? Weren't we on a motion about Jim Smith and now you're amending it? >> So now we're >> What's What's out of order? >> Well, can we vote on the amendment? Do we have to call the vote for Jim Smith? Did we have it? >> No. >> We did not have a call for the vote on Jim Smith. We now have an amendment on the table. We're working through our discussion. I would uh suggest that we suspend limitations on discussion because I know that certain members find that uh difficult to adhere to. Um I don't see any objection to that. So right now we are continuing to discuss the amendment to appoint Laura Durango and as I stated before my motion was out of respect for the voting community. I would just like to clarify. I've been through I've been through an appointment. We had appointments and voter votes did not have anything to do with the person that was chosen. It was on the character and in the interview process. We had multiple people and it never came up as that requirement for the voters. It wasn't it this wasn't because it's not a necessary rule. I think we've thrown it as being a rule, but it's not a rule for an appointment for the school board. It just isn't because I've been through it before. >> We're trying to It's not a rule. >> But I mean, this is we're making it such a huge deal, which I think is blown it out of proportion. So, I think you need to get the right person to fill the right spot at the right time. Maybe a year ago, she was this whatever vote getter, but would she get that today? I don't believe so. So, I feel like you can't keep going backward to last year. >> Point of order. This is out of order. We had a motion on the floor for Jim Smith. >> This is a vote for someone else. >> Your point Your point is not well taken. This is perfectly in order. It's in order to make a >> Let's just get >> It is in order to make a motion to amend is absolutely in order. >> You're amending to make a vote for someone else. >> No, I'm amending to amend the main motion. Once the ma the amendment is settled, we go back to the main motion. >> The vote on the floor is for >> sure. Call I call the question on Mrs. Dango. Go call the question. >> All right. We have a call the question. Is there any objection? There's an objection. Okay. Um >> no on the amendment. >> I want to clarify something please. Point of >> clarification. >> Voting. If we're at 33, right back to this discussion and figuring it out. Correct. >> Y >> correct. If if it splits 33, we go right back to where we started when we still haven't settled >> the uh the requirement within 7.1. >> It's ridiculous. >> Okay. And as I said, functioning six member board. >> This resolution is paralyzing our work and we are not doing what we're elected to do, our business meeting. >> Exactly. >> How do you think the community feels about that? And how is it? You think they feel that we aren't getting to our meeting? >> I couldn't agree more. >> You're right. So, call a vote and quit amending it and spend >> I would also agree that uh the public has a strong interest in us upholding our legal obligations. >> I do not think they care. >> Yep. They want us to get to our business meeting. >> Okay. Is there any other discussion on the amendment >> to the motion? Okay. All those in favor signify. >> Please restate the amendment. Excuse me. >> The amendment is to Laura. motion to appoint Mrs. Duranga. >> Is there any question on the amendment? >> So the I is the affirmative. >> The I is that the motion is amended to appoint Mrs. Danga. Is there any question? >> Is that clear to all members here on exactly what they're voting for? >> We would be voting for Miss Duo. >> Exactly. >> A yes vote appoints Mrs. Dano. would amend the main motion to make an appointment. It would not make a final appointment. >> Right. This is Okay. This is the amendment. >> We are an amendment. Yeah. >> All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed? >> No. >> No. >> All right. The amendment fails, which brings us back to the main motion of appointing Mr. Smith. We have not suspended discussion on the appointment of Mr. Smith. Um, >> I call the vote. >> All right. That fails due to lack of a second. Um, >> oh, sorry. >> Is there any other discussion on the motion to appoint Mr. Smith? >> Can I call the vote? >> Second. >> Okay, we had no more discussion. I was going to close it, but um uh all those in favor of closing discussion on the motion to appoint Mr. Smith um signify by saying I. I. >> Why are we voting on that? You didn't do that last time. >> Because I have a second this time. Okay, >> close the close the comments. Yes, >> I'm so confused. >> Okay, we have a motion on the table to appoint Mr. Smith. >> We have now had the vote called, I believe, by member Corkran >> and I believe member Tyson seconded that. There is no discussion on a motion to close discussion. So, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I those opposed. >> Time out. What are we just stop time out? There's too much the motion to the motion to the mot state exactly what we're voting for. Please >> let me repeat that. >> We have a mot we have a motion on the table to appoint Mr. Smith. >> I have asked if there's any additional discussion on that motion. Member Porkran made a motion to close discussion. >> Member Tyson seconded the motion to close discussion on the motion for Mr. Smith. We now need to determine >> second that >> I think she seconded my >> Joy. Can you help me out? Do I have this incorrect? We have a second on the motion to close the session. >> No, I don't think so. >> I have >> I don't think so. Calls the vote Tyson for Jim Smithing Jim Smith. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, that brings us back to where we started. We have a motion on the table from member Christensen to appoint Mr. Smith. We were just about to close discussion on that and member Corkran made a motion to close discussion. >> Call the vote. >> Call the vote. >> Call the vote. >> Member Tyson seconded that vote. >> Call the vote. >> So, right now, the motion that is before us on the table that is not open to discussion is to call the vote. Does everybody understand the motion that is before them? >> No, because I don't remember you saying we're going to close discussion. >> A vote in the affirmative is to close discussion on the motion on Mr. Smith. >> Yes. >> A vote in the negative is to keep the discussion on Mr. Smith open. >> Perfect. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Are there any other questions on the motion that's on the table before us at this exact moment? Okay, there is no discussion on a motion to close discussion. Therefore, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed. >> That motion carries. We are now going to call the vote. The motion that's on the table is to appoint Mr. Smith. There we have just voted to close discussion. Therefore, we will go immediately to a vote. I would assume that the board would prefer a roll call on this. >> Yes. Okay, seeing nods in a in the affirmative. >> A vote in the affirmative on this motion is to appoint Mr. Smith via a resolution to the open board seat. A vote in the negative is to pass on Mr. Smith and open discussion on potential other candidates. Is that understood? >> Yes. Thank you, >> member Christensen. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Member clerk, please take the roll call. >> All right. Member Christensen, >> I. >> Member Corkran, >> I. >> Member Tyson, >> yes. >> Member Castle, >> no. >> Member Antonson votes no. Member Reveline, >> no. That motion fails. That brings us back to the point that we were at previously. um to discuss other candidates. >> Would we like to explore a motion on another candidate or do we want to have more discussion on the four remaining candidates that are on the table? >> I think this I'm going to say it again. Point of order. This resolution we're a six member fully functioning seated board. We need to get to our business meeting. We should >> Yes. >> table this. My job >> as board chair is to enforce the rules as presented and the resolutions that the board has passed. The rules as presented stated that we have a special order of business this evening until we adopt a resolution naming one of the selected finalists. One of the selected finalists just failed to receive a majority vote for the appointment. Therefore, we are back to where we started in trying to adopt a resolution on an appointment. >> I move to close the discussion. >> Second. >> There is no motion on the table. >> Okay. Can >> there is no discussion to close? Member Corker, >> can is there any way we could I know it says special business. Is there any way we could move that down? Can we change the wording? Can we do something just so we can get the business at hand done which we need to do bills and get those things done and table to or at least bring it to the bottom of the >> It would require a motion and it would require a majority support to do so. >> That is of course within the board's prerogative. >> I think we need to do what we're >> but uh I will remind um everybody here this evening that we did vote unanimously on this process >> and uh I think we owe it to the community to carry that out. We also have a legal obligation to get this work done. >> I would like >> Does that answer your inquiry? >> Well, I would like Can I make a motion to do that? >> Can I make a motion to move the selection to the bottom of new business at least so we can get the work that we were elected to do done. >> Okay. Let me see if I can understand this correctly. You move to relocate item 7.1 >> to follow item 10.2. >> Yes. >> All right. Do we have a second on that? >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on that? >> It seems fitting and proper to do as we are here for our first Thursday of the month business meeting >> and we are a six member fully functioning seated board. All right. Any other discussion? >> I think it's >> we are required by law to appoint someone. >> No, we're not. >> No, we're not. >> No, we're not. >> That's wrong. >> By law. No. >> No, we're not. >> No, we're not. >> Please read the statute again. >> The statute says must. >> Yeah, it must. >> It does not give a timeline. >> What do you think must means? >> Minnesota statute has to happen. Not agrees. >> Minnesota statute 123b.09 09 boards of independent school districts >> subdivision 5B appointments to fill vacancies >> any vacancy on the board other than a vacancy described in subdivision 4 which does not apply to us because that has to do with uh medical absences I believe >> um must must be filled by board appointment at a regular or special board meeting >> no dates >> um because there seems to be some discrepancy Um, I will do something unthinkable and I will look up the word must in the dictionary. The word must in the dictionary, it is an auxiliary verb. The primary definition there being to be obligated or bound to by an imperative requirement. In this case, our imperative requirement is Minnesota state statute. Therefore, it is our legal obligation as far as I'm concerned. I would agree with member Castle that we must appoint an individual by a resolution. >> So, we're not going to be able to do our our elected job. >> The motion's on the table to move it. >> And that is our elected job. >> Member Antonson >> to do our job to >> Yeah. Wow. >> We all agreed to this process and I think we owe it to the people that showed up last night of our comm by this process. >> Excuse me. And >> now you're now I get to continue talking. Thank you. >> Um we agreed to do this the way that everybody, you know, the majority of the board wanted this done in a transparent way. And the reason I voted not against this in the first place was because I didn't want this exact scenario. >> So I think we owe it to all the candidates that showed up last night. whether or not you knew what you were agreeing to at the time between two members of the board here, you have decades of experience that I would think you you know this should be a blame game here. >> Yeah, we shouldn't use special meeting though that this whole scenario is never ever been used and never hold on. >> Can I provide a point of clarification? Um, let's let me Anderson finish and then uh Dr. Massie, you have the you have the floor. >> Okay. I'm just saying that because it's never ever been used before doesn't mean it it's it's existed for a long time and you've been here for a long time. like we need to move on and special order of business we get we take care of business and so I think this is the opportunity for people to >> try and be persuasive and see how we can possibly come to a majority here >> right thank you member Dr. Massie >> uh for the benefit of the board just a point of clarification. Uh I think the interpretation of the statute in my view is accurate. The board has an obligation to continue to make an effort to fill the position. Um I don't believe the statute determines the timeline for that to take place. So just keep that in mind. Um, and it I think there's options the board can consider if it can't reach that resolution tonight. Um, but I think the interpretation of must is accurate and I don't think resolving this with we'll just settle in as a six member board is an option and there needs to be continual effort to to fill the vacancy >> but the timeline is v is is there the statute is silent on the timeline. >> Yes. Mhm. >> So, the motion that's on the table right now that's under our consideration, just for a reminder to everybody, is to move this special order of business, which ironically violates the rules, to item 10.3. Um, but it is our prerogative as the board should we choose to do that. Is there any other discussion on the amendment? All right. Seeing none, I'll add my two cents. Um, I'm strongly against it. Um, I don't think that we're going to meet uh or we're going to make it an agreement if we do this at the beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting any differently. Um, I think by pushing this to the end of the meeting, it risks other issues um issues such as broken quorum or u members not acting in good faith to actually settle this business. I do not think it is to our benefit as a body to move this to the end of the meeting. That is my take on it. >> Um, is there any other discussion >> member Tyson? >> I think we are elected to do our business. And if you think that the resolution supersedes us as a sixseated member board getting to our work, you're mistaken. >> I agree. And I want to clarify in the statute 123B9 there is no timeline. >> There is an opportunity to have a petition for failure. >> Correct. But there's no timeline >> to that >> to that point. I would also add >> we're a fully functioning six member seated board. I would also add for the interest of the board and the interest of the public that we have already been threatened by a lawsuit. Should we not settle this um >> what >> issue >> and what what I don't know we don't know about that. >> You are familiar with that because it was the teachers union that threatened the lawsuit on us uh um approximately a month and a half ago. I have absolutely no doubt that if we fail to appoint a seventh board member that they will come after us with another lawsuit and I would like to prevent that. >> What I would like to see is there >> I would like to see some clarification on that because I believe the >> you received a copy of that letter. I received a copy of the letter from the um I believe it was the Star Tribune or the Pioneer Press. It was later followed up with a letter from Education Minnesota to the full board. >> Again, I was speaking and you interrupted me. I would like to see um I believe that that was a different it was having to do with the vacancy but it did not have >> correct and the >> I believe that would not apply in this situation. >> The threat was that we needed as a board to appoint a board member following a legal process. We are currently attempting to do so. So I am just stating the risk that we will likely be sued should we not follow through with that. Is there any other discussion on the amendment to move this to item 10.3? >> I just think our community is probably appalled that they're listening and we're not doing our business. >> I agree. >> I'm sure I'm going to get appalled >> like crazy tomorrow. This is disrespectful of the community, >> but you keep saying the resolution is. So, >> pick what's important. >> Any other discussion on the amendment? >> Well, so the amendment is to move this order of business from 7.1 to 10.3. Does everybody understand that motion as stated? >> Yes, I understand. >> Um, in that case, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed? No. >> Okay, the motion fails. We're right back to where we started. >> Well, I guess >> there any other discussion on um the other four remaining board members >> or uh finalists? >> No. I move to close the discussion. Mhm. >> There is no motion on the table. There is no discussion. >> I just made a motion. >> I move to close the discussion and Julie seconded it. >> There is no discussion to close because there is nothing on the table before us to make a decision. >> We are there is no discuss. >> Your point is not well taken. There is no question on the table to close. >> We are simply >> discussion. We are in discussion to determine what question we want to bring forward to the board. If we close the question, there's no question to settle. >> I thought you said discussion. Did he say discussion, Joy? >> I did say discussion. Open discussion to determine a question. Closing. >> I move to close the discussion. >> Closing discussion indicates that we move to a vote on the question. There is no question on the table. Your point is not well taken. We are going to move on from that. There is no discussion to close. Not that can be called by a question. >> Wow. >> All right. I think we need to get back and I I I reflecting back on what one of the things that member Castle said earlier about we need um in in fulfilling the board member vacancy. I think it benefits us greatly to pick a very strong leader with a lot of skills and qualification in the area of conflict resolution and team building. >> I think member Dovenzinski has illustrated that throughout his career in an exemplary fashion. >> I concur. >> And I think tonight we are seeing how beneficial that would be to our board. Member Corker. So, I realize that we both feel really strong about our candidates. So, maybe we pick a different one. >> I suggest a better >> Well, maybe we need to can we revisit that because I this is going to be round and round and round. So, um I don't know. I I I don't know what else to do. Tyson, member Tyson, >> I just want to add member chair to what you said before member Corkran that you guys tried to ram Dovazinski down our throats before and that did not feel good. You tried to >> hold on hold on. Hey, >> that did not feel good. >> That is disrespectful. We never tried Nobody tried to ram anybody down. Somebody I had never met. I'm trying to call him on the phone while he's working. Please speak in a professional manner in the boardroom. >> That is how it felt and I am clarifying that that is how it felt. >> Um it was member Christensen and member. Member Christensen. >> I think we should just call the question and vote on Mr. Dobinski. We just did that first. There is no question. So >> well I make a motion to uh nominate >> Mr. Dozenski. Okay. We have a motion and a second to nominate Mr. Doenzinski by resolution. >> Is there any discussion? I I'll open discussion by uh thanking member Christensen. I think that is a great great idea to appoint member Doensitinski. I think you putting a motion on the table to have this discussion, have this consideration, and make that appointment shows a great deal of support from you uh for member Doanzinski. And I think uh member Tyson's second um illustrates that member Dovaninski is extremely qualified and would make an excellent uh school board member. And I thank the two of you for being willing to be open-minded enough to accept him on our board. >> You're welcome. And I move to close the discussion. >> All right, that fails due to lack of a second. Is there any other discussion on Member Dozinski? >> Member Castle, I'm sorry. >> So, uh Mr. Dozenski. Um, there's a lot of times where somebody that's not involved can be very objective. And I believe that some of the other candidates that we of the five don't fall into that category, but Mr. Dozinski very much is. And with two of us in the last election that came in pretty much out of nowhere is what the voters at least half of the board from the last election the voters put us in. And uh Mrs. Duragu was not far from being there. Yeah. >> And again, somebody who hadn't been on the board. >> And although I've when my kids were in school, you know, I I did um you know, I went I went on field trips and stuff and and chaperoned and things like this and I helped coaches with with the when the kids were in athletics and everything. But I haven't been what some people might think that you have to have all this experience with being on the here and there and all these different things. I'm kind of just out of the blue came in without all these supposed qualifications. And that's apparently why the statute does not say that these things need to be qualifications. But what is really important is that a person can come in here and be objective and not be not have personal input but professional input and look at everything from all sides which a a colonel has does during their career. Can I vote to close the discussion? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to close the discussion. There is no um there is no discussion on calling the question. Um therefore, a vote in the affirmative will be to close discussion on Mr. Domeninski. A vote in the negative is to keep discussion open Mr. Dozinski. >> Um all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed? No. >> Okay, that fails. Um, three to three. Any other discussion on Mr. Domenzinsk's appointment? >> Member Anson. >> Again, I'm, you know, we had multiple people here last night that said in their interviews, and I think board members have said this exact phrase as well, is to assume positive intent. Um, I think we all need to take a moment and really absorb that statement of assuming positive intent. Um, I believe Mr. Dobazenski with his on his application talking about strategic planning, you know, in multiple scenarios. I I just I like the idea of having someone that is not embedded their whole I mean their entire career within education, somebody with an outside point of view to come in here that has those strong qualities to help bring us together. I think Jim Smith is a wonderful person and has great qualities, but I don't think that he's got that as a strength. Um, that's just my my feeling on that part of it. >> Thank you. Member Tyson, did you did I see your hand raised? >> Well, I just want I mean, we have all discussed him a lot. >> I have my notes. Do you want me to read my notes again? >> Miss Mr. Doinsinski? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, but he lacks qualifications. >> His resume doesn't have dates. And like I said, it's just lacking in a timeline and dates of when he did things, what he when he got these degrees, and when he sat up here, he didn't talk about what he said in his email. Why wouldn't you have said that when you were here last? >> We had I can and I would just say respond to your we had very little time and to to ask I didn't even get to my third question most of the time with with the candidate or the you know interviewers. So why didn't he say it? I mean did you ask him the question? >> You can't put blame on somebody in an in a >> I I'm not blaming. Well, why didn't he You're saying why didn't he You're You're saying why didn't he talk about that? Like maybe he wasn't given the opportunity to talk about it cuz the question wasn't asked. I mean, my goodness. >> And to to address your question to me, >> I tell everybody probably >> I I do know Mr. Domenzinski well enough to know that he's an extremely humble man. Um he does not promote himself very well. As you noticed here, um he spoke of his time in service, his time um serving the the country. um and uh being in the army, he never once spoke of his time as a a colonel. I mean, that that is a rank that very very few people ever um obtain. It's an incredibly high honor to be a colonel in our armed services. And um you know on a on a personal note I I cannot believe anybody who has ever ascended to that position in life to be labeled as unqualified um is >> I think >> it's asinine to me um to even make that assertion that uh um they would be unqualified for a school board and and I know you and um member Tyson and member Christensen You're you're both individuals of extremely high integrity and you care about the district. >> Yes. Okay. You care about the district a great deal. So I myself am very encouraged that you guys made this motion and this second on Mr. Dominski >> so we can vote. I would find it extremely disrespectful to the board if you did it simply as a false flag >> to try to um somehow lull us into this false sense of security that you have the ability to negotiate with us here tonight. So >> if the if you you do not vote in support of them, I will be very shocked at uh the apparently my misjudgment on your integrity. Um, with that, is there any additional discussion on Mr. Dobin's incident? >> I have a comment on Mr. One thing that I can say that I really enjoyed about him. I wrote it down. He said his dad told him that very few things in life are worse than a liar. I thought that was a really good >> That's exceptional. >> Yeah, I I really like that that he learned that as a child. So, >> all right. Is there any other further discussion? member. >> So, I'm I also like uh because we have the emotional learning piece. Um he has a BA in psychology and that would be very helpful. >> Psychology. There's lots of psychology. >> There's lots of psychology. Yeah. >> Doesn't say. >> If you remember, right, remember Tyson, when I was elected to the school board, I was a college dropout and I didn't have any degrees. So, if we're making degrees a a measuring stick, then our voters did a very poor choice in electing me. >> And yeah, and you're coming to the end of your term, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I just want to add that I have a retired colonel friend. He's an Air Force colonel. I've known him for 20 years. Would he even want to be considered to be on a school board? >> I would have I would have loved to have seen his application. Why did he not apply? >> Yeah. Lives in Colorado. >> Oh, that's that's too bad. That's too bad. >> Those two curdles, I think it's very high high. >> Yeah. >> But is it relevant to education and what we're looking for right now? >> It's not. >> Yeah. >> Member Christensen. >> Yeah. I would just like to uh cl make a clarifying statement here. You said that um member Tyson and I you'd be you know so disappointed if we did a false flag. >> I would. >> But I don't think I did it as a false flag. I did it to call the question >> because um we're just spinning our wheels here and we've already voted down Mr. Smith. So if we can just vote on Mr. Dozinski, then we can perhaps uh move forward. Um because it seems we've already addressed this. I just want to address uh address the items. So >> Sure. >> Yeah. And so that is in all fairness, correct, member Christensen. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's certainly um something that you're able to do and >> Yeah. >> So >> yeah, you have the prerogative to make what motion which that was totally in order. Um I move to recess for 10 minutes. >> Can we vote to not recess? >> We have a motion and a second to recess. Is there any discussion on that? >> Oh, I didn't hear a second. >> I second it. >> Yeah. Member Castle seconded it. >> Um I'll add my I think it would be good for us to gather our thoughts. on this potential appointment u maybe to discuss it amongst ourselves and see if uh this seems like a reasonable negotiation to make um prior to making the vote and I think it would be good for all of us to lower the the temperature of our emotions >> if there's no is there any other discussion on the motion to uh recess >> we just need to do our business we're fully seated six member board All right. >> And I'm going to have people screaming out there >> very loudly. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All those in favor of a recess for 10 minutes signify by saying I. >> I. No. Those opposed. >> Okay. The motion to recess fails on a 3 to3 vote, which brings us back to the discussion on Mr. Domenzinsk's appointment. Is there any other discussion on Mr. Domeninski's appointment? Okay. Seeing none, member clerk, will you please take the roll call? And prior to doing so here I want to make it very very clear so nobody feels that they are being uh misled in any way. Um member Christensen made a motion to appoint Mr. Scott Dovenzinski to the >> um vacant board uh position via a resolution. That's the motion on the table after being seconded by member Tyson. Um a >> discussion >> we just did. >> I don't remember. We just asked if there was any other discussion. Nobody had anything. So now I'm moving to a vote. And I want to make it very clear what we are voting on. After member Christensen's uh motion to appoint Mr. Scott Doenzinski, member Tyson seconded it. That is the question that is before us right this moment. And the clerk will take the roll call. A vote in the affirmative is to vote to appoint member Doanzinski. A vote in the negative is to not vote to member Dozinski and to reopen discussion on potential candidates for appointment. >> Is that understood? