Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Investigator finds no evidence of gender-based discrimination; report urges board training and team-building
Summary
An external report commissioned after a complaint from Director Kim Baker found no evidence that board members acted based on gender, but identified unprofessional nonverbal conduct and recommended officer training and facilitated team-building; board members gave mixed public reactions and asked for policy and process changes.
The Lakeville Area School Board reviewed findings of an investigative report prepared by the Martin Law Firm on Jan. 6 after a complaint filed Aug. 28, 2025, by Director Kim Baker alleging a pattern of dismissive and undermining conduct toward female board members.
Chair Amber Cameron read the report summary into the record. According to that summary, the investigator "did not find sexism, discrimination, disregard, or disrespect based upon gender," and video footage reviewed "for the most part" showed professional communication and opportunities for all board members to engage. The investigator nonetheless documented unprofessional nonverbal conduct (making faces, reading while others speak, not looking at the speaker) and found that chair and vice-chair roles showed a lack of experience that would benefit from training.
Director Kim Baker, the complainant, had alleged in her complaint "a sustained pattern of conduct by male members of the Lakeville [Area] School Board that has been dismissive, inconsiderate, and undermining towards female board members." The board discussion that followed included several personal reflections and calls for next steps, including mandatory officer training, facilitated dispute-resolution sessions, and review of board policies cited in the report.
Board members who had been criticized in the complaint responded publicly. Paul Carbone said the report’s conclusions emphasized the presumption of innocence and urged the board to make that clear to the public. Board member Brian Thompson raised concerns about process, asking why the board had not been involved earlier in deciding to hire an investigator and estimating the investigation’s direct and indirect costs could be substantial; he said he had not yet received consolidated invoices from district legal counsel.
The report’s recommendations (as read to the board) included requiring board officers to attend Minnesota School Boards Association officer workshops, engaging in facilitated team-building and dispute-resolution training, and considering policy updates to clarify conflict procedures and officer training requirements. The chair described the summary slides and said she had quoted the investigator’s language to make the findings transparent to the public.
Next steps: board members suggested additional work on policies (including policy 2 0 1 and 2 0 9), potential changes to the district’s classification of board members for data-practices purposes, and facilitated board-development sessions. No formal board action to adopt specific remedies was taken at the Jan. 6 meeting.
