Board members and members of the public spent significant time on a controversy over a teacher’s social‑media posts and whether the district should pursue personnel discipline.

At the meeting’s start a board member moved to add as "other matters" an agenda item to discuss and possibly vote on an employee‑termination resolution. The motion to make the meeting a voting meeting (to add and vote on the resolution the same night) was made by Mrs. Herndon and seconded by Mr. Sellers. On a roll call the board recorded two yes votes (Mrs. Herndon and Mr. Sellers) and five no votes (Mr. Doss, Mr. Lipsky, Mr. De Villa, Mr. Cypress and Mrs. Ross); the motion failed and the board proceeded to public comment.

During public comments multiple residents and students spoke in defense of a teacher identified in public remarks as Amy Trudeau. Mia Lupo, a freshman at L'Anse Creuse High School North, told the board, “Miss Trudeau is genuinely such a good teacher. ... As her student, I have not once heard her ever talk about a political opinion of hers.” Another speaker and several parents asked the board to consider whether disciplinary action would be appropriate and reminded board members of management rights spelled out in the teachers’ contract and in state law.

Superintendent Shane Howell read a prepared statement describing the district’s response. Howell said the district had completed an investigation, interviewed the teacher involved, asked the Macomb County Sheriff’s Department to review the social‑media post, examined relevant policies and the collective‑bargaining agreement, and sought legal guidance from Miller Johnson and the Michigan Association of School Boards. Howell said, “I will not be sharing personnel matters publicly. However, I do want it to be known that we determined our course of action by gathering all pertinent information before making a decision.” He reiterated that the district does not condone name‑calling, hate speech or behavior that tears others down and emphasized that First Amendment rights carry responsibilities when employees model professional conduct for students.

Several community members urged swifter or stronger action; one speaker criticized the district’s legal advisers and the superintendent’s handling of the matter. Board members debated whether past legal precedents supported termination. A community speaker referenced Hegpeth v. [Board] and an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (as cited during public comment) to argue that case law can support termination when a post causes significant disruption. Board members also discussed whether anonymous complaints limit personnel action and whether board policy or operating procedures had been violated by public comments at recent meetings.

No personnel action was taken on the record at this meeting. Several board members called for following established procedures: distinguishing between public comment, personnel privacy, the board’s role as employer, and legally required steps that include review of policies and bargaining‑unit rules before discipline is imposed. The superintendent and board said they would rely on counsel and the district’s investigative findings before any personnel decision would be publicly announced.