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Member clerk, please take the roll call. >> Okay. Member Christensen. >> No. >> Member Corkran. >> No. >> Member Castle. >> I. >> Member Tyson. >> No. >> Member Rebeline. >> No. >> Member Antonson votes I. >> I move to reconsider. Oh, I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to reconsider the appointment of member Dobinski. Is there any discussion on the motion to reconsider? >> No. >> All right, seeing none, without objection, we will adjourn for 10 minutes. We'rejourned until 9:10. All right, it's 9:10. I now call the regular school board meeting for Forestlake Area Schools uh back to order. Member clerk, will you please take the roll call of attendance? >> Yes, I will. Here member Antonson is here. Member Rebeline >> here. Member Christensen >> here, >> member Tyson >> here, >> member Castle >> here, >> and member Corkran >> here. Everybody's here. >> Okay, we are back in session uh with a full quorum of members present. The motion that is currently on the table is a motion to reconsider. Um the motion to reconsider is to reconsider the motion that member Christensen made to appoint Mr. Scott Dozinski. Is there any discussion on the motion to reconsider? All right, seeing none, we'll bring that to a vote. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> Can you time for a sec? What? I'm sorry. Can you repeat? We're voting to do the reconsideration. >> The motion to reconsider member Doenzinski. >> Yes. >> So yes is that we will revote. >> A yes is to reconsider your original motion. >> A no is to not reconsider your original motion. Mhm. >> Is that clear? >> Mhm. >> All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed, >> no. >> No. >> Um, member Tyson, can you please clarify? I saw your your mouth moving in both. Did you vote yes or no? >> I voted no. >> You voted no. Okay. Then that motion to reconsider fails. It brings us back to the discussion on candidates. Um, we've had a resolution proposed from Mr. Dozinski. We've had a resolution proposed for um Mr. Smith. Both of those failed. Um technically we have not eliminated any candidate, but we do have five candidates. We have uh Mrs. Durangu who was the voter's choice candidate and came into this evening as the preferred candidate. Um we also have Mr. Tu and Mr. um Cornier. um that we have not had any consideration on those three individuals and as I mentioned Mr. Tomeninsky and Muster Smith have both failed to achieve a majority of votes here this evening. Um >> do you want to make that motion? >> We will move to discussion. >> You want to make sure >> I think we should. >> Yeah. Can I make a motion? >> As long as it's in order. Yes. >> Yeah. Um, since we're coming to a kind of an impass with our two preferred candidates, is there any way that we could consider inviting them both back for additional questions and more clarification to get to know them better and so we have additional information before we make a decision since we're coming to an impass and I don't believe we're going to get past the impass tonight without additional discussion and possibly talking with them. second. >> That was just an inquiry at this point. >> I think she made >> I made a motion. >> Oh, you did make a motion. Okay. I I I apologize. >> So, we have a >> a motion. Yes. That was just something to do that we might help us. >> We have a motion in a second. I'm going to have you go back and just uh clarify what the motion is. >> I'll do a Okay. So, my motion is to invite the two preferred candidates back >> to uh formulate some additional questions to get to know them better so we have maybe a better feeling and maybe a possible change in our feelings about the candidates and to give us additional time to reconsider that. >> I mean, just I think we just because we're at an impass. >> Are you talking about Can I >> Yeah, >> I'm not trying to interrupt. Yeah, you're just talking about the two >> the two. Yes, they're two preferred that we've been discussing for the whole time. >> So for clarification, >> I'm sorry for Jim Smith and Scott Dean Doanzinski. Yes. >> Yes. The two preferred candidates we've been discussing. >> And we do have a motion and a second on the on the table. But just for clarification, do you have a >> um time frame in mind for that? Do we want to amend them the original motion that the motion now belongs to the board? But, uh, that would be the question I would have is since this would essentially eliminate the resolution of passing this this evening, >> um, I think it would be important to clarify time frame since it is your motion. >> Um, >> well, I don't know if we need a special meeting. It'd be really nice to to do it at the next >> 18th. the 18th, December 18th >> at the next uh official score school board meeting. >> Okay. So, without objection, we'll amend your original motion >> to include the date that this interview would take place on December 18th at our next regular school board meeting. >> Yes. Yes. >> Are you objecting? >> No. Point of inquiry. >> Okay. Point of inquiry. Are we talking about Did you just say this too? I'm sorry. Um about scratching this resolution or this >> for tonight? Th >> this would if we accepted this motion, it would ex essentially nullify the um resolution that we put in place that we were going to do an appointment this evening >> and it would delay it uh an additional two weeks to allow for an additional interview. >> That's the way I'm comprehending the intent behind the motion. Mhm. >> Jill's first actually. >> Okay. Member Christian. >> Point of clarification. Did you just say that it would change the dates on the resolution? I think if we move this that resolution >> I said it would essentially nullify. >> I know. But after that you said something. After that you said >> we would we would have the interview on the 18th. >> No. You said something about the resolution. >> Yes. I said it would essentially nullify. >> I know. But then you said something else right after that. You said something about the resolution. >> I don't recall. Can you >> So can you can I'm just asking for clarification. If we move this, if we vote in the affirmative, >> the resolution >> is gone. Done. It's this motion is not doing something more to the resolution. The resolution is done. >> Essentially, yes. >> No. All the way. Yes. Not essentially. >> It disposes of >> it disposing of not. >> Yeah. If we agree to delay the appointment, that nullifies the only that the only thing in the resolution that is is active for this evening. >> So, yes, if if we would accept member Corkran's >> motion here to hold the interviews and I did not hear an objection to my uh um >> unanimous consent request on uh adding the date of December 16th or December 18th, I'm sorry. >> 18th. Yeah. >> That would that would nullify the condition that we need to settle this this evening. Yes. nullify and void the resolution. The resolution is gone. >> The resolution cannot be completely eliminated unless we rescend it as a body. The resolution is still there. It's still in effect, but we have agreed to p proceed in a different manner. >> But does the resolution still say special order of business or whatever? Are we changing the wording of the resolution? >> We are not changing the wording of the resolution. The resolution stands on Unless the resolution is rescended, the resolution remains in effect. >> However, we would be agreeing to essentially change the time frame >> per member Corkran's motion, >> but we would be right back in the same situation because you're saying it then on the 18th it would be a special order of business and we'd be right back where we are. That is interviews. >> That is the motion that is on the table. Yes, >> we would have another round of interviews with Mr. Smith and Mr. Dozenski >> and we would then I assume based on the the wording of the the motion we would handle it that evening. >> Pinkery. >> Yes. >> Would would um Mrs. Durangu still be on the on the potential list and I just think >> that we if >> I would like to know what >> Excellent point. >> Okay. with the wording of the motion um Mrs. Durango, Mr. Two Out and Mr. uh Cornier would not be invited back for a repeated um interview. >> So, >> however, they have been named as finalists and accepted by this board as the finalists. Therefore, based on the the motion that member Corkran made in the manner that she made it, they would remain as eligible finalists on the 18th. >> Oh, okay. So, they'd still be in the running, but they would we were only going to invite back >> Mr. Dobazinski and Mr. Smith. But here's the thing. >> Can I? >> Yes, you may. You may proceed. >> What is it that you need to know that we didn't get to the other night? I mean, what what do you think might change? >> I don't know. I'm not sure. I won't know until I have more of a chance to get to know him and ask more questions. I just feel like on paper, I just don't >> It's just a whole different thing. >> Well, talking with him more >> and and you and member Tyson ran your campaign with Mr. Smith. I said last night and I meant it like I met him and I I liked him, you know. Mhm. >> Uh so I mean like I said earlier for myself I initially and before this even came I mean I think how did we learn about Lou the day before or the within the week whatever it was very early on and I said I think we should appoint Laura because she was the next person with the highest votes and just make this simple. Um, so for me, you know, even though I think Scott's got great qualities, I'm I'm this is, you know, kind of a what's the word I want to use? It's sort of a consiliation thing for me. Not in a big way. I mean, I think he's an excellent candidate. I'm just saying somewhere we're going to have to find some give and I think we have to keep in mind the voters the public that is what we are as public elected officials right >> well yes but like I said in the past I've been through this before and that was not and it doesn't always have to be that about the voters right >> I believe Tyson Sorry. So just >> member Tyson. >> So I like this motion by member Corkran because it gives the community as well because it'll be streamed >> to get to know the final two candidates as well. I feel like that's an opportunity for everyone, everyone that I know in the community, all the voters, everyone at this board to be able to get to know those two better, >> especially since we're at an impass, >> um, member in, are you aware of a petition? In 30 days, a petition can be filed. >> Yes, I am aware of that >> because that's what worries me when you keep bringing up Mr. Dango that That would be uh that could be an >> quite a big worry. >> Are you worried about a petition about Mr. Doenzinski? >> No. >> Okay. >> So, but I do want to read this because we got this information today from the head legal at MSBA and he said and he tells us that which we know. >> Yeah. And I've addressed this email already this evening multiple times. >> So, this can be disposed of and there's options. postpone indefinitely, amend refer. >> Can you look at the email that I sent in response to that where I indicated that Mr. Marorrow did not have the full context of the resolution at his disposal. He was mostly correct as far as his interpretation of the special order of business. I do not challenge that. We are operating under um a special order of business and a special rule which makes the contents of the email you're about to read um irrelevant to the discussion this evening. >> Okay. And you do know that this is a guide, right? >> For our board. >> Yeah. >> That we agreed to follow. >> It's a guide though. It's not meant to be used to come up with rules that people are aware of. >> Well, he's not making them up. >> This is a guide. >> Yeah. And and like member said that I'm not making them up. They they've been established for 149 years. >> Well, I guess you know the legal head of MSBA is not thorough enough for you or >> No, Mr. tomorrow did not have the resolution that we passed when he sent that email. He sent that in the context of a special order. He did not send that in the context of a special order with the resolution that we had agreed to as a board. That is the distinction. We've discussed it at nauseium this evening >> and it is >> you sent a >> it is not gerine, >> right? So >> to member Corkran's motion and I believe member Christensen had a comment. she wanted to make as well. >> Uh yes, actually um if if we sort of want to compare kind of apples to apples, I mean maybe we should look at the election where Luke ran and who was the next highest vote getter, which would be Todd Pru. >> Is this gerine to member Cordrren's motion? >> Well, it was gerine to um member Antonson was saying that Mrs. Dango was the next highest vote getter and >> and I will point out that Mr. crew did not apply for this position. >> I'm fully aware of that. I'm just saying >> we can only work with the applicants that we've been given. >> Fully aware of that. I just wanted to make a point that um >> I concur. Good point. >> It it's a valid point, but that we could make the same comment about Mr. Raphael and he chose not to um apply for the position. >> So, it it's a point, but it doesn't it's not gerine to the discussion or the motion that member Corkran brought up. Um, I do have a comment on the motion that member Corkran made if nobody else does. Okay. If we delay this this work, this appointment tonight for any reason, be it member Corker's amendment or any other reason. Um, and we do not finalize an appointment until the 18th. If my quick math looking at the calendar here is correct, that means that our board member, our new board member would not become eligible until January 17th. Um, and just for the board's information, January 17th would mean that another full month of board meetings would pass before we would have a seventh board member that would be eligible, which would delay our um, ability to work on a strategic plan and to start the work on um, searching for a superintendent another month. >> No, >> I personally am not comfortable with that. I do not feel that that's acceptable to our community. I don't feel it's acceptable for um our district. Um I don't think it's fair to our staff. We laid out a very clear process over a month ago and I think it's important that we stick to that. We stick to that schedule. We have already determined that uh um the board is um split although really satisfied with two candidates. And I think it would benefit us greatly for us to put our heads together and decide which one of those two candidates we want to get behind. And my concern is that by pushing for another round of interviews where we're not going to learn any more about these two candidates. I've known Mr. Smith for some time and you guys have known Mr. Gilinski for some time. You've had opportunities to have several discussions with him. >> No, I've known him for two months. talked metad once, talked on the phone once. >> May I finish? >> Yes, but don't say things that aren't true, please. >> You've had as many opportunities to speak with Mr. Domenzinski as I have had to speak with Mr. Smith. All right, I'd like to continue. Um, I hesitate greatly to continue to delay this. We have a legal obligation to appoint a board member. I do not think that kicking the can down the road benefits anybody in the community. It doesn't benefit the district. We are trying to close our teachers uh um contract negotiations. I think it benefits us greatly to bring this board back to a full strength and give the voters what they deserve and um really um what we are obligated to do as elected officials and that would be to settle on a candidate this evening. Therefore, I am not in support of member Corkran's uh motion to delay this and to carry out a second interview. Is there any other discussion on member Corkran's amendment? Member Antonson, >> you may have said this and I didn't hear you, but I I think it's also incredibly disrespectful to the candidates or I do I just because we've been sitting here this long. I you don't know what it is that would help you think what else do you need to know about Mr. Dobazenski to or >> well we're well we're at an impass and I don't see us getting past an impass. So, we could sit here till 5 in the morning then, I guess, because I don't believe we're going to get past it >> and I want to come up with some idea that might change the narrative a little because this isn't working and I don't see it's going to work. So, I'm trying to be optimistic in some other way and be creative with thinking. >> I I respect that. I I >> you know, it's it's about >> I enjoy working with the member Corkran because you're always trying to find a way through the problem. I just don't know that delaying this another month um especially past the organizational meeting is really in the best interest of the community and and delaying what I hope is uh that we're going to reach a teachers contract settlement here very soon. >> I just I don't think it's in the best interest of our staff >> to wait any longer either. >> Well, we have a very high functioning six member board. I don't think the staff is going to care if we have an extra member or not that doesn't know what they're doing at the time. They're going to be new. So whether it's their organizational meeting or the next meeting it doesn't it should not impact our work. We should be able to start >> we are functioning six member board. We can do the superintendent search. We can do the strategic plan. We can start in that and work with the person to get them caught up. I don't believe it should be a strangle hold on our operations. >> I I agree 100% and I am prepared to sit here as long as it takes this evening to make the appointment. >> I concur. No. >> Is there any other discussion on member Corkran's motion? Member Tyson, >> I think I concur with what member Corkran just said. I think that this need this is important. This needs to be done, right? >> We don't just interview one day and the very next day point like you guys wanted to or at the previous meeting you wanted your point. >> This given time, >> there's no hurry to get this done right and to be comfortable with who's appointed and have it be collaborative with all of us, right? We want to each other in collaboration. >> I would like to remind the board in response to your comment that the original schedule was to do the interviews on uh December 1st and to hold the appointment this evening. The only reason we moved it to December 3rd was due to conflicts in board members schedules and we thought it was important that all six of us be here for that. So >> you we've already pivoted that as well. I've already been asked why >> as I believe I disclosed in one of the very earliest meetings when we discussed this um this timeline was actually brought up at the suggestion of member >> this was her timeline >> my proposal was to wait until I believe February or March >> to make the final selection we are here this evening at member Corkran's suggestion >> that really kind of was yeah I agree >> so is there any other discussion on member Corkran's a motion to um hold a secondary interview and if if I'm going to summarize this, please correct me if I'm wrong. >> Um to hold a secondary interview with Mr. Smith and Mr. Dovanzinski and postpone action on the resolution until the 18th. >> I do have one more point. >> Yes. >> I just want to say that we are not getting to the business of our meeting and apparently at 9:30 at night, you guys are >> That point has been well established. Yes. I'm just repeating that member Corkran would bring us to a point where we could do our work that we're elected to do >> as would acquiescing around a candidate. >> Yeah, this doesn't need to be done tonight. We're a fully functioning six member seated board. >> But you guys are stalling this out the whole business meeting. >> Is there 9:30? >> Yes. if you want to. I mean, so we're going to get blamed for stalling it out. And >> yeah, we're elected to do this work. >> Yes, we are. And we are elected and we all agreed to sit down tonight and appoint somebody or >> we're proceeding in accordance with the uh the resolution that was passed by the by the full board. There was unanimous consent around that. So >> So whether we're rushing it or kicking the can down the road, which way is it? I guess it's a matter of >> We're not doing a vote tonight, are we? >> No. Is there any other discussion on member Corkran's motion? >> Okay. So, just to encapsulate the motion again, member Corkran's suggestion was that we bring member uh Mr. Smith and Mr. Topenzinski back for um a a second interview on the 18th and we then pick up this appointment that evening. A vote in the affirmative is to essentially delay action and hold a second round of interviews. A vote in the negatory is to reject that idea and to continue the process here this evening. Are there any questions around the motion that's on the table? All right, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed? No. >> All right, we are back to where we started. Um on Yes, member Christensen. I would like to just um me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me member Corkran came up with maybe sort of a compromise type of situation. Do you have compromises or things that you might be able to suggest besides voting for your candidate because I could say well you could vote for ours and we could get out of here too. So do you have a like a compromise any situation or she offered to maybe do some additional interviews? Are there other ideas or >> I'm uh personally I'm I'm very happy with uh the interview process that we went through. I'm I'm happy you suggested in the first place and I'm happy with member Corkran's timeline. I think it's worked out extremely well. I got to know all of the candidates uh well enough to know whether or not I would be interested in appointing them. I do not need any additional information on any candidate to make up my mind on whether or not I feel that they would be um an asset to the district. Um therefore, I would like to settle this business tonight in accordance with the um with the rules and the process that this board unanimously put forward. Um that is my take. I don't know if other members want to uh offer their suggestions as well. >> I agree. member Castle, >> we did all agree on this process, >> but I also >> I also did not realize we'd be strangle hold to make for sure. I mean, I knew we'd make a discussion. We'd have we'd have discussion and maybe possibly have someone in place, but I didn't know we had to. That is the operative change that I didn't understand. So that is on me and probably the rest you know us us three didn't understand that we making every attempt to get someone but doesn't mean we were strangle hold to stay here till god knows how long to agree. >> Can we unpack that a little bit? >> Yes. So I mean >> beyond proceeding in this this meeting and that goes without saying but beyond proceeding in this meeting which we all want to do. Yeah. >> All six of us would love to move on. I'm sure Dr. Massie, but >> I need >> would like to take a nap here and he'd like to move on as well. But um other than moving on with the business, what benefit does it bring our students, our staff, and our public to delay this decision? >> It doesn't hurt anyone. It >> What benefit does it bring? >> It doesn't bring benefit or either way. It's it's a moot point in my in my eyes because we are a functioning six member board that was elected. I don't feel like it's going to stop anything from happening if we don't have that seventh person on board right away. >> A lot of a lot of the comments I heard from board members this evening, especially uh um members Corker, member Christensen, and member Tyson is that uh we're not a functioning board and we need another board member in here to help us >> um kind of build bridges and uh >> um >> well, it would be nice, but it's not a mandatory thing. I don't feel like it's a mandatory. I mean, like I say, this is not doing us any good. I think if anything, this this wedge between our groups is getting worse at the more and more we talk. So, I would also like to stop that. I mean, I I just think it's not helpful at this point, >> which is why I go to let's look at the benefits. What benefits does delaying this process have? Is it only >> going to sew more different candidate? I I don't know if there'd be someone else we get behind. I don't know. >> Is there any other uh anybody else have anything to add here? >> Well, I'd just like to add and concur with me Corkran that this has been rushed. People have been saying that. So we did not know and I did not realize that your plan member chair was to decide this tonight. >> This was not my plan. And this was a >> oh no >> this was a resolution the entire >> be on to our business meeting >> but you guys refuse. >> We we are spinning in circles on that point that people on the line >> the resolution that is done is done >> and we can dispose of it. We've done some voting. We >> the resolution that was passed in November to set the time frame and set this process is done >> and it doesn't need to be decided tonight. Correct. No, it does need to be decided tonight in accordance functioning seated. >> In accordance with the resolution that was passed, we need to settle that business tonight. That is settled. >> That was clear. >> Bickering about that doesn't help us do anything. It doesn't help us build a stronger team and it doesn't help us reach a consensus. >> So, I would ask that board members please stay on task and help us find a way to reach a consensus >> on one of these five appointments. I'm comfortable with Jim Smith and I've said all I'm going to say so you guys can discuss then. >> Okay. Let let me I'm I'm going to go around the uh the room and I'm going to ask is there any other candidate that applied that you would be comfortable with? Member Tyson >> Andy Cornia. >> Okay. Is there any other candidate you would be comfortable with? Um member Castle. >> Laura. Okay. Member Antonson. I'd >> say Laura. Yeah, my my feeling is if we if we appoint anybody who was part of the election process is that we go with Mrs. Danga. Um member um Parker >> probably Andy Cornnea. >> Okay. Um member Christensen, >> Mr. Cornne, excuse me. >> Okay. We have three members in favor of um Mrs. uh Durango and we have three members in favor of Mr. >> Cornia. Do we want to discuss either of those? Because we've been hyper and laser focused on Mr. Domenzinski and Mr. Smith this evening. Does it benefit the board to consider other potential candidates? >> Well, I think Mrs. Durago just makes sense >> from an elective standpoint. I would agree numerous times tonight so I don't need to >> I have asked >> well I have asked the other board members that they would be supportive of Mrs. Dango. >> Um so I will give the same favor to Mr. Cornelia. Um I personally would not support Mr. Cornneelia under any circumstances. I can speak to that at length should um the rest of the board want to vet him um as a possible uh appointment this evening. Member Antonson, would you support Mr. Cornnea. >> No, I would not. >> Um, member Castle, would you support Mr. Cornier? >> Okay, so we're right back to kind of where we started. >> Can I? >> Yes. >> And I just want to say that I cannot support Laura Durango based on the hundred and over 100 emails I got regarding her incident. >> So that is not that is out for me. those people have spoken and that's just out for me. >> You know, I find it interesting. I don't recall I honestly don't even know if I've gotten through all of them yet here, but I don't recall one of them that said I voted for her and I wouldn't now. Not one. >> Well, and how about the ones right after it occurred? I can go back and count those emails. So, >> well, I mean, you can't you can't really count those, but that's like a different vote. You get a you know, last year >> really they're all over the same incident. Correct. >> Well, I get that, but there could be, you know, >> Hey, hey, hold on, hold on, hold on. I don't think this is constructive, but I think that member Tyson did kind of uh start to peel back layers of an onion here that I think are worth exploring. Mhm. >> Um throughout this entire process, there are only two candidates that I received any emails of support on. U Mrs. Durangu was one of them. >> Um the emails of support that I received um for Mrs. Durangu were based on the fact that she was the next highest vote getter. >> We have already um discussed as a board and I don't believe we have a consensus that uh at least the majority doesn't support moving with Mr. Strongu for that reason. the only other candidate um or well the actually the only other applicant that I received any positive emails concerning um was Mr. Dilenzinski. >> Um I did not receive a single email concerning any of the other candidates. I did not receive a single phone call concerning any of the other candidates either. Um, so if if that's something that's that's worth consideration, >> um, at least in my case, the only public support that I heard were in favor of Mr. Dozenski and Mrs. Dond. >> I had that is not true for myself. I had at least two phone calls >> and I had Mr. Smith >> for M for Jim Smith who is my first choice. >> Okay, let's let's unpack this a little bit then. Let's start with M member. >> Phone calls. Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me member Christens. >> You stated that you received support for some candidates. >> Would you like to speak to that? >> I just I received at least two phone calls from Mr. Smith. >> Okay. Um member >> I've gotten at least two or three emails about Mr. Smith. >> About Mr. Smith >> and negative about 50. I don't know, maybe 40. I don't even know how many negative about Laura. I will address I I did receive some negative emails about >> phone calls and yeah >> the vast majority of them were based on uh social media. I had people tell me that they were from Washington or New York and >> yeah but some that I knew people in the district that I knew. >> With all due respect I >> um so >> as an elected member of this community um it's maybe a little harsh to say I don't care but I don't care about the opinion from somebody from Long Island or >> Southern California. That doesn't help me make a decision in this room here tonight. Um, but I I will I will the local people that I knew. >> I did receive a couple of uh I I don't know if I received any local >> Well, did there there were probably a couple local >> some staff members? >> Yeah, actually staff members. Yeah. >> But uh Member Antinson, did you receive any um any emails in support of candidates that you'd like to see? >> Both of them, just like you said, I haven't you know, it's hard because they don't always all come to all of us, so it's hard to know what >> um Yes. But both Laura and Mr. Dobazenski for sure. >> Good. I'm I'm just trying to keep the conversation on something positive here and things that we can talk about. Member Castle, how about you? Did you receive any communications about candidates? >> What do we do? >> I did for Mr. Dolaniski >> and uh Mr. Tuat and um and Miss >> Okay. And and member Tyson, did you have others you wanted to speak to? I mean, you did you kind of started this conversation for us. So, thank you for that. >> You know, I I had some from local people >> in my neighborhood especially and at the hockey arena. One parent approached me about Laura Durago and the slur she used. >> Oh, I'm I'm speaking positive in in support of candidates. I I think I think we've covered that. >> Positive. Okay. So, Mr. Smith. I received about 11 and it's mostly people who have been with him on his committee that have known him because he lives in Forest Lake. His wife was a teacher. People saying all kinds of positive things. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, perhaps a point of consideration. >> Yeah, please. is given the the impass to use the words >> shared tonight. Um the recognition that perhaps MSBA ter Terry Marorrow has not considered this resolution which is holding this group here tonight >> and the timeline. Mhm. >> Would there be any benefit to asking him to interpret the the process you're going through the special order of business in light of this resolution whether it beholds the board to this process and timeline or >> if the impass the discussion the votes already taken in effect dissolve this allowing and freeing the board up to consider a different process. Mhm. >> If the majority of the board supports dissolving it, I I don't see any problem with that. I just I feel like we're going to impass on that as well. >> I'm not suggesting that the board decided to resol dissolve this, but get an interpretation from an independent person at an MSBA with respect to the role that this resolution plays in holding the board to this process. >> It's like hostage >> given the action already taken on >> on this process. >> Yeah. Do you mean right now? >> No. Okay. >> Yeah, it would have it would have to be right now. Otherwise, we would have to violate >> Well, we'll just have to >> the understood resolution. >> Make a motion to dispose of the resolution or for clarification. >> Yeah. Member Tyson, >> member Corkran, you are vice chair. You could reach out to legal that represents us and also find out. >> I could resolution >> culminated and now we're at the same time >> if there's any way. Yes. that we can still continue to do business, >> right? Because we >> maybe member chair wants clarification on that. >> Um they don't seem to believe that we're a six member fully functioning seated board. We could clarify her thoughts on that. No, I I think what we have is I think we have disagreement about our legal um requirement to appoint a board member >> and we're in disagreement, >> but I think we're in disagreement about the timetable that this board unanimously agreed upon. >> And I don't know if belaboring that point is going to help us reach a consensus any faster. >> Well, how long do we plan on being here tonight? Because when does it come to when do we decide it's we just need to adjourn and be done for the night and we won't do any business and I don't know how that's going to affect our bills and things we need to get done. >> A lot of business on here tonight >> that we can't get done. So I just don't think we're going to get it done tonight. >> I I'll share my opinion on that and I'm going to I'm going to share my opinion not based on what I want to do >> but based on my understanding of the rules and the options that we have moving forward. um we're at an obvious impass. >> Three of us want to do one thing. Three of us want to do another thing. >> Um that puts us in a position where we can sit here and we can either make a decision, which um I get the feeling that we're not going to >> or we can continue spinning our wheels until we make a decision. um or um three members would have to stand up and break quorum and that would force us to adjourn >> and that would force us to not settle this business until the 18th because unlike one of my predecessors as board chair, I will not unilaterally >> schedule a special meeting without board approval >> unless it's very clear that I have the authority to do so. In that situation, none of the business on tonight's um agenda would be handled, which includes the uh board bills, and I don't remember the exact total of the board bills. We would not accept donations. >> Um we would not accept retirements. We would not accept the financial audit and most consequentially we would not certify property taxes payable in 2026 which if we do not approve will cost the district in excess of $20 million. Therefore, it is my prerogative personally, and this is where I'm going to shift from my interpretation of what the rules state and express my personal opinion is I will stay here as long as it takes to make an appointment this evening so that we can complete our business as planned. >> Well, it's not going to happen. >> No, it's not. >> Uhuh. So, >> so in in that case, >> I guess we should just >> three members would have to be willing to break >> quorum >> or four members would have to vote to adjurnn. >> Um that is my understanding of the rules and if we we've essentially been here for um another 45 or 50 minutes. Um it's 9:50. We can recess until 10 if uh members want to give that some time to think. >> No, I don't need >> Mr. Chair. also be your opinion that a majority of the board >> could amend this resolution >> right to amend it to >> Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't point out that scenario. A majority of the board could >> amend the resolution that we have before us. Um I do not get the feeling that a majority of the board is willing to do that. And I will note that with the special order of business is the special order of business does persist. So any attempt to adjourn or break quorum this evening would only perpetuate this to our next board meeting and we would be in the exact same position we're in today. >> I we're not going to >> well I move to table this and move on to other business. I think this is breaking the law. >> Holding this over not getting our business work done. It's not >> I think it violates >> a motion to table would not be in order due to the fact that would violate the rules. >> Y I'm pretty certain that we're back to discuss resolution violates the law that we're not doing our >> work our agenda and what's on >> in that case I'm I'm going to suggest a uh another recess for 10 minutes >> and we'll reconvene at um let's make it 10:03. All right, we are in recess. The regular school board meeting for Forest Lake Area Schools, Thursday, December 4th, back to order. Member clerk, please take the roll call of attendance. >> Okay. Member Corkran here. >> Member Antonson is here. Member Christensen >> here. >> Member Castle >> here. >> Member Rebeline >> here. and member Tyson >> here. >> Everybody's here. >> All right, we're back in session. We're still discussing um item 7.1, the selection of an applicant to fill a board vacancy. Um been trying to brainstorm how we can keep this discussion both positive and constructive in getting a board member appointed here this evening as we've laid out in the rules and uh are obligated to do here by state law. Um one thought that comes immediately to mind is when we went back Let's go back very early in the meeting. Um when we first started discussing this, we all went around and we discussed who our top candidate was. At the end of that, um we came we whittleled it down to essentially three individuals, that being Mr. Doenzinski, um Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Durango. Um, so what I was going to suggest is that we just go around the table and I'm happy to do this on paper if members would uh would prefer, but we do have to disclose that we cannot have any secret ballots here tonight. And just say um let's select our top two from those three candidates to see if we can find some sort of a consensus and uh move forward in a positive and meaningful meaningful way. >> Point of order. >> I don't think so. Yes. >> I don't I feel like this isn't a legal meeting anymore. >> Why >> are we sure that this is a legal meeting? >> We have a quarum >> that we've been here and we haven't done our business. >> Yes. >> Yes. Your point >> found in here that it's not legal. >> No, me member Tyson, your point is not well taken. This is absolutely a legal meeting. we are just stuck on a an agenda item and that um if you remember right >> the front instead of the end so we haven't done any of our business >> member Tyson that again that that was a an agenda that was set up in accordance with the rules that this board established and it was unanimously accepted by this body prior to the meeting beginning >> just feels illegal it can be amended it can be taken >> your point is not well taken >> um I have >> squash my I have had personal concerns about the legality of meetings before. When I had those concerns, I did inquire with legal counsel and they advise that I remove myself from the meeting. That is certainly an option for you this evening. If you feel that we are proceeding unlawfully, you you have the option to remove yourself. >> I do have concerns. I'm >> But uh um >> that said, your point is not well taken. We are absolutely operating in a legal manner. We have a quorum. We are on the schedule. Sure, we've had a few recesses, but that doesn't change the legality of the meeting whatsoever. So, my suggestion was we narrowed this down very quickly to three potential candidates, being Mrs. Durango, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Dozinski. I would like to suggest that each of the six of us select two names off of that list for consideration that we are >> open and willing to accept as board members >> and I'll start that with Mrs. uh with member Tyson >> and is that no the five? >> No, the the three that we narrowed it down to very early in this process. >> I don't have one. >> No, >> what? >> Oh, see. >> So, I'm going to write down their names. >> So, it's >> okay. I will I will repeat their names again. >> Okay. >> Just >> Mrs. Laura Durango. >> Okay. >> Mr. Jim Smith and Mr. Scott Doeninski. When we first started on action item 7.1, we narrowed it down to those three candidates. So, what I'm going to ask the board in an attempt to have positive and constructive dialogue moving forward is to please pick two names off of that list that you would be open to considering to fill the vacancy and hoping that that will encourage some positive dialogue so that we can move forward. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, member Tyson, please. Um, >> so >> who are your two names? My two names, and we already have had a vote on one, is Jim Smith. >> Okay. >> And Scott D. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, member Castle, >> uh, Mr. Domeki, >> and Mrs. Durago. Okay. >> Member Antonson, >> Mrs. Duragu, and Mr. Dobazinski. >> Okay. Um, member Corker, >> I just have one named Jim Smith. I don't have two. >> Okay. So, you're not even open to having a dialogue on >> two of those finalist individuals. >> I can't accept either candidate. No. >> Okay. Um, member Christensen. >> Uh, the same. Just only Jim Smith. We've already talked about the other candidates. Adnauseium. So, >> okay. >> I just have one. Um, so we are on Jill >> and I believe back in the voting I think Mrs. Dongu only got two votes because I >> believe you were a No, Mr. Redline, weren't you? >> On on the original >> I >> Oh, on one of the amendments way back. >> Um, no, actually actually it was Mr. Doenzinski that I voted against and I voted against so I can exercise my right to make a motion to reconsider. Um, I do fully support Scott. So, uh, my no vote in the motion for Scott was so that I could make a motion to reconsider in hopes that the individual who made that motion would, uh, um, I guess negotiate in good faith. So, in my case, uh, my two finalists would be Scott and Laura as well. Um, I do believe that, uh, Laura is a big lift. It's a big ask just based on comments that I've heard here this evening. Um, but we do have consensus for four members around the consideration of Scott Doveninski. Um, would we like to discuss Scott further or move straight to a resolution to approve um, Mr. Dozensky? >> To approve him for what? >> To appoint him to this position this evening. >> No. Absolutely not. >> You just stated not two minutes ago. >> We need to bring it to a vote. I called a vote on him. >> I just asked if you would like to have a vote. >> Yes. Have a vote. >> Okay. Let let me start over. Um I asked board members to uh pick through the three finalist candidates that we identified very early this evening. Um, I started with member Tyson and member Tyson picked member uh Mr. Smith and Mr. Dobenzinski as members that uh she would be willing to accept as an appointed board member this evening. >> I asked member Castle the same question and he pointed out Mr. Dobenzinski and Mrs. Durangu. I asked member Antonson and she stated Mr. Denzinski and Mrs. Durangu. I asked member Corkran and she only stated that she was willing to have discussions on Mr. Smith. I asked member Christensen. She also stated that she was only willing to have discussions on Miss um Mr. Smith. Myself, my opinion is I am willing to have discussions on Mrs. Durangu and Mr. Doofenzinski. >> By my count, that gives us four board members who are willing to accept Mr. Dolaninski as a board member this evening. >> You asked for two out of the three and I gave you that point of inquiry. Can you have joy look back? I think we already voted >> on Scott. >> We did, but we have not eliminated anybody from consideration. And if you want to um I guess unpack that, we already voted on Mr. Smith >> and he was um rejected as well. >> So those two, >> but we have not officially rejected anybody. We just had failed resolutions. >> Okay. >> Okay. What I'm trying to do is I'm just trying to encourage continued dialogue. And I was actually very happy that you were willing to continue the discussion on Mr. Domenzinski. He was the only individual that received four >> um indicators that they were willing to to discuss. Mr. >> indicator. >> Yeah. It doesn't behold you to anything. It just means that you are willing to have a discussion which is incredible. >> In fact, I'm I'm very encouraged. No, I'm encouraged by that. I think that's great. That that means the lines of communication are open. other board members were not able to identify two individuals who were willing to discuss. So, thank you for that. Member Tyson, >> I want to discuss Clark's motion that >> sorry, >> we should table this we should have them come back. We disposed of that motion that that is >> what I'm going to say when it's my turn to discuss is that >> okay so what I'm ask I'm not going to >> what I'm asking the board is do we want to proceed there were there was only one individual that received the interest of four board members to have a discussion on would we like to proceed with a further discussion on that individual >> no I just said what I wanted to discuss Okay. Does anybody else have any other suggestions for how we can carry this discussion forward in a productive and constructive manner so that we can proceed with the business that we have before us this evening? >> I move to close the discussion discussion. >> Member Tyson, we've gone over this ad nauseium. There is no motion on the table. There is no question to call. That motion is out of order. >> Okay. Can we please stop doing that and just >> we're wasting too much time. >> Yeah. Okay. So, like I've said many times that we're an impass. What can we do so we can get to our to pay the bills? We We got to do some of our board business. >> Couldn't agree more. I I think we need to acquies. >> We have to move that special. We have to move it. We have to do be able to do our business cuz I mean we're not going to get to an answer tonight. I I can I 100% don't think we will. And are we just going to be here spinning our wheels for the next four hours? I mean, do you guys want to be here till 1 in the morning? >> I I am willing to do whatever I need to do to do the business of the district. >> I'm move >> I I have voted several times this evening. >> I move to dispose of the the agenda item 7.1. >> Yeah, I know. It just is there. Move it. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> All right. What? What is that? What What is that motion? I've never heard of a motion to dispose. Can you please explain that to me? >> We need to just dispose of 7.1. We are getting nowhere with it. >> Dispose of the rest. >> The motion is out of order. I I'm not aware of any motion. Well, hold on. Before I make a ruling, let me look up a motion to dispose. I do not believe that there's a motion to dispose. >> We just need to move it so we can get something done. We have a lot of unhappy people on the live stream. It's all I'm saying. >> If that is our concern, I know how to make people happy and that is to settle this business. >> No, you're wrong. >> We need to get to the matter at hand. Our bills vendors won't get paid. There is no motion to dispose. That motion is uh >> um found to be out of order. >> Okay. >> All right. Can we um proceed to to some discussion then? >> I'm done. >> Mr. Chair, if I can maybe provide a point of consideration again. Um >> Sure. I think there's >> um the potential Um, and maybe it would warrant, I've said it before, but warrant um some independent perspective on the current resolution holding us binding us to this process. >> It's not good >> that once action has already been taken and impass is reached, what impact or effect does that have on the resolution passed on November 20th >> beholding the board to this process? Um, >> we need to >> and when Terry Marorrow from MSBA opined on this today, um, as you pointed out, he was not aware of this resolution, giving him an opportunity to provide an opinion to the board on the status of this resolution in light of the votes already taken on 7.1 and the apparent impass that the board is at. What effect does that have and an opinion of that sort could be helpful to the board? Yes, it would delay >> this process, but it would at least provide some clarity to that. I >> I think that's an excellent thing to ask. Member Christensen, would the opinion of uh Mr. Marorrow uh change your approach here this evening at all? Um, well, considering I wouldn't be able to talk to him until tomorrow, I guess I don't know. What do you mean? Like, we would have to table this to get his opinion. I do have some questions about a special order. I understand that you keep saying the special order and we all agreed to the certain date. >> You know, when I was looking up special order today, it says, um, my understanding is a special order compels consideration, not consensus. A special order cannot be used to force a particular outcome, which is I feel like we're kind of at now. were trying to use this special order of business to compel >> No, the the special rule that we put in place that stated that we would adopt a resolution a resolution is what the hangup is. The special order just gives the order of business precedence in the meeting. That's what the special order is. >> So there's two parts here, member Christensen. First one being the special order of business that gives it priority on the agenda and it being classified as the special order gives it the highest priority. So a special order of business would not bump this to secondary priority. >> And the other piece was the um essentially the the rule that we passed stating that we would um let me get the language correct. Oh, I need to >> that we would adopt a resolution naming one of the second finalists to fill the seat this evening. Um, so that is a special rule and if you do look at uh the rules of order and I'm I'm excited that you're you're digging into this um you will see that special rules adopted by anybody supersede >> don't patronize me please. >> They supersede >> um any other rule that's defined within the book. So, does that provide clarification as to what we're discussing? We've gone over it a few hundred times this evening. >> Well, I also feel like this is um you know to to Dr. Massiey's possible point to have someone else look at this. I mean, you >> are the arbitrator of all this and making the decisions. >> I am simply trying to keep us on track. >> You are um you know handling all the rules and all this. So I am just wondering if it would be helpful as you keep saying to lower the temperature, take a break, come back to this on the 18th. We can amend the resolution. We've already said that. Uh have doc or Mr. Morrow or other people, I don't know, our legal counsel help us out. I mean um there's >> um >> yeah, it just >> me, >> but also one of you three could amend that. We could you could and and at this point >> I mean by changing the date or doing something that's going to give us a little more time to figure this out because like I say this it's not it's it's going to we're at a huge impass and I don't see it getting fixed tonight. >> Yeah. To to that point and I guess even to Dr. Massiey's point with querying uh Mr. Marl I I do not support delaying this in any way, shape or form beyond this evening. And that's my opinion. I I think the board set a really um really good timeline that fits with the schedule. The work that we need we need to do >> the uh um the priorities that that we need to uh achieve early in the new year is well suited by having a seventh individual appointed to the board this evening. >> That is my personal feeling on >> direct that the possibility of um discussing this with Mr. tomorrow or really any outside individual. Um, member Antonson, how do you feel about uh delaying this process so we can discuss it further with uh Mr. Maro? >> Well, I thought that's what Mr. Massie was doing today was talking about I mean if there was a problem then we could have taken care of that today before this meeting. >> Yeah, I think I I'm not so sure sorry to interrupt. I'm not so sure that he was aware of this >> the resolution passed on November 20th and its impact got >> on the process pertaining to special mention. >> Yeah. >> And I would like to seek legal counsel too. >> Do you >> well >> are you open to the idea of postponing the discussion on this? >> As I shared I I am not. >> Okay. I mean, >> member Castle >> be here all night. >> We all agreed to do this tonight. >> Okay. Um, member Tyson, uh, >> would you like are you open to the idea of postponing this this evening? >> Definitely. >> Okay. So, we we're at a 33 impass. >> Concern about now that I feel like we're in a illegal meeting >> because was the public adequ adequately made aware that we had this special order of business meeting? It was on tonight's agenda. Yes. >> But they said >> we passed it in an open board meeting on November 20th. >> I do I do not >> adequately. >> I do not know how much more we can belabor that >> special business right here. >> Yeah. But was it previously made aware? >> Yes. On on 1120 when we passed that resolution, it was very clear that this was the special order of business. I I do not I do not find it constructive to continually >> reiterate on that. >> It's important to clarify. Don't you agree? >> It it is important to clarify, but we we unanimously agreed to this timeline. >> So why are we not settling the business? >> So yeah, it doesn't have to be settled tonight. >> Okay. So >> I have Okay, I'm sorry. We are all adults here and we're And and I feel like we're just getting it it we're not acting like we should be. I feel like we are we're definitely at impass and I don't see us coming out of this. I mean how long does do people have to wait for us to make a decision? Will not happen tonight. Are we going to be here till 5 in the morning or 6 or just keep going? And I plan I mean I you know we have commitments and things we I mean this is it's getting a little it's getting ridiculous at this point. I'm sorry we made the public I know we made a commitment but I made the commitment that we would make every attempt to come up to consensus. Clearly we're not I mean as adults in our world we have other commitments we have to make as well. I mean I have to work tomorrow. People have commitments. Are we just going to I mean it just seems like we're just going to keep rattling and rattling around. When we came back from recess, I asked members who they were even willing to have discussions on >> and >> Yeah. And I'm Yeah, I know. >> Members aren't even willing to discuss. >> No, because I think he's unsuitable. He's unsuitable in my eyes. So, I will never change my mind. So, and if she doesn't and she doesn't, and you three won't, we'll never we'll never decide. >> I've I've opened this up half a dozen times to discussing other finalists as well. >> But you won't support Andy. resend the resolution. >> We need to make a motion to resend. >> I second that. We need to do something. >> We have a motion and a second to resend the November 20th resolution. >> We need to move on. >> Is there any discussion on rescending the November 20th resolution? >> No. >> All right. I'll throw my two cents in. I think it's a terrible idea. I think it's going back on the commitment we made to the public and I think it puts our legal obligation of appointing a board member in jeopardy because we are just going to be in this position again in the next board meeting. >> That's my personal thought on that. >> We're just not do business. >> I have discussion. >> I would agree with you. Member Tyson >> go. I feel like we have plenty of time to make this appointment and do it in the proper way. this is not the proper way and this is not getting to our work at hand. That makes it even more ludicrous that you're just making us be >> stranglehold over this process. This can be rescended. It can be tabled. There are a lot of options and just that you are not considering it. >> It's just not good for our community at all. >> Member Anton. >> Oh. Um, >> you know, it's getting late and I lost my thoughts. So, come back to me maybe when I >> Okay. Do we have any other discussion on resending the November 20th >> Oh, I resolution. You do. >> So, >> again, the majority was you guys wanted to have this process. >> I getting >> so we are doing the process the way you wanted to do it on the timeline you wanted and now today you don't want to do it >> that's not true >> is not accurate >> that's not true >> oh well okay what is accurate >> that is not accurate and >> how is it not how is it not accurate >> was kind of wordsmith and had special business >> comes out with member Tyson this is not this is not constructive >> please remain constructive >> none of This is constructed. >> Yeah, it's you know when I was >> remember when the board chair was seated two years ago, he asked what do you guys use in during the board meetings as meeting rules or to run your meetings and you said Robert's rules of orders and so did multiple other people on the board at that time. I >> think everybody in the universe uses it, right? It's a guide. >> I know. But then so why is there so many constant accusations about something being snuck yes >> observations? >> Oh well that's a creative clipping of words. