Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Appointment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeville board hears split on appointing fourth-place vote-getter to fill vacancy
Summary
At a working session board members debated whether to appoint the fourth-highest vote-getter from the recent election to the open seat or to run a separate public application/interview process. Proponents said it honors voters and speeds seating; opponents warned of optics, fairness and statutory ambiguity.
The Lakeville Area Schools Board of Education extensively discussed options for filling a vacant board seat at a working session, with board members sharply divided over whether to appoint the fourth-highest vote-getter from the recent election or to follow a full application-and-interview appointment process.
Board member Judy Kelleher proposed publicly announcing that the fourth-largest vote-getter on the recent ballot would be appointed to the vacancy. Kelleher said that approach would let the community’s choices guide the appointment and place an already vetted candidate on the board earlier so that person could participate in winter onboarding and the superintendent selection process.
Other board members raised objections on fairness and optics. Some argued voters only had the option to select three candidates on the ballot and that changing the practical effect mid-election could be interpreted as changing the rules. Concerns included the possibility the fourth-place candidate could decline the appointment, that the public had no explicit “fourth” choice on the ballot, and that appointing someone without an application/interview could heighten division in the community.
Interim Superintendent Michael Bauman and other members referenced MSBA guidance and state statute provisions the board must follow for appointments; one draft timeline presented at the meeting outlined the alternative application-driven path: post the vacancy for roughly three weeks after the election (Nov. 11–Dec. 3), review profiles Dec. 10, interview candidates Dec. 16–20, and appoint at the Jan. 7 organizational meeting. The draft included public-data considerations, a proposed ranking and top-six interview approach and a requirement that a majority of the board vote to appoint the final candidate.
Board members did not resolve the dispute during the session. Members agreed to continue discussion at the next working session (Oct. 8) and to circulate the draft appointment process for review. Some members urged an earlier decision so communication to candidates and the community could go out promptly; others asked for more time to consider fairness and legal implications.
