Lakeland officials refine reduction-in-force procedures, plan mock scenarios as levy uncertainty looms

Lakeland School District administrators spent a lengthy workshop session reviewing a revised draft of a reduction-in-force (RIF) policy, focusing on when a financial emergency can be declared, how certificated employees would be scored for dismissal, and how recalls would be handled if positions reopen.

The draft policy states, "A financial emergency must be declared by the board prior to taking any reduction in force actions. A financial emergency declared shall be effective for only 1 fiscal year at a time and shall not be declared by the board for a second consecutive year, unless qualified by additional reductions." The draft also references Idaho code requirements for selecting employees for release and for establishing recall procedures if positions become available after a RIF.

District leaders said the RIF decision would rest with the board and that the policy should provide a "fair and orderly process" if eliminations become necessary. The draft lists examples of triggers for a RIF — curriculum or program changes, negative changes in district finances, decreasing enrollment by program/grade/school, or staffing limits — and a set of criteria to consider when selecting certificated employees for reduction, including evaluations, certifications and credentials, extracurricular activities, professional contributions and longevity.

Central operational questions dominated discussion. Board and staff members debated who should complete the scoring form (policy 5740 f) and raised concerns about relying on a single person to assign points. Participants discussed a process in which the HR director and building administrators would "determine the points received on policy 5740 f," with RIF considerations starting with the lowest scores. Several speakers said parts of the scoring require information beyond what one person (Brooke) has in the IPLP system and recommended administrators and HR collaborate on each employee's scoring.

Participants also examined how to make scoring equitable across grade levels. They debated weighting classroom instructional measures more heavily (an example noted in the draft multiplies a subtotal by three) and discussed tie-breaker rules that would credit longevity in the Lakeland School District and head-coaching or equivalent leadership roles so elementary and middle‑grade staff can earn parity with high-school coaches.

Secondary-school staffing complexities drew extended attention. The group explored whether RIF pools should include all certificated employees endorsed for a subject (regardless of current assignment) or only those currently teaching the subject area. Staff said endorsement counts already carry points in the draft, and the workshop wrestled with scenarios in which a teacher is endorsed in multiple areas but has not taught a particular subject for years.

Legal and timing issues also surfaced. Attendees discussed Idaho Code 33-522(a) (cited during the meeting) permitting districts to adopt a recall method and observed the law's constraints on basing reductions solely on seniority or contract status. Finance and legal implications of declaring a financial emergency were debated: declaring a financial emergency can allow reopening salary and benefits negotiations, but some participants questioned whether declaring one before final levy results is advisable. Finance staff (referenced in the discussion) told the group that state notices could arrive in May, raising questions about whether the district can complete budget and staffing decisions on the timetable needed for the coming school year.

The meeting produced several operational directions rather than formal actions. Participants agreed to: (1) keep the working revision of the RIF form and scoring approach under consideration; (2) have HR prepare a set of mock scenarios that mirror likely high‑school, middle‑school and elementary configurations so leadership can test the scoring and relocation logic; and (3) require the district leadership team and the Lakeland Education Association (LEA) leadership team to jointly review lists of positions and employees before completing policy 5740 f. Michelle (Administrator) said she would ask Brooke to draft the mock scenarios and recommended collaborative scoring involving building administrators and HR.

Speakers repeatedly emphasized that the policy language should make clear distinctions between discussion, assignment of direction, and formal action, and that any notice to employees must provide the score sheet, policy references and due‑process rights. Several participants said portions of earlier redlined text (borrowed from other districts) felt "convoluted" and should be streamlined, while other sections — for instance, recall rights if positions reopen — should be retained and clarified.

Participants also discussed contingency planning tied to an upcoming levy. Staff reported a preliminary count of roughly 25 certificated vacancies that may result from retirements, resignations and category‑1 nonrenewals, and noted that those natural separations could reduce the number of employees needing scores if deeper cuts become necessary. Attendees urged preparing two budgets — a scenario if the levy passes and one if it fails — so the district can move quickly once state and local funding outcomes are known.

The workshop ended with next steps emphasizing practical testing and clearer wording: HR will prepare mock RIF scenarios and the district and LEA leadership teams will jointly review scoring and the list of positions before any formal RIF notices are issued. No formal votes or board decisions were taken at the meeting; workshop participants framed their work as preparing a policy and operational process for potential future board action.

Ending: Board staff said they will return to the draft policy with clarified scoring language, defined volunteer/leadership categories, written tie‑breaker rules, and sample RIF scenarios to test how the draft would operate across elementary, middle and high school staffing structures. The district plans additional review sessions before presenting any proposed RIF policy for formal board consideration.