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yep. So we're not doing our work and our business that's on our agenda and our community is not happy. >> Thank you. >> That's not how boards operate. >> Okay. We have a motion on the table to resend the November 20th resolution. Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, since it's a motion to resend a resolution, I'm going to ask uh the clerk to please take the roll call. Is this member Tyson's >> This is member Tyson's motion to resend the November 20th resolution >> which um I guess the best way to um summarize that resolution would be that uh we would no longer have any um any finalists because this establishes the uh the finalist process. This establishes the timeline for the appointment and this also establishes the process that we used for applicant interviews which would be a mood point since that is >> a continuation >> is that uh >> is the motion that's on the table clear to everybody on what we are are voting on here. Okay. A motion in the affirmative is to um essentially remove this requirement. A motion in opposition is to proceed and to hopefully work on adopting a resolution this evening. >> All right, member clerk. >> Okay, member Corkran, >> yes. Member Antonson votes no. Member Tyson, >> yes. >> Member Christensen, >> yes. >> Member Castle, >> no. >> Member Ralign, >> no. >> All right, the motion fails. Um, we're back to item 7.1 and appointing an individual. >> So, I would offer maybe a point of refinement to what I offered before if I can. >> Sure. >> And that would be um trying to get some clarity around whether or not this resolution compels the board to a process, >> right, >> versus compels the board to an outcome. >> And I think Part of the challenge I feel the board is facing is it it clearly compels a process >> but does it have the authority if you will to compel an outcome? Um I think there's been due consideration of the process. I think it's been followed uh very well according to this resolution. But does it have the authority as a resolution to compel an outcome of the board and some legal opinion of that might be helpful for the board? >> I agree. >> Mhm. >> I agree. We need a lawyer. >> I think the uh the challenge there though is that the only way to get that opinion is to violate the resolution. >> Well, >> well, we made the resolution. >> Yeah, we can amend it. We need to change it or adopt it. our resolution. >> So we either accept to amend the resolution and do it uh in an alternative manner or we agree to carry out the resolution as agreed upon by the board. And as I mentioned earlier, my role as board chair in this process is just to make sure that we adhere to the rules, the law, and the resolution that was put before us >> and uh um recommend that we proceed. But we're the ones that made the rule, so we can amend the rule. >> We as a majority for us, >> we as a majority can amend it should we see fit. >> We should. >> And I feel like there's at least three of us here that are very happy with the the process that was agreed. >> Stay all night. Then >> member Christians, >> I'd like to go back to revisiting um >> Robert's rules of order a little bit. And I mean again the my understanding is the chair must maintain impartiality when presiding and may not use their position to influence the substance of the vote. And it just it feels to me like um you know what I started out this whole discussion about um you know the chair is required to maintain fairness, neutrality, proper procedures. Chair must avoid using their role to dominate or pressure the board. chair must preserve order and decorum and ensure fair and equal treatment of members. And I feel >> thank thank you for outlining my responsibilities here this evening in such a uh >> verbose manner. >> You've interrupted me again multiple times this evening. I was speaking >> um >> please get to your point. My point is I feel like um you are using your position. We we all are only one vote here and I feel like you are using your position to to try to to do these things to dominate or pressure the board say that you're going to keep us here all night long until we agree to your preferred candidate. We you know we have a preferred candidate too. If you guys want to end this, you can vote for our guy. So I feel like you're abusing um your position. Help me understand that. >> Yep. That's exactly >> I'm I'm abusing you. You're You're accusing me of abusing my position because I'm trying to keep us on task in accordance with the rules that we agreed to. >> And you just stated that >> um >> I am attempting to pressure you to vote for my person and then you completely >> flipped 180 degrees and said, "But you could fix this just by voting for my guy. >> We are all one vote." You are correct in that statement and you just did what you accused me of doing and I can assure you I am not doing that. I am simply trying to follow the process that we outlined in the rules. >> Well, member chair I I will say that you you have said things such as like um I will comment on such and such a motion. I totally disagree with that emotion or motion. I'm not going to do that. You know >> my prerogative as a board member >> and you're interrupting me again. Yes. >> Yeah. That's out of order, member chair. Okay, I would suggest you read the rules further and determine whether or not the chair is an active participant in the meeting or not. I think you will find that I have the active right to participate in the meeting. It is my right to express my opinion just as it is yours. >> Point of order. I think it would be disingenuous to anyone at the table to imply that member chair is the only one that's ever interrupted anybody at this table. >> Thank you, member Atinson. >> I'd like to make a motion to to redo our resolution. >> Second that. We have the power to redo our resolution. It's our resolution. We do. True. So, >> but the motion requires uh >> and then we'll need to vote >> an actual resolution. So, if you're going to make a motion to redo the resolution, please put forward your proposal >> to redo the resolution. >> So, to redo the resolution, we give oursel more time. We move it to the 1218 meeting. >> Member Tyson, you're misunderstanding the directive. I can't take a motion before the board unless the motion is declarative in what it is we're going to do. >> Yeah, we're going to rewrite >> redoing special >> the resolution is not a motion. It is a simply a wish list. You you need to state the motion reads this. I would like to amend it to read this. I'd like we need specifics in order to take a motion. >> So I'd like to amend our resolution. >> I understand that. and >> to move the date to 1218. >> We just considered that that business has been disposed of. >> We literally just did that with >> you have lot of inflexibility at the cost of everybody sitting here, >> the community that's live streaming, lots of inflexibility. And you know, whenever I bring up something I want to do, you're constantly correcting me, which I appreciate. >> I agree. >> This is a guide for us, the Robert's rules. >> Yes. >> So, I think we have lots of options. >> What would you like to do? Why don't you come up with an option that >> member Tyson, would you do me the favor of looking in the rule book as you proposed and finding the rule on how to handle a dilitary motion or a motion that's made repetitively? >> Well, >> do you know that rule off the top of your head? >> There is dilitary motion that thwarts >> and this motion work. >> Yes. A motion that repeats the exact motion that was just >> given is dilitarian nature. It is out of order >> and it is not something that the the board needs to take up. We literally just >> I get that. I get that. But that doesn't help us make a solution for tonight's event. and making the motion >> motion 39.1 a motion is dilitary if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly right here. >> Thank you member >> clearly indicated. >> Thank you member Tyson. And the will of the assembly as stated through the resolution is that the special order of business adopting a resolution naming one of the select finalists to fill a seat vacated by member Hagglin shall be scheduled to take place at the 20 December 4th, 2025 board meeting. >> Why don't you >> the special order business of adopting a resolution that is where we are. Any motion that counters that is dilitary in nature. And now that you point that out, I probably should have called any attempt to delay that as out of order since that is the will of this body. It was unanimously decided by this body that we will settle this business tonight. I am doing my best to preside over this as fairly as I possibly can. You could come up with >> but continuing personal attacks on me simply because I'm chairing the meeting is >> completely uncalled for. >> You're personally attacked. You're asked to come up with solutions >> and I've continually provided options and the board has been unwilling to discuss those options. I asked for names of individuals that we would like to discuss. You named an individual and then you immediately refused to discuss them. Two other board members refused to even address the question. I am doing everything I can to try to continue positive dialogue moving forward. >> Member Christensen. >> I wonder if we could have um Joy or someone do sort of a recap. Where are we at? How many times have we voted for each candidate? What what is the situation? How many votes have we taken? And I don't if that is helpful to kind of see where we're at, who's >> Mhm. >> And I'd like to >> I I I like that idea. Um >> that's good. >> I just want to come >> Joy. I know you have an extensive pile of notes. >> You've had five roll call votes so far. >> Do you have any idea? I remember we voted for Mr. Smith and we voted no. >> Um we had an amendment to try to amend Mr. Smith's um uh resolution to u Mrs. Durangu. We voted no on that one. And I also remember a vote for Mr. Doanzitski that uh failed 33 as well. Is my recollection correct or do we have other things in place there where we've uh attempted to appoint members? >> I would prefer individual. >> Could she read Could she read them? >> I would prefer that she read them. >> Sure. >> Kind of in order. >> Sure. and Scott and Laura. >> While she's doing that, >> could I ask a question or should we have to wait for Steve? >> Um, no. I I don't see any reason that you can't ask a question. Um, I'm getting a little brain fog. Um, so if I've asked it before, so if we cannot come to a conclusion, how long are we willing to sit here? Is there is there an end is there an end time? >> Does each board member want to opine on that themselves? >> I just was curious. >> You want to start an offer? >> I I don't know. What is it? 10:30. We are being asked. >> My phone just died. I don't have a watch. What time is it? >> It's 10:40. >> I mean, I don't know. I by I think we have to have an end time because I otherwise this >> I don't know. >> It's not productive at all. >> Spinning our wheels. >> I'm willing to sit here as long as it takes to to reach a resolution myself. >> Well, I don't think we're going to get one. So, unless you can I just wish we could come up with some creative way to to get there. And I don't I don't know what that is. and I'm usually full of options in my world, >> so I don't have any. And that's pretty upsetting to me. >> The uh I I think breaking quorum. I member Tyson, do you have something to add to that? >> I'm going to have to we're going to have to leave. >> Well, I think that member chair, you could come up with some options. You're kind of in charge. You're kind of facilitating the work. I think you could come up with some options besides trying to force discussion. >> Sure. >> Which we've already had plenty of. >> I've said everything I'm going to say about everybody and we've put our vote for forward. You've put your vote forward. So, >> you could come up with some creative solution. >> That would be great. >> Or idea. >> I offered to resend the >> I I I have an I have an idea I'll propose here as soon as Joyy's still working through the notes here. I want to Well, actually, let me ask. Is the board still interested in Joyy's summary? >> Yes, I am. >> A little bit. >> Okay, then then we'll we'll wait for that. >> It's going to be a few. I mean, I've got 15 pages. >> Oh my god. >> Her through that. >> How about the last >> Okay. Um maybe I'll make my proposal and this will give Joy a little bit of time here because what I'm thinking is uh when we started this appointment process >> we worked in committees and we had um uh the two committees myself uh member antinson member Castle and then member Corkran member Christensen and member Tyson. Does the board feel that it would be productive to break back into those two committees to discuss this not privately? It would be an open um one of us would have to meet in the boardroom. I would suggest you you three meet in the boardroom again. We go meet in the conference room >> to brainstorm to see do we can we come up with any ideas because I I really want to work past this. That that's the first idea that I have in mind. >> Wow. And if we can do that for >> even 15 or 20 minutes, >> maybe we can make some constructive headway and then we'll give Joy some some time to >> to get the answers to your previous inquiry. >> I'm not interested in that, Mr. >> No, me either. >> Okay. >> No. >> No. >> But thank you, but no. >> Um >> would would >> let me let me throw out a um another suggestion in the same vein. Would the board find value into breaking into three committees? >> Um, myself and member Corkran, >> member Christensen and member Antonson and member Castle and member Tyson to see if some common ground can be found by any of those two groups. >> No, not interested. >> No. Okay. >> But yeah, >> does anybody have any other suggestions? >> Well, I suggest we adjourn. I mean, I just I we're an impass and I don't see any way unless we had a whole different candidate pool maybe, but right now >> Well, I feel really bad for my community that I represent and I would love to move it to the end >> and do our business. >> That is our priority is what's on our agenda and what our business is tonight. >> So, I feel like I'm being held over a barrel not being able to do what I'm >> I'm here to do. We addressed that motion earlier this evening too which would make it dilatory. >> You want um but I would like to ask the clerk to read the resolution again for us >> from November. >> Are you talking to me? I know if you were pointing at her >> you the clerk if you could read the resolution again in >> the entire thing. I mean, it's on the it's in, you know, our in the minutes. >> I think to read it because I feel like our public community was not aware of this and they don't know what this resolution is that we're going round and round for hours on end. So, >> if you could read it, it would help. >> Does it start at therefore be it resolved? >> Member share. >> What's that? >> Does it this resolution start right here at the there down here? starts at the whereases I'm doing all the way through. >> Okay, sorry everybody. Um whereas the board previously established that applications to fill the vacancy would be accepted and that committees would select individuals finalists to join the highest unelected vote getter in the 2024 election candidate. And whereas after reviewing the applicants, Mrs. Laura Durago has been identified as the highest unelected vote getter in the 2024 election among the applicants. And whereas the board previously established that the committees shall meet on December 1st at 5:00 p.m. at the Forest Lake Area Schools District Office to determine their finalists. Therefore, be it resolved by the school board of Forest Lake Area Schools ISD 831 as follows. Mrs. Laura Drago is named as the preferred finalist as the highest unelected vote getter in the 2024 election. Two, the school board is establishing two committees to meet to each select up to two finalists in addition to Mrs. Dragu. Three, the first committee shall consist of members Corkran, Tyson, and Christensen. in the second committee. >> What? >> It's got the wrong verbage in there with the highest vote or would the >> Well, I know, but I think this was written and then later on in the meeting isn't a minute has a verbage. >> It's the >> Oh, it does. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> This is the one. >> It should be in your packet this evening. >> This is the one I printed off the minutes at home. I >> This has been identified as the highest unelected >> getter. And you said the highest you said the preferred. >> Oh, I know. But that's because that changed at the end of the meet, but this is what I printed. >> The resolution you guys approved. >> All right. Well, so this is the one I printed off today at 2:30 something. >> So, oh, it actually packet then. >> It does say number one out of the >> out of the board packet. It does say therefore be it resolved number one. Mrs. Laura Ganga is named as the preferred finalist as the highest unelected vote getter in the 2024 election. >> That isn't the one we approve. Yeah, it is. >> Oh, number one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. Yep. That that was I believe I believe that was accurate. Yeah. So, you may continue from where you are. >> Okay. >> You were at the first number three. >> First committee sh Yeah, you were at number three. >> I'm at number three. Okay. The first committee shall consist of members Corkran, Tyson, and Christensen. The second committee shall consist of members Rebeline, Anton, and Castle. Four, the committees will meet on December 3rd, 2025 at 5:00 PM at the Forest Lake Area School District's office to interview all applicants using a schedule determined by administration. Five, immediately following the committee meetings, the full board will meet, and each committee shall provide the name of up to two selected finalists to the full board. Six, all portions of the December 3rd, 2025 meeting consisting of the full board shall be recorded and streamed online. Seven, applicant interviews will be limited to 20 minutes each. Each board member will be given three minutes to ask up to three questions. The first of which must originate from the list provided by member Tyson and reflect the question assigned tonight. Eight. The special order of business of adopting a resolution naming one of the selected finalists to fill the seat vacated by former member Hagglund shall be scheduled to take place at the December 4th, 2025 board meeting. The motion for adoption of the resolution was b made by member Rebeline duly seconded by member Anton. The vote on adoption of the resolution was as follows. I members Christensen, Rebeline, Tyson, Castle, Corkran and Tonsen. Nay none absent? None. where whereupon said resolution was declared dually adopted by independent school district number 831 Forest Lake Area School State of Minnesota this 20th day of November 2025. >> Thank you member. >> So can I clarify one thing? Did you can you read who made the motion and who seconded it again? >> It was me said Julie. >> No douly dy. >> Okay. >> Not me. >> Can you just read that part again? The motion for adoption of the resolution was made by member Rebeline, duly seconded by member Anton. Can I make a motion? >> Are we in the middle of something? >> Yeah, you have a suggestion. >> Well, we're still waiting on Joy or 15 pages of notes. I have >> If you're ready for it, that would be awesome. you just want on the the candidates that were called to vote on >> um was that the inquiry member Tyson? >> Yeah, it was >> that was. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so member member Christensen called seconded by Tyson to nominate Jim Smith. Failed. Um and then >> do you have what time that was at? Um I don't have the exact time but there was 100 people watching at that point. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It's early. >> Um the member raw line moved seconded by Castle to amend the appointment for Jim Smith and change it to appointing Lord Dango instead. >> And that failed. >> I don't know what to do. and vote and then vote was called to appoint Jim Smith. Roll call. Motion failed and then motion to move 7.1 to the bottom of the business become 10.3 >> and that failed as well, right? >> That failed due to >> Oh, that was a lack of a second. Or was that a three- three as well? >> It was a Yeah, majority. >> Okay. >> Um um nominee Scott Christensen called second by Tyson. Nominate Scott. Um >> member Christensen >> and member Tyson made the motion to >> appoint member Dozinski. >> Yes. >> Okay. and move to close discussion. And >> this was a um stalemate vote. >> Mhm. >> That bill 33 as well. >> Yeah, >> I think that was it. And then actually and then it was called on the vote for um member Doinsk's appointment roll call. That actually passed >> as a two to four and then a motion to reconsider was made. >> Oh, it failed two to four. >> Yes. Yes. >> It failed the two to four. A motion to reconsider. >> Okay. the the appointment for Mr. Dobinski failed two to four. Okay. >> And then there was a motion to reconsider. Did I capture that correctly? Okay. Thank you. >> And then we adjourned until at 9:10. So that was probably approximately at 8:50. >> Okay. >> 8:55. >> Um >> and then the motion, just for clarification, the motion to reconsider was immediately emotionally failed and that failed. >> Okay. Um and then it was inviting them back and then inviting them back impass. >> Okay. >> Um Taylor got in order and then resend the 1120 resolution that she failed. Um amen the resolution and they were told it's not a motion in the other order. That's where we are now. Thank you very much, Joy. And on behalf of the entire board, I think this is one thing we can all agree on this evening. Joy is doing fab is that you are doing an excellent job this evening. We appreciate everything that you're doing. >> Positive light in the end of the tunnel. >> And uh >> um I hope we have a consensus on that. >> I really do. >> Um >> so can I >> So yes, >> make a motion. I like to um I think you know like I say I were an impass which I've said probably 50 times but um 51 um that I would love to see um send this back to Dr. Terrence Morrow to look at the full picture again and to have because I he didn't have the whole picture in his assessment when he sent us this. I'd like to have him revi re revisit it and get some more direction from him and how we can handle this because this is going to be a problem for a while. So, if we can come to some get a little more clarity and a little more help with it, I think it would be beneficial for all of us. >> All right. >> I mean, that's my motion would be if if we could do that. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. If I'm understanding it correctly, we would postpone action on this until it's such a point in time where >> get some get some >> Mr. Marorrow is able to provide us with um some input on how to proceed >> because we're we're stuck and um like I say, unless we came up with a whole new list of candidates and maybe more interviews, I I have a feeling we're going to be stuck for a while >> being realistic. All right. So, >> is there any additional discussion on that motion? >> I think that's a really good idea. I think that's going to make me feel more comfortable about what we're doing and not doing our business and what I'm hearing. Um, I think it's just a really good idea. It gives credibility to this process of what we're doing. Um, just sitting here in this unpredict productive limbo, I just don't feel like it's helping. >> Certainly. >> And >> I think we're making more and more people upset about it the longer this goes. I really do. And I think it's damaging to our work and why we're here. So, I think it would be a good >> motion to consider. I really do. I can also say that I think it's damaging our relationship on this board at this point. I mean, we always we had some struggles, but we've been kind of working pretty well on a lot of things and this is I think damaging to our relationships and if we want to move forward and be a more cohesive board. I think we we need to listen and at least look at options at this point. So, it's always trying to find the positive and things, but um yeah, I don't know. >> There any additional discussion? >> You know, we're keeping staff up. >> Our teachers here, our superintendent's here. >> I know it's not fair. >> Joy is here. She's probably been here. I mean, it's kind of cruel. I feel really sad and horrible right now that we're doing this. >> I agree. >> I think our police officer is still here. I mean, how much do we pay them an hour? That's standing. released him. Oh, good. That's good. Thank goodness. >> But we have had such a great crowd this evening. I didn't I see any reason that the law enforcement needed to remain here? >> Yeah. >> Good staff. >> So anyway, does anybody feel the way I do? >> I do. >> Mhm. >> Any other discussion on this motion? If it's all right, I'd like to comment as an individual board member, not as chair. Um, I don't support this because I think we're just kicking the can. >> I think we're going to be in the exact same position in two weeks if we do this >> and we're going to have the exact same problem and we're not going to get the the job done >> and that's my concern. >> We're not going to get it done. >> If there's no other discussion on the motion, >> all those in favor signify by saying I. I I >> those opposed. >> No. >> Okay. The motion fails the 3 to one. >> No one said anything. >> All right. >> Now, we're kind of back to where we started. I I guess I I >> I feel compelled to suggest some sort of a committee breakout. I I I I want to >> How How do we How do we get discussion movement? >> No, we can't. >> I'm done. I'm done. I'm done done. >> I I agree. >> I I don't think it's in order to take comments from the uh >> from from the commute. No, I'm sorry. >> It's it's unfortunately it's a board meeting. We we need to discuss matters here. Um, unless of course we we want to take another brief recess and maybe they maybe the audience has some really good ideas >> on how to proceed and and they can help us. >> No, >> there's nothing they can say. >> We've we've been here an hour again. I think it's always good to get up and move. So, unless there's an objection, I would propose a 10-minute. >> I object to a recess. There's no point in it. I mean, >> take a roll call for a recess. Seeing that there's an objection to the recess, uh, do I have a second? Motion recess. