Lakeland policy committee reviews RIF policy 5740, the scoring form and appeal timelines amid levy shortfall planning

Lakeland District Policy Committee members spent a meeting-length discussion on proposed updates to Reduction in Force policy 5740 and its implementing procedures, focusing on how the district would score certificated employees, notify affected staff and handle appeals if budget cuts trigger a RIF.

The committee reviewed policy language that reads, “Financial emergency must be declared by the board prior to taking any reduction in force actions,” and discussed how a declaration would be limited to one fiscal year unless additional reductions were justified. A staff member reading the draft told the committee the district’s fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30.

Why it matters: committee members and an outside attorney warned that the policy and scoring procedures drive who could lose jobs if a levy fails or the board declares a financial emergency. Amy White, an education attorney in Boise who consults with school districts, told the committee she expects substantial reductions if the district’s projected shortfall materializes: “I do not know how deep your cut will have to go, but understanding we are talking 9 and a half $1,000,000 with approximately 87% of your budget being staffing, I would imagine this is a significant number.”

Committee discussion and directions

Members walked through key elements of the draft policy and an attached scoring form labeled 5740-F. The draft reserves to the board “the sole and exclusive authority to determine the appropriate number of certificated employees and to eliminate certificated staff positions,” consistent with state law and Idaho code requirements. Committee members clarified that the policy contemplates reductions for reasons including curriculum changes, declining enrollment, and negative financial conditions.

The scoring form groups evaluation results and other factors into point values used to rank certificated staff. The committee debated specific scoring choices: whether endorsements should be capped (participants suggested caps of 4 or 8 points), how to count advanced professional endorsements and doctoral credentials, which evaluation domains should be weighted higher (committee members favored weighting the classroom performance domain more heavily), and whether documented improvement plans or reprimands should count as negative factors or only as tiebreakers.

Committee members discussed operational challenges in compiling scores. Several raised the administrative burden of pulling evaluation and personnel-file data from different sources; one staff member noted the district recently moved to the state evaluation platform and said Coeur d’Alene had used its IT staff to import historical data. The committee directed Brooke (district staff) to ask the district’s technical staff whether the platform can produce reports that populate the scoring form so HR would not have to review each individual Google Doc file manually.

Appeals and notice timing

The committee debated the draft timeline for employee challenges. The draft requires an affected certificated employee to notify the HR director in writing of any scoring errors “by the close of the school day on the third school day” after receiving notice; the committee agreed to change the phrase to “three workdays” to avoid complications if schools are out of session. The committee retained a three-workday window for employees to file written notice of concern and directed staff to clarify the number of workdays the HR director will have to review and respond; that HR response period was discussed but not finalized.

Roles, review and implementation steps

The committee confirmed the HR director and building administrators will determine points on the 5740-F scoring form for certificated employees considered for a RIF and that district leadership and Lakeland Education Association (LEA) leadership will jointly review RIF considerations before completion. Committee members stressed that principals’ rankings and any volunteer or leadership credits should be documented in employees’ IPLP records (Individualized Professional Learning Plans) so scores are auditable and consistent across buildings.

Concerns and equity points raised

Multiple members warned of uneven application across schools if principals apply the form inconsistently; they recommended integrating selected scoring elements into the IPLP or requiring a supplemental form that principals verify. Members also discussed the practical timeline of running a ranking exercise before a levy election so the district is prepared but not sending notices unless the board formally declares a financial emergency. The committee discussed rough estimates of potential impact if a levy fails—participants suggested numbers for planning only (for example, one comment estimated roughly 20 certified positions might be affected by a significant shortfall and other comments suggested public-facing messaging might describe a larger total impact of about 50 positions, which would include resignations and retirements). Those estimates were discussed as illustrative planning figures, not final counts.

Next steps

Committee members directed staff to draft separate reduction-in-force procedures to accompany the policy, remove or reword ambiguous language (for example, replacing “school day” with “workday” for appeal timing), and return with a streamlined 5740-F that aligns with IPLP data. Brooke will consult the district’s IT staff about automating data pulls from the evaluation platform; HR will propose a specific timetable for review and response to employee scoring appeals. The committee did not take a formal vote on the policy during the meeting.

For transparency, the meeting transcript shows committee members repeatedly emphasized the need for clear documentation and consistent application so that, should a RIF be needed, the district can defend its process and limit both legal risk and disruption.