Lakeville board splits over whether to appoint the election''s fourth-place finisher or run an application process

The Lakeville Public School District board spent an extended portion of the meeting debating how to fill an expected vacancy that will overlap with the November election. One option under consideration would invite the candidate who finishes fourth in the November vote (the "4th vote‑getter") to fill the remainder of the term; an alternative is to conduct the district's customary application-and-interview appointment process.

Chair Kim Baker said she was uncomfortable with the idea of appointing a candidate who was not on the ballot for that seat or who had not been part of the initial three-seat contest. "It kind of bothers me that the election has already started," she said, raising a concern about voters who had already cast ballots before the board decided to change the way a vacancy would be filled. She framed the choice as an integrity question for board members who had, during the campaign, publicly evaluated candidates.

Other board members argued that selecting the fourth-place vote-getter respects voters' aggregate choices and reduces the perception that the board is imposing a political selection. A board member who researched past practice and state guidance said Minnesota statute (cited as 123B.09 sub.5 during the discussion) gives the school board authority to appoint a member when a vacancy occurs and that many districts use an application process, but the statute does not prescribe a single method or timeline.

Practical considerations and contingencies Board members discussed multiple practical questions: whether a 4th-place offer could be declined; whether a tie or large vote gap would make the approach inappropriate; whether the final confirmation vote (an appointment resolution must still pass the board and is subject to a 30‑day petition period) could split the board along the same lines that divided members during the discussion; and whether delaying appointment until after January would impede orientation and onboarding with newly seated members.

The board agreed to develop written communications explaining whichever process it adopts and to decide a final approach by the stated meeting schedule (the board discussed adopting a resolution at a future meeting so public notice could be issued). Several members said they wanted a contingency plan in case the 4th-place candidate declines the appointment or the board cannot reach a majority on the appointed candidate.