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the recess? >> No, I'll just not sit over. >> I honestly don't know if a recess will be productive, but I feel like we're at a point now where we're essentially just going to be sitting at the table, not even having any discussion. I think it's important that we continue the dialogue and find a way forward rather than simply sit at the table. this isn't the kind of fishbowl that people want to view. So, my hope in a recess of some sort is that uh maybe we can have some discussion with the audience members here tonight and maybe they have some ideas that we haven't uh discussed or addressed that we can bring back to the board or maybe we can have some discussions internally and see is there um another possibility that we could explore. >> Well, we've been discussing for four and a half hours so you should be realistic. Mhm. >> Is there any other discussion on the motion to recess? >> We do not need another recess. >> No. >> All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed? >> No. No. >> All right. Motion to recess fails. We are back here. >> I'm I'm done. >> Member Anton. I would like to just ask maybe member Christensen, member Corkran, and member Tyson, what was the point of doing all of that if we're not going to take care of it? This is business. This is part of what we're supposed to do. >> We are supposed to be a seven member board, >> but you have to agree upon a candidate and cannot agree. So that is the problem at hand unless we get a whole new pool of candidates >> and somebody new that we can agree on because we're never going to agree. I mean we have to after four and a half hours clearly we're not going to agree. We could sit here for 20 hours and and I think part of the not agreeing right now is that the three of you are not honoring whether or not you agree or some of the people in the gallery agree. I think you are not honoring the people in this district. >> I agree as a tool. >> I've been trying. >> I mean, you can say, >> you know, member Tyson over there was saying her people in the community are not happy. Like she has a sect of people. I don't, you know, I'm saying as a whole. >> But you're representing the people that voted for you, right? >> I I don't call them my people. >> No, but it's your your constituents. Let's try to let's try to >> That's why I say we're doing more damage than we're >> Let's let's try not to get personal. I I know it's really hard. >> True. >> But uh let's let's try to refrain from that. >> I feel like it's not a productive meeting. >> No. >> And >> no, I'm it just is time to be done. If we're not going to do our business like we're elected to do and we're a six member highly functioning seated board, >> I would I would challenge the uh highly functioning portion of your comments. >> Tonight it's not >> I guess bills won't get paid and people will get mad. So, we'll know. Our community wants this process done right and this has gone wrong. >> Member Castle. >> So in our resolution as therefore it be resolved and number one Mrs. Laura Durago is named as the preferred >> finalist. >> We're not voting for her. >> I believe we should settle on her because she's preferred and the voters speak. >> The voters spoke. >> We have not considered a motion on a resolution for Mrs. Danga. Is that something that we should consider? >> I'd make a motion to consider Mrs. Duru >> to make >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to appoint Mrs. Laura Duranga. >> Is there any discussion on the motion? >> I've already said my piece and my discussion on that. It's in the minutes. >> Okay. Any other discussion on the the motion to appoint Mrs. Danga? >> Member Cask. >> I just want to point out that she is the preferred candidate, the preferred finalist that we all voted on. >> And the voters voted and she is the next one in line from the previous election. And that would make the most sense to the the community. That's the community speaking. And if we are going to honor the community, >> then we would put Mrs. Durago in. >> Honor the community. >> Yes. >> The voters. Yes. >> Wow. >> Member Tyson. >> A lot has changed. >> It's true. >> Yep. That's a dangerous thing to say. >> Why is that dangerous? Why is that a dangerous thing to say? >> No, it is. >> Well, if you're going to claim that it's her behavior is not acceptable. >> What was her What? >> Oh, you know >> I was there. >> Yeah, you were there. >> Mhm. >> I was not there. Member Tyson, can you please fill me in? >> No, it's in the minutes. >> How did it get in the minutes? I don't remember you saying it. Oh, well then you should ridiculous. >> Ask Joy. >> What What is the the objection to Laura Durangu that nullifies 8,76 votes? >> That's >> why would we not honor the commitment to the community? >> You calling the vote, Julie? >> Yeah, I'm calling the vote. Second motion and a second to call the vote. >> All those in favor of calling the vote signify by saying I. >> I opposed. No. Okay, that motion fails. Um, any additional discussion? >> Of your plan. Just keep going. >> Our plan was to get somebody >> No, you're >> My plan was to get somebody appointed. >> You're fulfilling your plan. >> Okay. Again, please >> with the the personal attacks, they're not productive in any way, shape, or form. We have a motion on the table to appoint Mrs. Laura Durangu. Is there any additional discussion on that? All right, seeing none, member clerk, please take the roll call. >> Can you please, it's getting late. Can you please repeat exactly what we're voting for, please? >> The motion is to appoint Mrs. Durangu by resolution. >> Is that understood? >> An affirmative is to select her a negative. A negative would be to pass on Mrs. Dango. Yes. Okay. All right. Are we ready? Member Corkran? >> No. >> Member Christensen? >> No. >> Member Castle? >> Yes. >> Member Antonson votes I. Member Rebeline. >> I. >> Member Tyson. >> No. >> Okay. Resolution fails. >> We're right back to where we started. >> Recess. I can force a recess if uh we we deem it uh that we're at a point where we're just not making any progress. >> We should just all be done. >> Are we making progress as a board? >> No. >> Is this being constructive? >> No. >> In that case, um we will recess until 11:20. >> It's hard to make process when people minutes. >> Okay. Member Antonson is here. Member Castle >> here. >> Member Christensen >> here. >> Excuse me. Member Rebeline >> here. >> Member Corkran >> here. >> And member Tyson >> here. >> Everybody's here. >> They all here. >> Oh, I hope that recess was a good reset for everybody. we were able to get some cookies and drink and recover some energy. Um, I also hope it brought some clarity of thought to the board members and perhaps some new ideas on how to move forward, how to open dialogue, and how to discuss options on how we can get this business done this evening. >> I think everybody here has a great interest in moving forward and getting our work done tonight. Um, and I I bring that up because I think uh that's something that all six of us at the board table and um most definitely Dr. Massie um who's exopic in us in this capacity, I'm I'm sure we all want to move forward and I think if we can start from that common ground, maybe we can uh maybe we can find a way to move forward. um earlier in the the evening uh prior to recess here, I I'd suggested maybe breaking into some subcommittees to talk about how to um how to proceed on the candidates, but maybe the discussion we need to have is breaking into sub subcommittees to determine maybe how to proceed. Um I agree with member Corkin and we were talking during the recess about how the back and forth um directly amongst board members. It's it's not productive. It's not constructive to building a team. And I think every one of us here tonight, although we have a difference of opinion, we do want to build a strong team and be a quality representative board for the district and for the community. So, I don't know that if it it really benefits us in any way um to personally attack one another here at the board table. We have very strong views on how we want to move forward uh with the applicants. We have two qualified applicants before us that we seem to have um at least some partial uh board support for. I've tried extremely hard this evening to keep the dialogue positive. Um, one thing that we haven't addressed and I even hesitate to go there is addressing the why not. Um, I know there's been some discussion on that on both Mr. Smith and Mr. Mr. Kenzinski tonight. We haven't really really gotten too deep on that issue and I I to be honest I'd really like to avoid that because I don't think that you build a strong team by focusing on the negative aspects of somebody that you don't want. I think you build a strong team by focusing on the very strong positive attributes that you can bring to the team. And I look at the board appointment uh very similar to my day job when I'm hiring is who do I want to bring to the team? Who can bring value to team? Who can bring diversity of thought to the team? Who can bring um some maybe some of those critical pieces that we're missing. And I think there's an easy argument for both of these candidates um from that positive angle. And I'd really like to to stick with that. and we just have a difference of opinion on what we we need or what we feel that this board needs to bring more strength to the representatives of our community on this board here for the next year. Um, as member Corker mentioned a couple of times, so I feel like it was days ago at this point, but uh >> we are talking about a one-year appointment. Um, this individual will be up for reelection in 11 months. that campaign will start in approximately eight months. Um, so we're not talking about a great deal of time here, but I think we also need to be respectful of the community and um assembling a board that they did elect and that they they uh they expect us to to come out the other side with. It's always hard when you have an elected official resign on filling that vacancy because there's always going to be a little bit of political upheaval. But I would like to think that there's enough uh a mature I don't want to say enough maturity in the appointment process that you'd be respectful of the community's wishes and bring somebody forward that uh >> that would not be my >> that would be um an accurate representative of >> of the community. Um I I feel like I'm I'm rambling on here, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the bottom line is I'd like to find a way a constructive manner to move forward. We've discussed every alternative of postponement and tableabling and um I think what the the board as a collective >> consultation >> what what the board as a collective has decided on that option is that uh we are not interested in it and that uh we will have invested these last several hours for moot if we go ahead and do that because we will be in the exact same position again. Um, another thing that member Corkran and I discussed in the in the brief recess, we we actually covered a lot of ground there in the few minutes, but uh the possibility of taking additional applicants, uh, that does exist, but, uh, uh, it's very possible we'll end up right back in the same spot. We had a strong interest for this role and we have extremely strong candidates. And I will even admit that uh, although Mr. Smith is not a candidate that I I currently get behind. He has a lot of positive qualities that he could bring to the school district. And I would like to think that uh the three members who are opposed to Mr. Tolenzinski see a lot of positive attributes that he would bring to the board as well. And I hope it's not a stretch to make that uh um assumption of the other board members. So, at this point, uh, I would love to to spot stop speaking into the the abyss and instead maybe take some recommendations from other board members on possible ways that we can open up the dialogue again. And if that's breaking into subcommittees like I proposed before, maybe that is. if that is uh um having some some talk about the specific candidates that we favor. Um I'm open to that as well. Um my my goal here is just to continue to facilitate this discussion in accordance with the rules that we agreed on and I would very much like to end the debate on that. I think that is settled business this evening and figure out a way that we can move forward because we are getting to the point where it is getting late. Um I do have a very strong interest in approving the consent agenda. I would like to um accept the financial audit and certify the property taxes payable. Those are critical things that we get done for our uh um the district and and the community here tonight. There is other business on here that I do think is worthy of being postponed. Um but I would like to settle 7.1 first. with that great rambling. Does Does anybody have anything to contribute? >> It's all in the minutes. >> Okay. If if nothing if nobody has anything to contribute, then um I guess we sit in silence until somebody does. This is a controlling behavior and it's illegal. I feel like I'm getting abused right now being in this meeting. It's just scary. >> Well, Mr. Dozenski definitely has the leadership skills and the ability to work with all kinds of different people. There's no doubt about that. >> I I would agree with that and I would also uh I I would I would also add that uh Mr. Goinski is I I know some people look at it and say military training isn't beneficial, but uh military training and leadership is second to none. There's a reason we have the best military in the world. And uh I think if anything that has come to light this evening as a board of um six members, I know member Tyson keeps saying that we're a highly functioning board, but the fact of the matter is that we're still sitting here at 11:30 and we got started at 6 pm >> and we have yet to make a single decision. >> We've made lots of decisions. >> I would challenge uh the fact that we're highly functioning and I would state that the leadership qualities that um an individual like Mr. Dobenzinski or Mr. Dozenski in particular would be a massive asset to this board and would help us uh work through this process. And uh at this point I really wish that we had some way of attaining counsel of somebody who's that accomplished that is sitting at the board table. And I I think it would be a great benefit to the district to uh seat him in the the vacant chair right over there. And Joy just read us all our decisions. So that's a very unfair, inaccurate statement we've made. >> We collectively have not made a decision this evening. >> Well, we don't have to. That's why. >> So >> we do not have to. It isn't stated in statute. There's there's timeline. That's in the minutes, too. So, >> I would ask that members Corkran, Christensen, and Tyson consider, and maybe I've already said this, maybe this will be a little bit of a different way like I said earlier, just because of the order in which people were elected. I thought before this we should just appoint Mrs. Durago. I understand that a lot of people in this room specifically have problems with that. Like I said, I haven't received one email from somebody that voted from her in our community that said, "Hey, I wouldn't vote for her again." Just so you know, haven't received one like that. So, I would like you to consider whose spot is empty right now. That has no that has >> Why does that not help? >> There's no point on and when someone resigns you don't it it's not a criteria to find someone that >> I am not saying it's a criteria and now I'm being interrupted so just keep that in mind. Sorry. Um, and so I'm just pointing it out because, you know, people like to every once in whatever. Just >> I'm just asking. He was elected though, right? The whole >> He was the highest vote getter in his election too. Mr. Hagglland was, >> right? I know Mr. Hagland was. I'm I'm Yes. Thank you. But all I'm saying is that this gentleman, Mr. Dozenski I think is perhaps one of the least polarizing people that we could put in there. >> I don't know him at all. >> I don't know. I mean, I know him from the interview and a phone conversation just like you do, Mrs. or member Tyson. >> Yeah, me too. I don't know him well enough. I didn't know any of you before I got on the board. >> So, what difference does that make if you don't know? >> 12 things we didn't do tonight. >> Well, I've been trying to come up with some ideas all night. So, I've said a lot and I >> I I I'm tired and I don't have much else to say. >> Short of going through some sort of a team building exercise where we talk about what we appreciate about one another. I'm not sure how to proceed here other than uh or suggesting that we break into subcommittees and maybe uh >> Dr. Massie works with both subcommittees to help us reach a consensus. But uh >> I just I I don't I see three board members here this evening that are willing to have discussion. I see three that have just locked up and it's >> we've had six hours of discussion. >> You need to be realistic for chair. >> Four hours of talk. So, I'm gonna I'll just throw this out for the group. >> Yeah. >> Um I I don't see my role to be referee. Um but I would just and it's getting late and I know people are tired. >> Yeah. >> But I think it's really important that we find the resolve to not talk over each other. >> I know. >> Um not make side comments. Um, and I've offered my suggestion to the board of how uh you might proceed. So I I continue to reiterate maybe some benefit to some time in between. That's the best I can offer to the board. I I understand the impass um and what my role is in the process, but I would suggest that there could be some benefit to some further interpretation on the resolution. And perhaps more importantly in the recess, >> an opportunity to rather than bringing folks back in for additional interview, use the two weeks to have a sit down with the candidates one-on-one and ask them the questions that you need to ask. Uh that that might bring a different perspective in two weeks. Yeah, it's a good idea. >> I I don't hate the ADA. I just have great deal of concern for what that does for the the appointed members eligibility. It pushes it out into essentially February. >> It is >> because uh the board meetings that we have scheduled in January are the 8th and the 15th. >> Unless I have the calendar wrong here. >> Well, what? >> Yeah, I have the eth and the eth and the 15th on the calendar. And if we wait until the 18th to do the appointment, they wouldn't become eligible until the 17th, >> which means their first board meeting would be uh >> February 5th. >> And we're going to sit here when it comes to elect officers in January 8th and we're going to have a six-hour meeting of trying to appoint the chair. >> Yes. >> And uh >> I don't think that's beneficial either. Yeah. >> The the procedure just to address that question, we have a chair. >> A 33 doesn't replace the chair. >> Well, >> um it's not ideal to push the timeline. I would agree, >> but other than this, >> but if if you're at an impass, >> it's not the end of the world, >> perhaps not ideal. >> Again, I respect the >> Yeah. the fact that this is a board process and a board determination and I if you can would just be open to my suggestion. I know I'm not a decision maker here, but I put that out there as a suggestion. >> I like that idea. I think we've heard from uh member Tyson's objection to member Domenzinski quite a bit this evening. She's been real concerned about his lack of experience within the education system. I don't believe that member Christensen has spoken to her objection about member Dubazinski at all this evening. Um would you care to elaborate on your objection? Um, I'm not really interested in talking in the negative. I'd rather just talk about positive qualities of Jim Smith. I'm not gonna >> Okay. I I agree. I'm just trying to find a a mutual understanding and see if maybe uh um we can help satisfy some of the the concerns that you might have with me based on our perspective. But it's really difficult to do that when we don't understand the objection. >> I have mentioned things earlier in the meeting. I mean, it's getting late. We're just reiterating things. We're just saying the same stuff we've already said. I I said things. You can look in the minutes. I'm not interested in um rehashing >> any of that. I don't think it's um I don't think it's professional at the board table. We're sitting here talking about people in the negative. They're not even here. I mean, I you know, I met him for 20 minutes in the interview. I spoke to him once on the phone. I I I I'm not I'm not going to sit here and Okay. >> judge the man. I don't know him. >> So, would it would it be fair to say that you're not necessarily opposed to Mr. >> Oh, I'm opposed. I'm opposed. I'm just not interested. >> You are a much larger fan of Mr. Smith. >> Uh I would say that I am opposed to Mr. Doazinski. I think I've said that before for reasons which will remain with myself and I did say some things which Joy would have in the minutes and yes I am for >> Mr. Smith. I don't feel like there's any benefit at all to getting into on into that. I don't >> I guess I would have the same question for member Corkran. >> Yeah, I'm kind of tired. Um I same reasons. I mean, I think Jim is just such a superb, amazing candidate that it's just it's hard to weigh the two in my mind of the right fit for our board. And not say anything negative about Scott. I just think Jim's so this experience and I just feel like it's so this and this that I I have a really hard time going here when I could go here. >> So, just not saying negative things. Would it be a fair assertion that there's a political motivation behind throwing your support behind Mr. Smith >> versus No, >> Mr. Dozinski? >> No. Truly, I I I mean, I was he was on our team, but I I don't know Jim that well. Seriously, I didn't spend a lot of time one-on-one talking to him, but I just his beliefs and his his experience is just to me is just such a great it'd be such an asset for our board. That's really truly my motivation. >> Thank you, Member Corker. Member Tyson, would you address that question that I asked? >> Well, like I said, my comments are in the minutes ago, but I feel the same way. Jim Smith, I've been on committee with him. He adds valuable um perspectives. Um the group that's in there, the other community members really look at him for questions as well because he's got experience that's very valuable in education, especially with curriculum, um data testing. I like the PLC's. I've said that before. He's worked with the teacher groups, so >> that's very valuable as well. And um concurring with member Corkran, it's like he's just up up here and it's nothing personal with Mr. Dobazinski, but it's just a preference. >> Okay. Thank Thank you. Um member Christensen, would you care to address the question I asked? >> Um no, not really because I I feel like you're putting words in our mouth while you're trying to ask member Corkin if we're politically motivated. I'm I'm just just asking a direct question. If you want me to explain the motivation behind it, I'm happy to. >> Well, I feel like member chair that I could ask the question back to you >> and it would be a fair question to ask. Um, so let me let me be fully transparent. I'll throw the motivation for my question out there. Um there is a perception in the community that the um resignation of member Hegeland was an opportunity to turn the board back into a um Democrat supported board >> I um or a teachers union majority board >> rather than the community's concern conservatively elected board. Um, and I I don't think that uh pretending that that isn't out there >> um really helps us move forward. And the accusation that's that's out there is this this is either the minorities opportunity to flip the board back into a board that is more like the board that I was first elected to in 2022 that had a very liberal left-leaning tendency especially on political issues or to keep the board split to force us from continuing to make progress that's been beneficial to the district such as increased enrollment and um the the general fund recovery. So >> that is stuff we've worked on because we've been here a long time >> and and that's that's that's part of my question because >> that's part of part of my question because what I I think the community fails to recognize is that the seven of us including member Hegland we did that as a team. We did that together. We've made this progress as a unit and our community has been behind us. There has been a small group of very vocal people that have literally made threats of violence against certain board members because they saw a political shift, >> but the fact of the matter has been our community has been behind us as a board. And um >> I feel like there we're in a position where the the minority sees an opportunity to take control prior to the election and they're trying to capitalize on that on on that. And uh maybe that's being too honest in my seat, but uh the fact of the matter is we have been here since 6 PM. It is all almost midnight now and one member won't even share with us why she opposes a retired colonel in the army who has qualifications beyond any of us sitting at this board. And I can't help but question what the motivation behind this is. And knowing as well funded and well supported as Mr. Smith was by the teachers union. I can't help if you guys uh can't help but question whether or not the three individuals that are sitting at this table that receive the same financial benefit from the teachers union >> are being driven not by what is right for >> that is out of order. I mean are you kidding me? You're just sitting here saying I'm answering your question. You're just sitting, you were just sitting here saying, "Oh, kumbaya, we should get along. Let's take a recess. Share a cookie." And now, I mean, >> you asked me the question, I answered it. I It's not my fault that you don't like the answer. >> I'm sure there's members of the audience that don't like my answer, >> but the fact of the matter is that certain board members have been attacked by these groups. >> We've been falsely accused of individuals of behavior that we did not conduct. We have um received threats of violence against us. >> I have too and I've shared that with you. >> Yep. I have certainly had my fair share. >> Did you speak with the sheriff in Illinois where I was when I received the majority of my threats? No, you did not. So, enough. >> There was no sheriff. It was >> the point of the the point of the matter is you asked me a qu you asked me a question, member Christensen. I answered it. I am sorry if you do not like my answer, but I feel as if this is an attempt of a political takeover. >> So, in all honesty, can you say you didn't take any GOP money? >> I was out there. I saw flyers, printed, fancy flyers everywhere. >> I absolutely can. You've seen my financial disclosures. I believe I took one donation that was in the amount of $100 and I only took that because the individual was not willing to accept no for an answer. Beyond signs >> beyond that donation, I self-funded my entire campaign. >> Yeah. And I have too >> and I have spoken at length about avoiding conflicts of interest and I have believed in that from the very beginning. So when I see three members and that's why I asked point blank, I think that's part of trusting the people that you work with is that you're willing to ask them hard questions. And I asked the applicants hard questions as well. And I did I did have a question I did have a question for Mr. Smith about taking significant or accepting significant support from the union and whether or not he felt that was a conflict of interest. I did not have an opportunity to ask that question. So um yeah I I it's only fair um I've disclosed the fact I did not take any I did not take any money from the the GOP. I did not take any money from the DFL. I have never been an endorsed Republican or an endorsed Democrat unlike former board chairs that were all endorsed Democrats for certain seats. >> Point of order, we're really straying from the >> Again, I'm answering the question, but there you go. You can go back and you can review my financial disclosures. I did not take any money to um put myself in a position where I felt beholden to any group. >> So, what about the other members? >> Member uh Antonson, do do you want to address that question? It's fair if you don't. What is the I mean is the did I >> look the question is did you take money from any unions or any >> no unions >> any support group >> I can't remember exactly what the name is I mean you can look at it's on the school website all of our financial >> I've done it for 15 years I know right where everything is >> yeah exactly you have 50 what okay >> so I just thought since he was sharing >> you guys might want to as Mark >> did you >> Mark's I mean ours would be similar I well maybe >> I got the um the parents association I think if I remember correctly u $100 I think they gave >> I don't remember that >> um I was endorsed by >> the minister >> um I think Senate District 33. >> Yes. >> Um but I didn't get any money from them. I got money from individuals. >> Um and the >> Chicago County >> Chicago the district >> I just can't remember the name. >> Anyway, >> yeah. >> District 8 supported me. I don't think I need money from them. Member Tyson, did you want to address your own question and disclose your donors? >> No, I don't. But you can go look them up. >> Yeah. >> And you know, four elections I have several >> for a lot of it by myself. So I don't want to argue about that. >> Several building unions and several teachers union and yeah >> I am here for the education of our students. >> Then let's get this work done tonight and find a way to appoint a board member. No, not after that. I feel like you accused me wrongly now. I don't I don't understand where you're going with this. >> We're not staying on task for sure. >> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I' i've taken the slings and arrows all night. So, >> all days >> that happens when the sun comes up. 10 minutes. >> I believe the voter should have their say. >> That's gone. We have 12 months in between now and then. >> We have an obligation by law to appoint board member and I'm just going to point out it's not appropriate for the audience to be convicted. >> Council member chair, you said that we all we want the majority. I'm happy I'm okay with 33. I mean, I don't feel like we have to have a majority. I don't feel like >> that's my motivation for getting someone on the board. >> I I would agree >> to get my majority. It's not my motivation. >> I would agree with staying 33 with the exception of that any vacancy of the board must be filled by board. >> And we're trying to legal obligation. >> I know. But if we can't agree, how do we fulfill the legal obligation? >> Every voter in our district has legal standing >> and we have already been threatened with the lawsuit >> about this appointment. I don't I don't know what that's about. >> I've never heard anything about that. >> We We received the threat of a lawsuit. >> There's no timeline >> on this appointment already >> for for who? Who's who's upset? >> Education Minnesota. I I received an email. >> It just says you must fill it. I'm sure it doesn't say we're >> I received an email from a news outlet about >> I didn't hear anything in October. >> And if we're actively trying to fill it, I don't see how they we can be sued. We are not actively trying to fill it, >> but we are we're having discussions >> that have been tried. The attempts have been to postpone, delay, and def. >> Yeah, but we're still here, aren't we? So, isn't I mean, we're sitting here. >> So, to me, that's something. >> I don't know. >> Was the lawsuit though against voting on his own replacement? Um, that was part of the accusation that was being made. However, member Hagglin did have not have any intent on voting on his replacement. >> I don't know about that. That have been four. >> I think I think that's why you wanted to on that evening. >> I spoke to member Hagglund about it at length >> and he had no intention on voting on that resolution. >> Interesting. I don't understand. My thing is not charging. >> In fact, member Hegeland abstained from a lot of the votes his last evening here as board member if you guys remember correctly. >> Well, member chair, I remember the conversations when member Hegeland resigned. I mean, you called on the phone and you said, "Yeah, you know, we're just going to appoint Scott or I mean, if if member Hegelan was not going to vote on his own replacement, how do you how do you think you would have had the votes to >> I tried to bring a candidate that I felt could get uh unanimous support of the board?" >> Well, you introduced him. I think I remember one of the first things you said is that he was, you know, a friend of Luke's, a friend of yours, that you guys knew him. And it's like, well, >> of course, we're going to >> Is the qualification that, you know, the chair? Of course, we're going to know the person we appoint. How would we appoint somebody that we don't know? >> I don't know. Of >> of course, we know them. And we were pretty open and direct with you about that. And I I remember you um accusing me of threatening you with Laura because I mentioned to you the the the president that most boards and most city councils and most elected officials >> or most elected bodies in the state of Minnesota follow is they simply go with the next highest vote getter. >> It was the tone in it was the tone in your voice when I was >> I was honest with every one of you when I called you and I said I do not feel that that is something that you would be willing to accept. Therefore, we are going to propose Mr. Dobinski. And I feel like that's part of your opposition against him as well is simply because >> he happens to be somebody that we support. >> That's not how I recall the conversation. >> Sure. And I don't know, do we want to address that precedent in the state where we we appoint the next highest spoke? I mean, we've talked about her at length. We seem very opposed to her. Is Mr. Dozensky a good alternative to Mrs. Durang? >> Neither one, but Yeah. And I haven't heard the fans. It's been very quiet. Is there a way to turn it back on? >> It won't be up. It's going to get cold in here. >> It's 11:5. >> A lot of us have portable heat under our desks. >> Okay, >> that was a that was a nice way to apply some pressure to the board to get the work done. All right, I'll put Chrissy's desk. have to get a book like that. >> I don't have one. >> I've never needed to know it as well. >> Trickery. for the board's information certifying the property tax levy >> for 2026 could wait >> that be done by the end of the month >> um except in the finan financial audit can be delayed as well on consent. Paying the bills I think would be an important step tonight under consent >> would be >> beyond that things can wait. >> Can we make a motion to pull one thing out of consent? It wouldn't be in order with the special uh order of business in place. >> Okay. Well, then the vendors will have to wait, >> I guess. >> Hope it doesn't cause a problem. >> You might consider that the special order of business has been addressed, not with resolution been addressed. I don't want to spoilers. >> Um, but you could make the argument that it's been addressed. >> If we made that argument, we would have moved on already. But uh we >> we'll talk to >> we've uh declined to accept that a couple of times this evening. >> 1201. >> Could I make a motion that we pass everything on our agenda except 7.1? >> It would not be in order with a special order of business in in place. >> Can we amend the name special order of business? >> What can we do? Not without rescending the uh >> we can't just adjust the name or try to >> make an amendment to it. >> No. >> Well, >> we were very declarative in our resolution of the special order of business and the fact that we would adopt a resolution this evening. >> Oh, it was a mistake. Big mistake. >> Big mistake. >> Big big mistake. >> I was confident that this group was going to be able to get the work done tonight. >> I'm very disappointed. >> No. Is it 12:00? My phone's still dead. Did not work. >> Your little battery not working for you. >> This is not working. Little charging. >> I have a charger if you have an outlet. >> No, it's it's okay. I'm going to be heading home soon. Hopefully. >> I don't need a phone. I know how to get home. Were you able to find uh perhaps what percentage of districts went with the next highest vote count? >> There's no way to really calculate that because the the records aren't kept on that. So all I can say is just circumstantial. >> Say I was here twice on two appointments and neither one had anything to do with the next vote getter. >> So no, it's not been a precedent in our district. No, >> I was talking about >> other districts. >> I know that there have been. >> We haven't done it here. We just did a interviews. >> You did it through interviews and you got to a point like we are now, but uh you were able to acquies behind a candidate >> twice. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I know I >> I talked to MSBA at the time about it, some colleagues that I knew from there, and it sounds like >> it's a variety. >> There isn't just one way that people boards do it. >> Can can you speak to that, member? >> They tend to do what their district has done in the past. That's okay. Apologize. >> They tend to do follow what they've done in the past. >> Well, and as I understand it, that's what we did. We took applications, but uh >> I would love to hear the experience that the couple of times that you did it. >> Yeah, it was great. >> Um did you >> did you quickly acquies around? I mean, how did that how did that work? How >> couple interviews um had people come back for second interviews? Um and um yeah, I know Rob got on the board that way by um interviews because he didn't win a seat originally. And then I'm trying to remember how many time >> did I do this once or I mean it's a blur now on that way >> when Keith Dunham left >> from Dan Keeer got on but he also had an interview and >> him and I remember it was Linda Jagger was also on the interview and a couple other people which I don't remember all the people but we talked and we couple couple interviews and yeah I mean it was it took a while to figure it out. We all had different ideas and different questions and um but we came to consensus. >> So what was different about that experience than this one? Like what how how did you go from a split vote to a unified vote behind a single candidate? >> I don't remember. I think it was just the people on the board. They had like-minded thinking, I think, and they um I think they had different questions and different backgrounds, but I think they agreed with the candidates available that was the best choice for the for the board. So, so it wasn't it didn't take I mean, it just was went easier. >> So, it's not it's not like we're missing >> No. >> anything that you guys did last time? >> No. No. >> Shoot. I was I was hoping >> I wish it would be some magic. >> I was hoping you were going to say we >> magic school bus, but no, >> we did this. >> No magic and we made it. >> But it was a good good appointment. So Well, what do we do? >> It's 12:01. >> It's 12:07. >> 12:07, >> which brings in a new day and a different date. >> So, does that what does that do? We did not accomplish >> business is still in >> it's still not well I think as a board we should >> in fact even if this even if we uh were to break quorum >> um >> it would still be in effect on the 18th. >> Well then >> that's the beauty of of the special order. >> It does cause a lot of issues for uh >> um the meetings in January. It causes issues for getting things approved. uh >> maybe we can get some more legal direction about it. >> Makes things rocky >> by the time we come back together >> like I was hopeful for three hours ago. >> Is is that member Corkran is that part of what's got you so locked up this evening is that you want legal opinion on this motion on this >> information? I want to go back to Toro and get more clarity. I just feel like >> we're stuck and we need to find a way to figure this out >> now that we've made that resolution and you guys aren't willing to change it. >> So, we have to find a way to figure something out. >> So, we're going to be stuck and it's going to with the candidates we have, we can't agree now. I don't see it getting better. This could go on for >> months, months, a month and that's going to impact the school district. >> We've got to pay bills which I don't believe either decide we'll give. So, um that's going to be a problem for us. We have to figure out a way to work through it or just be done and just be a six member board. >> That that's not an option legally. >> Well, that's why we need more legal legal counsel. I think we can't hold up the school district hostage like this. This is not good for our students, our staff, our community. It's it's just not good. >> Is is that something all of us can agree on? I mean, >> that is not good. >> Okay, good. I think I think we all agree on the fact that we don't we don't want to do that. >> We can't do it. >> Okay. >> I'm just trying to find common ground here. >> No, no. And I No, I appreciate you saying that because >> it's very different. >> We all want what's best for the district and what's best for our students. We >> definitely do. >> That's why we're here, right? Here somehow. So, one of one of the concerns I do have is if we uh we wait on it. I mean, who's to say the next meeting won't do the exact same thing? Or who's to say uh I mean, we we just saw the uh Minnesota State House Democrats um refuse quorum for months and failed to do their job. How do we know that one side isn't going to dig in so deep that uh we won't even have a board meeting for the next six months? >> Well, then we'll have to cross that. >> Let's hope that won't happen. >> I think we want to have good relationships, right? Of >> course we do. Of course we do. So, >> this isn't professional. >> This isn't helping set an example, >> right? >> For doing good business. Well, I I know I made the suggestion earlier then, well, why don't why don't we get an appointment done as we agreed to um last month? >> I I don't I don't see the difficulty there. I I I cannot see either candidate that was uh that has reached that the final final stage and the two that we've been talking about. I I I can't see Mr. Domen Dozinski doing any damage as a board member of the school district. I can't see >> I don't see Jim doing any damage either. >> Um >> so >> I see >> um and and I already addressed this earlier. I do see Mr. Smith um creating a public perception damage with the voters that elected >> the school board. >> Um I do think that there would be >> not going to care about that. >> I think that's kind of unfair. >> I disagree to know it's not true. >> And that's fine. We're we're it's it's fine for us to disagree on that point, but that >> I I do not believe that we would have >> got 300 votes more than the other. >> I don't I don't think we would have the community support behind uh Mr. Smith. Otherwise, uh he would have been one of the recommendations I made in October. >> And I I think going back to what member Christensen said >> that we don't really want to be talking negative or talking about people when they're not here. >> You're right. I'm sorry. I mean, that was a really good point. >> Excellent. Yeah. >> And I'm done. >> It's another thing that just makes me feel kind of sad that we're here and we're still doing that. >> Yeah. I mean, we're setting an example right now for who's in the gallery and >> our students, our district, our people that are streaming. I mean, what do we want our legacy to be as the six of us this? No, we don't. We can do better. >> I would be more than happy to make a motion to appoint Mr. Mr. Domininski, if the board would support it, >> would you you two would support it, I assume? >> Second. Yes. >> Yeah. Would you guys support that? >> I got distracted by Miss >> No. Okay. >> Somebody in the I'm I'm trying to >> trying to work towards a resolution here. >> Well, can we make a motion to adjourn? So, we're not going to come to any consensus tonight. A motion to adjurnn is in order with the special order of business on the table. Yes. Um it will take a majority vote to accept adjournment. >> Did you make a motion, Julie? >> I did. >> To adjourn the resolution. >> No, I just said the meeting to adjourn. >> She wants to adjourn the meeting. >> So we have a motion to >> be >> We have a motion to adjourn the meeting on the table. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Is there any discussion? We said we're going to do this today. >> Well, today is done. We're in the next day now. So, to me, that's a moot point. >> Is over. We're done. We've already exhausted our time. >> I'm with member Castle. I I oppose a motion to adjourn because I feel like we're just we're just delaying it another two weeks. >> But, uh, the motion is certainly in order. >> Is there any other discussion? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Those opposed? No. >> Okay. The motion fails. >> You're not going to get anything done. I don't know why you're still being so stubborn. Just don't understand. >> It's controlling is what it is. It's it's like get over it at this point. And they've been controlling and continue. >> So I Let me intervene. >> Please. I say please too. If the effort is to find compromise and we can't get there here tonight, >> you'd be done, >> then would a compromise in process make more sense? >> Yeah. and that being adjusting the resolution that binds the process to today. >> I do not know that there is a way um just in in my opinion to adjust this where the dates line up in a satisfactory manner. >> Yeah, you right. The compromise would also accept a later appointment >> and I'm unwilling to accept that personally. We just got >> the later appointment. >> It's not happening. >> Yeah, >> I understand the concern about a later appointment. I would share that, you know, personally. Um, at the same time, I'm not so sure there'd be a disruption to the business at hand over the course of that delayed month. >> It's not okay. It's >> And should there be a delay, um, you might ask each other to reach out and have individual conversations with candidates to gain a better understanding that might lead to a different outcome at the table. >> I think that's an excellent suggestion. I know I've met Mr. Smith one-on-one several times as well as Mr. Dozinski. I don't know if other board members uh did that level of due diligence coming into the board meeting or not, but I definitely encouraged it. >> I think that's an excellent idea that the superintendent put forward because >> as I stated that it's in the minutes that I don't know him >> he hasn't had involvement in the district and I just don't know him that well and a lot of things look good on paper but you have to I'm a people person I need to get to know someone and I did try to meet with him that week and couldn't he was working >> so he was on vacation >> I I I think that might help. And I think you could maybe meet one-on-one with Jim Smith if you haven't before or you haven't been on committee with them. >> What's the earliest that uh we could schedule a meeting? >> The 18th is >> No, there there's a notification requirement. I think it's three days. Is it Monday or Tuesday? Joy, >> uh, if I did notification tomorrow, >> well, can you do no notification still today being that it's >> Well, I mean, it's today, meaning Friday, >> correct? Yeah, that's why I was asking. I'm kind of wondering now that it's it's it's Friday. >> Notification on the 5th. The 10th would be the earliest. >> The 10th would be the earliest, which gives us an appointment time of the 11th. Is that correct? >> Roughly >> with two special meetings next week. Yes. So that's beyond the first meeting in in January, but it slips into the the second meeting. But it does create a potential problem for the new board member to get into MSBA training here in December, >> which is another advantage of getting somebody appointed this evening is they would be able to immediately get uh >> enrolled. >> There's still things they can attend though without doing immediate training, but they will need to get the training. >> And and one thing that that completely off topic here, but it maybe we can get something productive done this evening as um Tessa kind of reminded me here, we had this board committee survey that was part of our board packet >> since we have a little bit of downtime. If people wouldn't mind filling that out, that'd be awesome to get that done this evening. >> But uh >> I just was checking the MSBA to see what being offered. Yeah. >> Thank you. Just trying to get some information into board members heads here. >> I have one in December, I think, >> and I haven't looked. >> Yes, >> I was looking because I recall this. I believe that um motion to adjurnn is not debatable. We have been told by the superintendent that >> motion to adjurnn. Yeah. >> No, it's debatable. >> Not debatable. And he signified the date that things could be approved on the 18th. >> Let me say the superintendent. >> I would recommend the the bills get paid, but the other items can be delayed. >> Okay. >> Vendors need to be paid. >> A motion to to adjurnn. Um, member Tyson, if you look at page T6, it's in the uh the um towards the end of the book where the there's the uh the gray border um all the way to the end of the book. >> T6. >> T6. Yeah, it's it's at the the very end of the book. You'll see that there's a table of motions and the table of motion talks about the class, when it's in order, when it must if it must be seconded. Um the item number three there is to adjurnn. Um, it is a main motion. It is not an order. When another order uh order has the floor, it must be seconded. It is debatable. It is also amendable and it requires a majority vote and it cannot be reconsidered. Does that answer your inquiry about >> That's not how I've experienced before, but >> Okay. The only uh >> I'm going to look into that more when I'm >> the only motion to objourn that would not be debatable as if a quorum was broken in which point uh there are only I believe two maybe maybe three because there's a couple of kind of weird ancillary motions on the side but the only motions that are in order if a quorum is broke is the remaining members can set a time and date a time date in place for the next meeting and they can also um make a motion to adjourn. I think those are the only two uh orders that are or motions that are in order if a quorum is broke. And the second one to adjurnn is really a um it's not necessary because the the adjournment becomes enforced once the uh the quorum is broke and uh the chair declares itself so member. So when you were looking at putting a notice out today and it wouldn't be able to have the meeting until the 10th. >> Yeah. >> What are the possibilities of moving the first meeting in January to accommodate that? uh that was >> the problem with the meeting in January is that uh by law we're required to have it on the first Tuesday of the month or as soon thereafter is feasible >> um due to the fact that it's an organizational meeting and that's defined in statute as well. >> So what does feasible mean? So if this would make it so it's not feasible but that >> well that's that's a debatable point. Um, the way that most school districts operate is they hold the board meeting on that Monday because it's just it's it is the date that's defined in statute. That's why most school boards meet on Mondays instead of Thursdays. We meet on Thursdays and since it's our regular schedule or a regular plan, the interpretation of the law, especially if you look into uh what is allowed for public bodies, is if you typically meet on a Thursday, as long as you meet on the first Thursday after the first Monday, um that's usually considered feasible because it's what staff has become accustomed to. It's what the community has become accustomed to. So that the state hasn't gone so far as to assert that you must meet on Monday even if you typically meet on Fridays. At least that's my interpretation. >> Get that correct? >> Okay. Thank you. So, um >> the only um schoolboard training next available is January 13th and registration is open for that still. Otherwise, all the other trainings are next week. >> Oh, they are next week. >> Closed already. >> And they're already closed. Okay. Okay. So, that that MSBA training point is moot. >> True. >> Because the people who were just elected was were able to uh fill those slides, >> right? Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. The only other um I guess the only other consideration that we would have to make is if we would be willing to reconvene here on the 10th which would delay the appointment of the uh individual until after the organizational meeting. But that creates an all sorts of uh >> um >> all sorts of issues. Um unless of course we agreed that we were going to completely redo the organizational meeting once the seventh member was seated but uh >> it would be an officer probably anyways because they'd be I mean that's so that's not a big deal >> truly so that it's not like they be an officer position on a new board member in appointed role. >> It's hard to say. >> Yeah. >> I mean it's hard to say >> that's not the way we should in the past, but >> he'd be so new. He would even have any training. >> Correct. >> Really hard. >> But >> we've always operated that a new board member is a director for at least a year till they have all their >> Well, I know, but that's how historically >> and new people sit on the ends. get to know things a better person. I don't know. >> So, were you suggesting that we could redo the organizational meeting? >> No, I don't think we can. >> The organizational meeting is defined in statute. I mean, the board always has the prerogative, like we did with uh member Corkran where we elevated her to vice president. The board always has the prerogative to redo the officers. Um it kind of goes down to the anything that the majority of the board um opts to do, they they can do for the most part. And the only reason we're really at an impass or locked up is that the board unanimously decided we were going to get this business done tonight. And we we put ourselves in that position deliberately. >> So >> wish you could change it. It's just not feasible. We can also get creative and say that we're going to meet on the 10th, but that uh we not only agree to the conditions of the resolutions, but we agree to the fact that it will never be postponed again and that we will make the appointment that evening. Of course, we can't compel board members to vote in a certain way, but we can put ourselves in a position where we're willing to sit for 48 72 hours until we get the job done, which is ironically where we are at this very moment. >> So, I'm I'm just throwing options out there and I'm trying to I'm trying to help the the board understand. >> Crazy. >> I think you're hardballing us. not amended. >> That's what's happening. So, >> um, member Tyson, I hate to point I hate to point out >> I hate to point out the hypocrisy, but every accusation you make against us, we could make against you >> in the exact same vein. >> Very uncomfortable being strongarmed. >> I I'm just I'm just saying be be careful in in the accusations because they apply. >> You're making an observation on how I feel. The observation applies in both directions is what I'm saying. >> Okay. >> I've made some great um motions, but they all failed. So, >> let people go to bed. purpose is looking pretty good. Thank you for coming. >> Got to work with our students tomorrow. >> Get to bed. >> So, Dr. Massie, do you have any words of wisdom at this point? All right, keep on trying. >> It's well past your bedtime tonight, too, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> Coming tonight, do we? >> Well, with the invitation, let me let me offer again. Number one, you meet the intent of the statute >> if you make an effort to fill the vacancy at every opportunity. Um, if the intent is just to delay, just for the sake of delaying, I would challenge that. I think you come with a good disposition and commitment to fill the vacancy. Um, the statute says you must fill it. I don't think you have the prerogative to choose not to. You exercise that at each subsequent meeting. Um, however that plays out. um you've got the authority as a board to make adjustments to the amendment that's binding you tonight. >> Um need to do >> and I do think despite the impass that you're having tonight, this board has demonstrated the ability to work together as a six member board to conduct business between now and the appointment of this person. um and time in between now and the next adjournment or assembly of this group, you'd have an opportunity to meet the candidates and I would encourage you to take advantage of that and spend more time with them. >> Sure. >> And I would recommend that you um move beyond the special order business, which you can do. It just states when that item should occur on the agenda and move to approve the bills for tonight. We can table the other items to the next meeting. >> Sounds very very wise. >> I would agree that we should at least pay the bills. I mean, if if member chair suggested that in our spare time we can fill out the little form about what committees we're on, I mean, surely we could approve the bills. Uh that motion would be out of order. >> Of course, >> I like like I mentioned several hours ago, my my job is just to make sure that we adhere to the rules. It's not that I'm >> not that I'm opposed to paying the bills. It's the motion is out of order. >> You you have the power, member chair, to change. >> I do not have the unilateral power to do anything. >> You do, Mr. Chair, and everyone knows it to change it. >> You the three of you are also the fourth vote. Well, I'm just saying we will be willing to do that because we need to take care of at least the bills. >> So, I don't think that's asking for much. I mean, the vendors would really appreciate getting paid. So, will be on the news. >> Oh, Baron's getting his story typed up. He's got some time. >> So, member Corker, that would be the best professional advice I can give. Okay. Can you make a motion to do that? >> It's not my that >> I mean, how would I make the motion? >> The motion is out of order with the >> We have to resend the resolution. >> We need to do something with that order. >> We we've already addressed that. >> Well, >> yeah. >> Think we need to be >> basically we're we're at a point where uh >> then nothing happens and we adjourn and start over another day. Motion to adjurnn already failed. So there's only one other option on the the table. >> It's just no no no. Why come up with ideas? No, no, no, no, no. So >> superintendent offered excellent >> ideas to compromise. >> I will once again offer to make a motion to appoint Mr. Goinski if anybody would be interested in entertaining that motion >> so that we can move on >> and if that motion would not be palatable to the board I would make a also be willing to make an offer to appoint uh Mrs. Dangu I'm sure you would >> okay Keep writing down my minutes. There's not a policeman to throw you out, so I guess whatever you You know, on my way out, I'm just going to say something. And before you throw me out, >> I'm not going to throw you out. >> Candidates, yours, theirs, mine, anybody who are there to respect your superintendent, to trust your superintendent that you are not running the district. You are just making sure that he's doing a good job of it. And he has given time after time tonight a resolution to get these nice people back in their classrooms tomorrow wide awake and not vote on the same person. I called an impass. You're not going to change unless of course you want to tell me you're thinking about it. I don't think you are thinking about it. So you've got to listen to your superintendent who's been here longer than you, smarter than you, cares about the district more than you, more than me. He just cares about it so deeply. And if you don't care about any of us, that's fine. But good gravy, care about this district. That's what you wereo appointed to do or elected to do. And the people that elected you are You know, they might change their mind next time, too, because now we've seen how the board operates and it can't be controlled. It has to be a board. And the 4343, thank God, is over. But let's not make it another this one against that one. Someone's going to be able to say, you know what, >> this is why the community voted to have a seven member board to begin with. >> Did that. >> I think it's a good idea. I'm glad we did it because it does break the impass of three and three. >> But I also know that the three and three here could go on until whoever knows. You made the effort to change that. You wanted to change it. You tried to change it. You kept your people in your I don't know what you call it. You don't call it holding them hostage. >> And and you've done all that. And I think the good Lord then says, you know what, just operate on a three to three for a while and then maybe down the road you can come up a way to change it. But right now in how many years? I was on the board 20 years. Must be 30 years ago. I've never stayed past midnight. >> Yeah, I know. >> This is a first. And it's not a very fun thing to have to tell people that we sat here looking at each other all that time. Not that you're all not attractive and that we're not attractive, but after a while and so I'm going to get out of your way here. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Thank you, Mrs. Morehead. Um, >> I saw no objection from the board on addressing that. So, thank you for sharing those words with us and I wish you a good evening. >> Joan, nobody's keeping them here. No one is keeping >> Nobody's keeping anybody here this evening. Every single one of us has the right to leave >> because they care. They're here because they care. >> Another thing to say just to make you feel good. No stay here. You almost made me stay here. >> This is back here because we put our Have >> have a good evening, Mrs. Morhead. >> Thanks, Karen. Very much. >> Karen, you realize >> Karen, you realize you'll be quoted in the paper as >> All right. >> Good gravy. >> Good. >> My age and and please >> get the job done. >> You put that in the paper that she was here until 12:39. >> And please let the record show that nobody in the board threw Mrs. Morehead out this evening and that we valued her opinion. Yeah. >> Drive safe, Karen. >> Thanks, Karen. Willing to pay my bail, though. So, that's your bail. >> I'll get you out of jail. >> Have a good night. >> Good. >> Good. I need that slogan tomorrow. Okay. Starting to get cold in here. >> It is the heat. >> I don't know. I probably went out. >> Well, I'm sure they Yeah, it's on a timer. >> It's on a timer. >> It's It's on a timer. >> I'm sure. But sometimes I think I'm getting sick at the moment. >> It's all computerized, so They don't give me that corn. >> I don't want to. >> Well, I agree with Mrs. Morehead. I think she said u probably the most uh >> intelligent thing that's been said in the last I don't know what two hours or something. >> Yes. >> I mean Dr. Massie has you know he's not a referee. He he's he's >> you know he's been staying out of it >> and but he has been offering suggestions and >> I know member chair you keep coming back to the resolution. the resolution. We did it. We voted on it. >> We also are able to change it. We're also able to change it. And >> it's ours. >> Um, again, we're going to be, you know, in the news again for the all the wrong reasons, >> sitting here staring at each other till, you know, 3:00 in the morning. And >> um the other thing I've been thinking about a little bit is no matter who um gets appointed, Scott or Jim, I mean look at kind of what we've created and now they're going to step into this and people are upset and the way this was handled and it just >> I mean try to think about them stepping in here and >> I don't know just the way this has been handled is I don't feel like it would be >> a welcoming environment. I don't >> scout would have no problem with it. I'm sure not. Jim might feel like his character was attacked tonight. >> That's not okay >> at all. >> Why would he think >> I don't I don't know why he would >> Why would he feel like his character >> Oh, I just feel like, you know, some things were said >> that weren't so positive. >> Yeah, people have been talked about. >> That's been said about all five of the candidates. >> I don't believe I've said anything negative about Scott at all. Not one negative. I just said it. Compared to him. He's just not my, you know, I just compare. I said nothing negative. I didn't dismantle anything about his personal >> anything about his resume because we're not I'm not about that. I'm about >> other things and doing more the positive things. So I I didn't I don't feel bad about anything I said anything negative about him at all. So I don't know. So yeah, how long do we to hear that. >> Nope. It's up to the board chair. >> Very dysfunctional. >> It's up to the It's up to the body. >> No, we've made motions. The board motions are all in the minutes. >> The board chair has the same voting privilege as any other board member. I have one. You have one. >> Change the rule and that would make things a lot easier for us and not be stranging us getting our job done. We we can make the same argument and state that uh we have the ability to acquies around a single candidate as well >> and I don't I don't see any even willingness to discuss that option. >> We've discussed it for almost six hours. >> Seven. >> Seven. >> Yeah. And we don't have heat. >> Yeah, it's starting to get cold. So, and it's a very very cold night. >> I would >> and I I would note that's a computerized control as Dr. Massie just mentioned and not a calculated move by administration to get us out of here. Good idea. We all know we have our strong convictions. I guess >> Yeah. And I I think the other thing that we established this evening, even if we haven't really made any progress on the appointment, is that we all care deeply about the district and we all >> we all care deeply about the uh the appointment process. So again, I'm trying to find good things that we can unify on and um I I think that's something that we can build on >> maybe. But like you said, we we need to have more time. I feel like his ideas of talking to the you know, would I want to meet with Scott? Yeah, I think I will now because I don't know him. Will I be willing to listen to him? Yes. I mean, I really respect Dr. Massiey's ideas and I think as boards we should and we're not going to that tonight. We need additional time. So >> So what? >> Yeah. And I said I I've already stated. >> I'm going to say it again. >> I don't know him. >> Yeah. I don't either. >> You said you didn't know Jim all that well either. I didn't know that well, but I know his >> involvement in the schools. I don't know involvement in the schools. So, I don't >> just from people and what I've seen of him. >> That's different. >> I mean, I don't I haven't spent hours talking to Jim. No, of course not. >> But I've seen what he's done for our schools and been in, you know, things with committees and things. But Scott, I don't I just don't know who he is as a person. It doesn't >> Well, I that's what I'm saying. You said you just said you don't know Jim that well and now you're saying you don't know Scott as a person but you know Jim as a person >> I just know his reputation and who he is in our schools. >> I don't know Scott I don't know him very well either. I mean >> so would you I mean I would like the opportunity to to talk to him. Yes. Maybe some more. >> So like I said I'm a people person. I like to sit down like I've gone out to breakfast with the board chair. That's my style. I like to sit down with somebody and look across the >> table. I totally get that. I 100% understand that. I do. >> This was a short turnaround. Just last night, we were here for the interview and now we're back >> trying to make a decision and it >> it's hard. >> It's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. >> That was that was actually one of the things that member Corkin and I discussed at length was the the time frame. >> Well, and I mean it's difficult. So, you know, because you just because you have a plan doesn't mean it's always going to happen. I mean, you have to pivot. I hate the word pivot. I know it's co word. Pivot. >> Is it? >> I thought it was a basketball. I don't know. >> Press that out of my memory. >> We need to pivot. >> And make a new plan. And otherwise, just not going to work, >> right? We have to show some flexibility with what our resolution >> Well, was and how it turned out. >> Yeah. And and I feel it. I agree. It's a short appointment. It's one year. I know. >> So, >> and I guess maybe I >> maybe maybe I have a very strong feeling towards one of the candidates. I feel that you would be such a benefit to the district that uh I would love it if if at least one of you is open-minded enough to accept that appointment. >> But we need more time next year. >> Member Chair, >> I believe the time is a problem and I didn't know that at the time. >> So then we talked about it. So then the interview process was not long enough. >> Maybe not. Maybe we have people come back. >> I'm not hearing a maybe. I'm hearing it definitely. >> Well, like I said, I I said that from the very beginning, have them come back for, you know, just to get to know them better. >> No opportunity. >> I said that one, but >> correct. >> I don't know. We weren't able to have a one-on-one. >> No, we we had our three minutes a piece, >> right? And it ends up being about, you know, 18 20 minutes >> formal. It's in a meeting. So if we give ourselves some time, we can make a phone call and meet at a coffee shop or go to White Castle. >> But I think there's so much value in having that time with someone because you get perspective, you get gut feelings, you get an understanding. So, >> so then with 11 candidates, you would spend an hour with each one. That would be 11 hours. >> No, I would spend an hour with the people that have risen to the top. >> And >> so the five that we >> not the five the four >> the four can you clarify we have five finalists? >> We do have five, but I've met her before. I don't need to do that again. people that I don't know like Scott. Um I would want to have a oneonone. >> Okay. >> So I still feel that we need to pay the bills. I mean that's like getting to be we're beating a dead horse. I think it's our fudicious fudic what's the word >> fudiciary responsibility. We're not being good stewards if we leave tonight and we haven't done that. >> It has happened. >> What was that? >> I believe it's happened before. >> Okay. You don't feel like either apparently. I don't I don't think it's ideal, but >> I think the better option is to uphold the commitment we made to the candidates and the community. Get this done. >> I think just a few minutes. I just don't feel comfortable. Did you reach out to the candidates, uh, member Tyson to schedule one-on-one meetings prior to the meeting this evening? >> Met with 11. >> Okay. >> Did you? >> Yes. >> You met with all 11? No. Oneonone? I reached out to the ones that I did not have um uh prior knowledge about and uh I vetted each and every single each and every one of them and I met with the ones that I felt uh I needed to follow up with. >> I was on vacation so I didn't have that time. >> So I did as much due diligence as I was able to do and I I >> Yeah, you looked up Facebook. I didn't >> Well, I because I don't I don't I don't like to go there. That isn't Well, >> but >> uh you need to gather information where you can gather information. You you vet individuals the way you can vet individuals. And I did what I could to learn as much as I could about each candidate. So, yeah, I've spent a significant amount of time researching the um 11 applicants. Some of them I knew very well and I had no need to meet. Uh >> true. >> I mean, I I served with Mr. Peterson for two years and I got to know him extremely well. I did not meet with him and I did not invite him for a meeting, but uh there were other candidates that I I did need to have a little bit better understanding of. So, so yeah, I prepared myself for this evening as best I could. >> Yes, and I did too. It's a very short turnaround. There's no denial. >> I think I'm hearing the importance of getting the appointment right >> is important. Um, is it more important than a strict adherence to the timeline >> in order to get it right? >> Just trying to move the process along. >> Yeah, that was a good insightful uh observation. >> Yeah, because this is dysfunctional. It doesn't it doesn't it's not doing anything. We're doing poor modeling at best >> for how governance goes on the school board. So, I feel kind of ashamed of that right now and um there's not anything I can do about it because I've been doing it. It's in the minutes, but we have options, but we aren't engaging in any of them. And I think our superintendent helped give good ideas that we've rejected. So, I guess we'll just sit here longer and be a laughingstock tomorrow. >> Okay, next page. >> No, I I think the headline will read something about how passionate all six of us are about our district. >> How much we care about the future and uh >> just that we were >> we were divided on >> how we envisioned moving forward. Am I am I helping you out? tagline. >> I think I've heard a number of you talk about the importance of connection, relationship, transparency, >> and would some interim time here to better understand the candidates be helpful? I'm only open to that personally if we can get some asurances that we're actually going to settle the business as soon as humanly possible. And I thought we had that assurance coming into the meeting tonight and was only met with delay. So um >> and in statute we don't have a timeline. >> So >> my point exactly only met with delay. >> It's important to get it right. But it doesn't need to take a year to make the decision. We follow the timeline at your proposal. We follow the process at your proposal. Um >> this is >> um I I don't have any problem with giving members an opportunity to consider things further. But I do have a problem not carrying forward an assurance to the community when we've already made a guarantee that we were going to get it done on December 4th and it is now December 5th >> and you know >> um >> who's waiting for that >> guarantee is waiting >> we pulled the same bait and switch on the public and our applicants when we said we were going to do an uh an interview on the first and we waited until the third. So, I feel like we just keep we just keep punting. We keep kicking the timeline out further and further and further. And I can't help but think that there's an advantage to remaining 33 and keeping everything at an impass. So, we can we can't continue to do good work for the district. and and I >> guess we can do school business like the bills and basic things >> and that would be an advantage and and I' I'd be open to that if I could get asurances that we were actually going to get this settled but >> well we might not >> the fact of the matter is I I can't think of an assurance that would would guarantee that because we had an assurance that we were going to make the appointment tonight. We didn't do that. We failed to do that. All it takes is for three members not to show up at a board meeting and quorum is broke and we can't do business the next time and there's just no way to to move forward because there is a lack of trust. I mean at some candidate there's some members here tonight won't even speak to their objection to a certain member so that we can discuss the objection and try to understand it and and maybe help those of us who know that individual a little bit more can help bring the rest of the team on board and and that that's concerning for me and and I really I really struggle with that and um I know because I'm I'm sitting here in the the chair this evening that I'm going to take the vast majority of the blame of driving this process and and slave driving or or whatever phrase it was that's been used. But uh the fact of the matter is I'm just doing my best to to hold this together and to operate under the rules that we have set forth as a body and uh >> but some rules are made to be broken if they don't work for a board to >> and it takes a majority of the board to change that rule >> and someone needs to change their mind. I agree. Somebody needs to change their mind and and I have offered numerous times that uh >> I think Mr. Dozinski would be an excellent >> excellent appointment and I'm willing to throw that out there again. >> Yeah, I wrote it down every time you have. So perhaps the ask is in a professional respect of each member to come with in good faith to the next meeting with the with the purpose and intent to identify or to select a candidate. I don't know that this board here tonight can um expect a commitment to resolve that, but to come in good faith to have that deliberation and consideration. >> So my question >> requires professional trust that you're not going to come close-minded, but come >> I think that's a problem. >> I mean, I know I'm not trying to laugh. I know. I really appreciate you trying to help us. >> My question is we can't come to consensus on our current applicants. Do we need to start the process over? >> No, we cannot. We >> might need to >> because if you guys can't come to the table with current >> I think that's >> would that just going to keep doing it then? I mean that's how we kick the can down the road until November next year. >> Right. We got to get the right person that's going to be the best person for our board. >> If we're 33, >> how are we? That's that's the question, isn't it? >> Looking through the these both of their um you know, applications again. And I so you know what is this James um you know he realizes there's so much to do that is of importance two big pieces long-term effects that are going to critical to the learning mission of the district which is choosing a new superintendent and revising the strategic plan and I I think um strategic plan type of stuff is and then all the other things that go on, you know, that are more with the teachers is where he excels. >> Um, and I think this right here with sorry, Scott's I believe in fostering collaboration. Jim did use that word and and I I realize that I believe in fostering collaboration between educators, families, and the community so we can create a safe and nurturing environment where every student can thrive. And he may say this Jim too, but that right there and then just spoke volumes to me. And what he said too is that he appreciated where the district had been going. And I don't think Jim expressed that so much about I mean aside from the we great things at our programs and the the enrollments, but I I just I hope that you are actually really openly mindedly looking at these because And I know Kurt or member Rabine spoke to this earlier. Sorry. Uh you know it becoming some political thing. >> Yeah. And I took four pages of handwritten notes during interviews. >> Okay. >> That's how I >> that's >> and then we actually had someone come in and say they're done. You need to hurry. and we had only discussed three or four of the applicants. We did our due diligence. We talked fairly about each one of them, >> went through them with um fairness and discretion and looked over and discussed amongst ourselves. So to say that we're not being open-minded, we didn't I mean I'm not saying you're saying that to me directly, but I feel like that's being implied, right? That we didn't do that. >> I'm not trying to imply it. I'm just asking honestly open, you know, staying open to possibility. I mean, and I kind of think it's tough, you know. I I get it. Mr. Smith is a great candidate, too. I'm asking you to truly consider what the reality is here. what our district has asked for for the past four years. >> I know it's just really hard to compare. Like you said, we got this and this. I mean, in my mind, and I I mean, would I would I meet with him and get to know him better? Would he go middle? I I don't know. I don't I don't know that answer. So, I don't know him enough just to really have a good clear idea. So, that's a problem for me. So, and not have an opportunity. So, >> have you considered uh which one would be >> a more fair replacement for member Hagland? >> I can't I don't I don't agree with that statement at all. I don't think that has any any relevance. That just surprises me. >> I just point out that that the community did >> the community did elect me. Well, I don't understand how you can possibly say that that doesn't matter because Luke was elected to the board. >> It doesn't matter. >> I'm not saying it needs to be the same or ex or or anybody, you know, >> but I don't understand how you can possibly say that >> the other time on board it didn't matter the right candidate for the right time. >> So I I >> that is like us I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but like the usurping the vote and it just it brings me >> done. That's like in the past, isn't it? How come the votes in the past but you know we we we have six monthl long meetings about um you know policies that are in place because of something that happened over 30 years ago or whatever. I mean, how can you say this >> difference? >> Oh my goodness. >> Change, you know, candidates change, times change. You can't go back. I >> mean, that's not right. I mean, I'm just saying it doesn't when we've done it before had nothing to do with the votes and not who the replacing was the best candidate for the best. >> If if the vote three years ago doesn't matter though, then >> why are we why do we have four terms? >> Why are myself and Jill still sitting the term you've said the term that you are? And that's my point. >> He's still here. He would be here, but he's not. So now you find the rest candidates for the time that you're in now. >> And then that's the point I'm making. I think the general public that elected member Haggland has an expectation that they are represented in a manner that's consistent >> with member Hegeland. We never received any negative feedback on member Hegeland's approach. >> Um, who has not? Oh, uh, we had multiples. >> Wow. Multiples. I'm not going there and saying negative stuff. >> Okay. No, >> member Heagglin was highly respected in the community >> and I heard I got a great deal of email saying we need we need somebody that is >> a lot like member Hegland appointed to this position. We need to make sure that they're they're like-minded and will represent us fairly. >> So you get those I get the opposite. We all different. I never have had anybody send me that email >> that they want the like-minded. That is inevit it's the opposite of you get you want somebody different and that's going to be you know so >> but by by appointing somebody different we are usurping the will of the voters because the voters appointed in the individual >> it's just not >> well you know the fact of course is each of you are entitled to you >> right >> and I think remember Corkrant she's been through a lot of elections >> she's garner if you want to add up all the votes she's gotten how many years. >> Yeah. >> And >> I mean, how do you equate that? So, you can start equating votes and >> Yeah. We're kind of belaboring a point that's not going to matter, right? Dr. >> Max. And I feel like my feet are getting really cold now, >> so I don't want to get sick. >> Well, nobody's obligated to remain. >> Okay. Would it be an order to >> make a motion that if we were to set something up on the 10th and that everyone agreed to contact the person that they have questions on and be prepared that day instead of I don't know him. >> Would that interview >> would that be something that would be in order? >> It would, but um the problem comes down to trust and uh that's a difficult one to achieve. >> So, you're saying you don't trust us? >> That's what you've been saying to us this evening as well. But since you bring that point up, um, I'll own that and say, "Okay, you trust us more than maybe I trust you." So, I would be willing to make a motion that we appoint, and please hear me out, that we appoint member Dovvenzinski via resolution that will not be effective until midnight on December 10th. and that we will meet here in the boardroom starting at 6 PM on December 10th with the opportunity to amend that motion to any of the other five finalists. And if we fail to make an amendment to that, the motion to appoint Mr. Dozinski goes into effect at midnight at the unanimous decision of the board. N >> that is a motion. And do I have a second? >> I second that. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second on the table. The motion is to appoint member Doanzinski. The resolution would not be effective until uh we'll call it 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10th, at which point we would meet at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, do December 10th to consider amending that motion before it becomes active and appointing another individual. I am willing to go that far right this moment. Is there any discussion on that motion? >> Point of clarification. That motion on that on the 10th would require a majority vote. >> Send that motion. >> Correct. Correct. It would would require a majority vote to either resend or amend that motion. Otherwise, the vote tonight would be effective and in force and member Doenzinsk's um appointment would become effective at 11:59 p.m. And that sets the time frame that you guys are looking for. It gives you a few more days to get to know Mr. Doinski. It gives us a few more days to get to know Mr. Smith. And it gives the community a solid point in time of a resolution being set in stone. And it also requires that the six of us trust one another >> to complete the process no later than midnight on the 10th. I enthusiastically support this >> and I would encourage the board to as well. Is there any other discussion on this motion? >> I have a comment. I think um I think we all learned our lesson the last time we agreed with a resolution that you made. Um so no >> no no it needs to be written down. I need to review the whole thing. I you I mean speaking of trust I mean you keep referring to this unanimous resolution we all passed >> you voted for. >> No I fully admit I voted for it. I'm just saying I'm not making that mistake again. So I will be a no vote. And >> member Tyson, >> I think you're very enthusiastic about it because it's yours >> and I like more where member Castle was going and you changed it very enthusiastically for yourself. So I'm a no. >> I did. >> Any other discussion? >> I'm also a no. I mean I think we could say the same thing about Jim Smith. the same motion, different candidate, same thing >> except uh I made the motion in the manner that I did because member Tyson indicated that she trusts me more than I trust her. >> It's not. >> So, >> okay. All right. >> It's not really >> any other discussion on that. >> Any other discussion on that resolution? >> I'm too tired. >> Come vote. >> All right. I >> can you state it clearly before we vote, please? >> Yes. I will repeat that. The resolution on the table is that we will well the motion on the table I'm sorry is that we will appoint Mr. Scott Gilenzinski via resolution. The resolution will not become effective until 11:59 p.m. on December 10th. All six of us agree to reconvene in this room at 6 pm on December 10th, giving us three hours and 59 minutes to either amend the resolution or to resend the resolution, but to come to a conclusion that evening. >> A yes vote appoints a no vote. >> A yes, a yes vote on the resolution would appoint Mr. Mr. Domininski at 11:59 p.m. on December 10th, unless the board through a majority vote were to amend that resolution before it became active. This is very similar to what we did with the levy renewal. If you remember, right, we passed that resolution and it took, I think, 90 days before it became active. This is the exact same concept only it's uh over a period of what five days. A no vote is an opposition of this and we um are right back to where we started and we we continue to sit here and try to come up with other ideas. Is that understood? Are there any questions on that? There there are no gotchas in here that that the appointment of Scott would become effective at 11:59 p.m. or we would amend it to name somebody else before 11:59 p.m. And we would do that starting at 6 pm on Wednesday, December 10th. Is that clear to everybody? >> It's clear. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. In that case, uh, member clerk, please take the roll call. >> All right. U member Christensen, >> no. >> Member Tyson, >> no. >> Member Rebeline, >> I. >> Member Antonson votes I. Member Corkran, >> no. >> And member Castle, I. >> All right. Motion fails. We tried. Feel like we've been sitting still for a while. Do we need a recess? >> No, >> there's no reason for a recess. No to be done to sleep. >> Do you think perhaps we should reach out to the candidates and ask them if they even want to still do this? >> Yeah, they might uh they might withdraw >> some people. >> Well, again, that's what the time in between might allow. >> This is not going to work. >> Trying to push something that's not going to happen >> at this point. It's just ridiculous. No. kind of a comical. >> We're getting there. >> Feel like we'd be belonging a cartoon. >> It does certainly feel like we're uh trying to see who will sit here the longest. >> Yeah, that's not going to be me. And as I've stated before, I'm willing to to commit to sitting here as long as I need to to get the work done. >> No. Got to say something. Stubborn. Stubborn. Stubborn person I've ever met. Who's that? >> You. >> You. >> No. I I think we have uh we have six people buying for that title this evening. >> But I'm willing to change things. >> Have you ever been around Julie when she snapped? >> Yeah. It's not a pretty sight. >> I don't think so. I' I've always found Julie to be very >> accommodating and levelheaded. >> I used to be. I don't know if I still am. >> Well, she's been around me. Um, >> I've been I think I've been around here, too. >> I'm I'm going to throw this out here because I'm I'm still looking for solutions. Um, >> if we go back to the uh the the infamous I'm going call it the infamous resolution from the 20th, >> we did name Lord Rangu as the preferred candidate. >> That word. Um, yeah, I know it really all it meant is that uh we were respecting the the opinion of the voters and that uh we were going to recognize the fact that the the highest unelected vote getter at least deserved our consideration if they applied. Um, I did just make a um motion uh that would appoint Mr. Dozenski to that uh position at 11:59 p.m. unless we made a change. Um I am willing to make the exact same motion. In fact, I will make the exact same motion. Um but substituting uh Mrs. Durango as the uh preferred finalist um into that appointment at 11:59 p.m. unless the board comes together at 6 p.m. and makes an amendment to that appointment to name either Mr. Smith or Mr. Doenzinski. Um do I have a second on that motion? >> Second. >> Okay. So, just for further clarification, this is the exact same motion that I made prior. Um the only exception to that is is it names Mrs. uh Durangu as the appointed individual at 1159 and we're doing out that out of respect for the voters because that is who they selected as the next highest vote getter. And it is also limiting our choices on Wednesday evening between 6:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. to either Mr. Smith or Mr. Durangu should we or not Mr. Durango, I'm sorry, Mr. Doenzinski. Should we choose to amend that motion before it takes its full effect? Is the motion and the intent of the motion clear to all members here? >> Yeah. >> So, repeat that. An affirmative is to vote for Mrs. Durangu. >> In an affirmative is not >> an affirmative would be to accept the appointment of Mrs. Laura Durangu at 11:59 p.m. Unless we amend the resolution with either Mr. Smith or Mr. Doeninski between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10th. Is that clear, >> Member Christensen? >> Yes. Okay. >> Is there any discussion on that motion? I think I got it. >> Yeah. All right. Um I don't see any discussion. So, uh member clerk, if you please take the roll call. >> Oh, wait. No, >> I do have a question. >> You do have a question. Okay. >> You said accept the appointment of Laura Dur Durago at 11:59 p.m. on the 10th. It's the same date and time as all you're you're talking about, right? Correct. >> But then Okay. But and then you said unless we amend it with Jim Smith or Scott Dozenski by what time? >> By by the time the resolution becomes active by 11:59 p.m. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. So, what that would do is that would give the board effectively four hours on Wednesday night. >> Yes. >> To determine >> whether or not we want to go forward with the resolution to accept um Mrs. Danga >> or if we would like to amend it and appoint either Mr. Domenzinski or Mr. Smith instead. It brings us to final resolution. It sets a very clear timeline. It gives us a number of days to meet with the candidates that uh some of us feel we don't we haven't done proper vetting of and it very clearly because we will be passing a resolution. Um it very clearly gives the community an expectation on on what we've done um in the exact same way as the levy renewal did because if you remember right that resolution is delayed for 90 days. It's the exact same uh formula there. And this motion in in comparison to the motion I just I made previously here what 10 minutes ago. This motion shows a very clear respect for the voters in our community and their opinion in the last election, but still gives the board the ability to appoint an alternative. and it gets us past item 7.1 so that we can move on to the rest of our agenda. Get our bills paid, get this levy approved, get the get that work done, and then then I will make another motion to postpone the rest of the work till the 18th because I think we all want to go home. >> But uh >> so given the late hour, a yes vote appoints Miss Dagu and a no vote does not. >> Correct. But it it appoints Mrs. Dangu on a delay to give the board the opportunity to amend that appointment should we choose to do so >> and it also sets a date and time >> in which case that amendment will occur. >> All right. >> Don't you need a majority to amend >> correct? >> Yeah. We need four of us to do that and that's also very difficult. >> Correct. We need a more Yeah, we do. We do. We absolutely do. >> Also, so yeah. And I really get it now. >> We do. And and and that's why I think that my my previous motion um >> uh naming Mr. Domenzinski, it was >> it was flawed in this regard because Mrs. Durangu, it was the highest vote getter >> unelected vote getter and I I think we should respect the will of our voters. And if we make that the uh the default judgment, I think it is the fairest thing to the community, to the district, to the staff, and it allows us to move forward and move past this item here tonight immediately. And then all of us who are dead tired can move on with our day >> and we can get these bills paid. And I I I think that is really a a a solid um negotiation >> step for all of us to take this evening and and just move forward. >> I'll never vote for Laura. >> No. >> No. >> And that's poor chair. In all honesty, that's your perception >> that she's the preferred choice and that she was whatever whatever because in my world she's not. >> Okay. And That's not it up. >> Yeah. Okay. And um >> that the opportunity to amend would be there. Um member clerk, if everybody understands what they're voting on, what a yes and a no is here. >> Um I'll have member clerk please take the roll call on this. >> Is everybody good? >> Are we good with calling the question? I don't see an objection. Okay. There's no objection to calling the question. So that will be done by unanimous consent. Member clerk, please take the roll call. >> All right. Member Corkran, >> no. >> Member Tyson, >> no. >> Member Castle, >> yes. Member Reveline >> I. >> Member Antonson votes I. Member Christensen. >> No. >> Okay. Oh, we we tried again. >> That was good. >> Okay. Well, what if we came up with a sort of scorec card or even just checkboxes where these are items that we wish the candidates to be able to fulfill. and you check the box if the board member thinks that that particular candidate can fulfill and then we tally those and the one with the most check marks >> there. I I have seen >> that's going to be subjective. >> St. St. Francis actually used a scoring system. MSBA has a >> I'm looking any idea right now, but >> they have a scoring system that they uh they suggest to boards. >> I have it in here. >> What uh what typically works out of course they score they rank their candidates and then >> they still have to to reach a majority vote um to accept the highest score. Um I believe if I if I remember right St. Francis when they appointed a board member last summer um they ended up appointing their highest score getter in that case u but there were two or three others that were tied immediately thereafter they had it was kind of a similar case where they had a number of applicants and they ended up with four or five at the top of the pile. Um I feel like we've at least narrowed it down to three. >> I think member Castle's on the right road though because we want more information about them. I mean, if we're at an impass, we want to learn more. And that's a little bit how a superintendent search is done with kind of an in-n-out basket and rating and all that. And you learn a lot. I mean, it's not all sub subjective. Um, I mean, it is in some ways, but you learn a lot more about that person. So, if we do that and we move to Wednesday, is the board willing to accept that uh we will finalize the work on Wednesday? And what asurances are we willing to give the community? Because I I just tried to do that with another motion. >> The community wants us to get it right. So, I just don't see it the way you do. And you keep saying we got to do it for the community. Yeah, we do, but we want to do it in the right way. And I think that's what the community wants through this process. And member Corkran's talked about how the court the process has gone in the past. So >> it's in the minutes and it's in here. We talked about that again. So we're just reiterating the same stuff. But I like where member castle's going that we need to learn more about them. A lot of boards will call um candidates in for a second interview. >> I like that idea. >> Um so there are options to learn more about them to get more comfortable. >> That's a big position. And yeah, I mean went by really fast. >> They did. So >> you did, which is why I did additional evaluation outside of those 20 minutes. >> Would it be possible to just have a resolution that instead of a vote after the tallying that the tallying is the vote? >> Yes. But without a majority vote, we can't pass a resolution. So, we could say we're going to we're going to do this, but nothing would compel any of us to cast a vote in a certain way. Like, we could agree to that process, but uh >> um we we absolutely cannot compel any board member to vote in a in a certain way. There is there is no forcing of that issue. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we could agree to it in theory, but uh there's no way to ensure that we follow through on it unless we do something similar to what I proposed a few minutes ago, like we appoint a certain member to take effect at a certain time unless we amend it, which is why I went that direction. I was I was hoping we'd be able to get consensus on >> let's >> one of those two candidates candidates. Yeah, I'm I'm open to that idea, but going back to the you you trust me more than I trust you. So, uh or or vice versa. I don't remember which way you you said it was. And >> um I said let's trust our voters. Um, I admit that I I erred in recommending that motion for Scott first and that the preferred finalist uh being the highest elected unelected vote getter was the way to go. Memory Rinson. >> All right. So, we we essentially have three people, right? >> I I feel like we narrowed it down to three >> for a long time. >> Yeah. What if everybody uh wrote down out of those three names in order what their preference is >> and well >> I'm I'm open to that. Um I believe I suggested that I suggested that a few hours ago >> and >> Oh, we didn't. >> Yeah, I tried to just get the top two. >> It's been a minute. I forgot. >> You did that so long ago. It's like when was that? >> Yeah, I've actually got it here. member Tyson was the only one that was willing to >> Oh, that's right. Okay. >> Question is if we don't still have the impass and continues, we have to do school business. So, and so we might have to consider >> Well, that's why >> different applicants, we might we might have to start over. That's why I threw the >> I'm just saying we have to be willing to look at that and then make that adjustment to that resolution because we cannot not do board business and just because we're sense >> we are stewards of the financial resources of this of this school district and we can't not do board business because of this. We're still an active six member board. So I don't know I don't know what we're going to do. Would you be willing to make a motion to reconsider on that last motion >> so that we could move on? >> What do you mean by that? >> Reconsider to reconsider. >> I cannot I cannot support her. >> What about the motion to reconsider? Uh Mr. Dobin, >> not until I know him better. No, I just I just >> But you will have an opportunity between now and Wednesday evening. >> I can't No, I don't want to have something hanging because we have to have a majority and that's also a problem. Maybe four. I mean, we as we can't agree with >> we just have three and three all the time. We worry about getting the No, I can't do that. It's the uncertainty of that. >> Um, no, I don't think so. But >> okay. I'm just trying to find a way to move on. >> I get it. But we can't hold the district hold this hostage. It's just not It's not good business. So, >> yeah. I don't know. I don't know what we're going to do. We have I think we need to talk to legal counsel. We need to figure out a way to pass this. And um it's not going to happen at midnight. So >> 1:30. >> Oh my gosh. Well, 130. >> Yeah, it's 130 >> at 1:30. So >> pretty soon, Dr. Mass, he'll be able to go right back over into his 130. I'm too tired. >> Oh my goodness. >> Not fair. So >> we're losing our audience. They're getting tired right there. >> I don't blame them. They got jobs tomorrow. A lot of us. Yeah. Somebody ringing the doorbell. >> Someone's coming. >> Police are coming back. >> Make sure we're okay. >> Yeah, maybe. Yeah, the mayor might be choking. >> I do have to hand it to you guys though. Sticking around tonight. >> Well, it's not much to see. >> She has no jacket on. White castle came on TV. It's worse on TV. >> I know. >> I'm sure it's horrible. >> I thought we made a couple of good motions there. >> Wouldn't vote for this time. I had Laura sign in my yard. >> Well, >> much to the dismay of my friends. I would not vote for her now, but I did vote for her then. There's a big reason for that >> and we don't have to go into her whole episode. >> Yeah. And I'm angry. People that voted for all of you, >> they might love you and vote for you again, but I can tell you that's not going to be the case. So just because you're elected once and then people see how you act >> and do you care about the kids or do you care about your own individual little idea who's going to do what? And when I was on the board with Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives and we out, >> right? >> But during the meeting, we respected the superintendent. >> All the good things that were done, >> Mrs. Mor, I feel like we've gotten really loose with the rules because it is 1:30 this evening, but we we do >> we do need to we do need to keep this to uh we do we do need to keep this to the board. Please >> time's over. I'm asking you to grow up. >> Yes. >> Do what all the candidates said. respect your superintendent. I am so tired of him giving a solution. >> Okay. Um please >> tired of that resolution. >> Please, Mrs. Morehead. >> I'm sorry. At 1:30, I get real. >> I know. I I understand. >> But but thank you. >> I thought you came back with White Castle. >> I'm sorry. >> Thank I just Come on. I >> help us maintain, please. We're going to make the news for the wrong reasons. >> Call it. >> It's too late. >> Never. That's his point. We're just going to sit here. >> If you want to sit here like join like I've been saying where we're not required to be done. >> We're not required to sit here. >> None of us are. >> Remember that? >> I do. I do. Yep. Yes. Yep. I do. you do that you're not going to do any business they did this exactly it's zero zero constructive behavior >> you had showed you the way to do it >> but short of walking out >> there's been a lot of conversation about the need to understand the candidates >> yes >> and I think there's great benefit in relationship >> understanding having dialogue and you can't predict the outcome as after engaging in that process. You might need to trust that it may move the needle. Um if it doesn't, you're no worse off, but there's an opportunity through dialogue and relationship and connection to be in a different place. So I would challenge the board to meet with the three candidates or the two candidates, whatever you decide, with an open mind and come back in good faith to have a different a diff continue the conversation. I I like that suggestion and I'm more than willing to move forward with either of the two motions that I made >> in the last half an hour here >> to make that happen. >> I'll move forward with Mr. Castle's ideas. >> I don't like having the majority thing. >> I doesn't make me feel uneasy. >> We have to reach a majority consensus in one way or another. So maybe you could clarify >> the what you said before that no one is required to stay here. >> Correct. >> So how does that play out? >> Any individual obviously any individual at the gallery can get up and leave at any point. >> Folks are on this table. >> No, >> the individ individuals at the individuals at the table. None of us are required to be here as uh was pointed out earlier. I I was uh in a meeting. I felt that an illegal act was taking place and I got up and I walked out of the room. Um which every single member has the ability to do. Um should three of us do that, the three remaining members would have only the ability to set the time, date, and place for the next board meeting and to adjourn. Um, should fewer than three board members leave, the remaining board members would have the option to continue conducting business. >> I think those are the only scenarios unless I'm missing one. >> And if we can't make the next meeting, the three of us can't make then quarum for that meeting. >> Yeah. Should more than three of us leave >> if it doesn't work. >> Yeah. At least one of us has to remain here in order to um set the time and date for the meeting and the next the next meeting and to um adjourn and adjourning at that point isn't optional. It's just something that happens. >> Um >> but that's been impass. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Well, one >> I frankly I think that's what member chair would like. He would like us to break for him and leave because then it gets him out of the pickle that he's in. >> Just sitting here staring at each other. >> I'm not in a pickle any more than any other board members in a pickle. I I have the >> I'm on an equal standing to every other member. So please >> and then we walk out and then you say, "Oh, they you know, you can blame us for it." I >> No. If Why don't you I would impose a recess. >> Let's just do >> I would >> Yeah. Um >> let's just be adjourned. >> If there's not an objection, we'll recess for 5 minutes. Uh we'll reconvene at 1:45. All right. We're in recess till 14. Please take the roll call of attendance. >> Okay. Yep, I will. And Okay. Is everybody here? >> No. >> Start. >> Okay. Member Corkran >> here. Member Ebline >> here. Member Christensen >> here. >> Member Tyson >> here. >> Member Johnson is here. Member Castle >> here. >> All right, we have a quorum. We're back in discussion on item 7.1, selection of application to fill board vacancy. I would like to make a motion that we move ahead to at least pay the bills this evening to our local business owners. They've already done the work and I mean we shouldn't hold them hostage just because we're stuck here that we we should pay our bills. >> As discussed earlier, the motion is out of order when the special motion of business is on the table. >> We have the power to do it, >> but we're just not doing we're choosing not to. Can I make a motion to adjurnn? >> The motion >> so that we can have time to meet with the candidates like member Castle has talked about. >> A motion to adjurnn is in order if there's a second. >> Yes. Second. >> The motion fails due to lack of second. No second. >> I seconded it. >> Okay. We have a motion to adjurnn. We have a second. >> Yes. >> All right. Is there any discussion on the motion to adjurnn? And I'd like the record to note it is 1:47 a.m. So >> if we could adjourn that would be >> that would be great to this. >> All right. Is there any discussion on the motion to adjurnn? >> Um I guess without a next meeting unless we're going to wait till the 18th. >> Yeah. >> I believe we should set another meeting >> without a plan. >> You talked about the 10th. >> I agree with member Castle. without a plan in place. Um I think we would be uh >> he's talking about a date. >> Um >> correct time. Yeah, >> he is. But there's a motion on the table >> to adjourn and a motion on the table to adjourn. Doesn't set a date for the next meeting. The next meeting is the 18th. >> Possible with the date. >> Can I amend? Can I amend that motion to adjourn to add a date for the next meeting? >> December 18th. No, >> December. >> We have to vote against the motion to adjurnn. And then we have to set the time and place for the next meeting. And then we have to have another motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. All right. If that gets us out the door. >> So >> I'll do it. >> So do I resend my motion to adjurnn? >> Uh the motion now belongs to the body. So we need to vote on it. >> So we have to vote on it. >> Correct. >> All right. Is there any other discussion? >> We're voting to adjurnn. >> Yes. weren't you just said we're supposed to say >> we we have to say no first and then amend it and then revote >> member Castle was coming up with a date and we couldn't just incorporate that into it. We have to >> you can't incorporate that into a motion to adjourn. We have to set the time and date for the next meeting in a separate motion >> and I would recommend that we set stipulations on the time and date of the next meeting as well. But uh >> um no stipulations. >> All right. If there's no other discussion on the motion to adjurnn, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> All those opposed. No. No. Okay. The motion fails. We are not going to adjourn. We return back to item 7.1. >> Who's making motion? >> Okay. I'll make a motion to adjourn and that the next meeting will be >> the motion to adjourn can't be bundled. Just >> we need to set the date first. >> Correct. They need to be separate acts. I'm sorry. >> Okay. The 10th. I make a motion to set the date uh to Wednesday, >> December 10th at 6 o' to continue our discussion of filling the vacancy in the board on our school board. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to set the next time and date for the meeting. on December 10th and we would continue where we left off. Is that what I'm trying to understand? >> And we're going to have time to take that time to meet with the candidates to get additional information >> or do you want them to invite them in that night and do it here? >> That was a suggestion by member Castle, too. >> That's assuming that they >> can, you know, that they have >> Well, we can reach out and if they can We can individually contact them and see if there's a time that they we can they can >> maybe Joy we can have administration reach out see if they're available. If not then we'll have to just do it kind of on our own >> to another open board meeting and have them interview more in front of people again. >> Well hold on I want to >> I'm thinking more of a oneon-one where >> we should allow time for our own selves to contact them individual. >> That's what I prefer. Then I amend what I was saying to incorporate that in that time. >> Yeah, that that wasn't on the that wasn't part of the motion. The motion was just >> just to give the date >> just to meet to >> and we would continue this. Um now the stipulation is it would move from a regular schoolboard meeting to a special schoolboard meeting. So we would just continue with the agenda that's before us now. >> And I I want I want that to be clear that we've moved from a regular school board meeting to a special school board meeting. And as I've stipulated in the special schoolboard meetings that we've had recently, that means motions to amend the agenda are not in order for special schoolboard meetings and that we um commit to completing the the agenda as presented. >> Um that that is the stipulation of moving forward. and and and >> so you're putting stipulations in there again >> when when we when we create a special board meeting, there are certain rules that we need to follow and I want to make sure that the board understands those rules that we need to follow before we commit to moving forward on the 10th. I do not want there to be any confusion. I do not want to receive any accusations that I tried to pull a fast one on board members and I want you to understand what it is you're voting on. If we choose to punt this to a special meeting, we are beholden to the agenda that we agree to and the agenda is a continuation of where we leave off this evening. >> No. >> Well, in the meantime, >> let's move it to the 18th then. >> I'll be meeting. >> We don't need a special meeting and give additional information on things to >> make sure we know what's going on with the motions. >> Okay. I >> So the motion that's on the table >> to the 18th give more time and not call a special meeting >> and then call a special meeting. >> No and not sorry because the 10th is is just >> Yeah. And an amendment to change the 10th to the 18th would be completely unnecessary. We just vote this down and the 18th becomes the 18th. >> Yeah. It's already scheduled and that's a regular board meeting. So, >> so I >> I I would prefer the 18th then so we don't have to call a special meeting. >> And the 10th is like >> additional time to talk to them. >> How much time to try to >> capture somebody for a oneon-one? >> Let's call the question. What are we What are we voting on? >> Okay. Any additional discussion on uh the special meeting for the 10th? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor signif. >> Just a minute. Please, please review. So, an I vote >> is we will have a meeting on the 10th, but there's a stipulation that we will >> we will continue with this agenda and it being a special meeting. Um uh motions to amend the agenda out of order. >> Um that's that's part of the the rules on the special meeting. Actually, it's not part of the rules on the special meeting. It's part of the state statute on the special meeting. So, that is law. That is not rules of order. That is not something that we can uh >> um change our minds on. And I just want there to be a clear understanding at the board table before you vote on that that that's what you're accepting if we have a special meeting on the 10th. commit to something state law requires >> no to their vote before the meeting. >> There is no commitment to a vote and and this this isn't up for debate with with the gallery. I just want to make sure that board members understand that special meetings have special rules when it comes to the agenda in accordance with state law. And I do not want to hear any accusations directed at me saying that I tried to deceive any board member on member Corkran's motion. So I'm trying to be very clear of what it is we are going to accept if we accept the special meeting on the 10th. >> Is that understood? >> Remember Christensen? >> Yes. I mean yes I understand. >> Can can we vote? >> Sure. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Those opposed? No. >> No. >> Okay. That that motion fails. >> So I make a motion to um continue the meeting on the 18th. Just our standard meeting. >> Second. >> The motion's unnecessary since it's already on the schedule. Well, I'd like to make one. >> It'd be a motion to adjurnn. >> Yeah, >> it would be a motion to an adjourn. A motion to adjurnn would would Yeah. >> 2 a.m. >> Okay, we have a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Y second. >> Okay, we have a motion to adjurnn in a second. Joey, did you capture who was who on that one? >> Member Tyson motioned and member Corkran. >> Okay. All right. Do we have any discussion on the motion to adjurnn? All right, seeing none, those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed. No. >> Okay, back to where we started right now. >> Making no decisions. >> I just want to get it down. >> So, it's >> just just round and round wasting people's time. So embarrassing. >> Mark, member council, thank you for your >> Thank you. Optics are so bad. >> Well, we've made the motion to pay the bills. I can make another motion to pay the bills since I'm wanting to make motions. >> Oh, that's >> the motion's out of order. >> It's out of order. So, our local businesses who have already done the work are not going to be paid. >> They're not getting paid. No, >> it's been no all night. >> Okay. >> Move to appoint member Doenzinski >> or Mr. Dobenzinski to the board. Second. >> All right, we motion to second. Any discussion? >> You cannot do that. >> No discussion. We still have a quorum. Member Antonson, will you please take the roll call? >> We have four board members in the room. >> He is such a trickster, aren't you? >> All right, we now have a lack of quorum. Um that makes that final motion uh um unresolvable. But uh that leaves us with the uh the point of business here to determine the next date and time and meeting place for the next meeting. I would like to suggest that we meet for a special meeting on Wednesday, December 10th to continue with this agenda and bring it to completion as it was presented to the board this evening. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second to meet for a special meeting to continue this order of business on December 10th. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Hold on. at 6 p.m. Okay. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. Um >> at at 6:00 p.m. um if there's no objection that we'll amend the time and meeting to 6 p.m. here in this room. >> Uh without a quorum, we are able to set the time and date of the next meeting and to adjourn. Um all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed. All right. The motion prevails. We have scheduled a special meeting to continue this order of business on Wednesday, December 10th at 6 PM here in the district office. Um, with that, we will adjourn. Thank you very much. >> Well,