End of discussion

Carlton School Board member Tim Hagenah voted with his feet last week — by abruptly walking out of the March 7 committee of the whole meeting.

Hagenah’s departure ended the meeting because school board members no longer had a quorum, as members Sue Karp and Sam Ojibway were absent. Hagenah’s departure also ended the discussion about whether a “letter” written by Superintendent Gwen Carman and published in local newspapers was appropriate or overstepping her authority.

It was a discussion that school board member Ann Gustafson had moved to put on the agenda at a March 4 meeting, a motion that failed by a vote of 3-2, with Gustafson and Jenn Chmielewski voting yes, and Hagenah, LaRae Lehto and Sam Ojibway voting “no.”

The letter, or newspaper column, that Gustafson referred to was published in the Pine Knot News, the Pine Journal and the Carlton Community newsletter in late February. It was written and submitted by Carman after the Wrenshall School Board voted to reject the Carlton board’s request to have a neutral facilitator lead discussions of consolidation options, instead noting that they continued to support their own resolution for a two-site solution. After summarizing the most recent communications between the two boards, Carman’s column basically stated that the Carlton board had tried, and consolidation talks had failed, so the board was going to move on from the idea of consolidation with Wrenshall.

“Now that it is clearly established that the Wrenshall board is not interested in developing a consolidation plan with Carlton, the Carlton school board will actively pursue in the upcoming weeks other options to best accomplish the goals of the success of students and a fiscally responsible plan for taxpayers,” Carman wrote in the conclusion to her column.

At the time of writing, Carlton had not yet received a response from Wrenshall, although the superintendent and board members were aware that the Wrenshall board had rejected their proposal in favor of their own. The Carlton board had also not met since the Wrenshall board had voted.

And that’s what Gustafson didn’t like.

“We didn’t make a motion to move on. We haven’t,” Gustafson said. “We’re talking about our strategic plan. We have next steps, that’s it. … I feel like it really stirred the pot and it miscommunicated to our community what the possibilities are and what they aren’t.”

Lehto confirmed that she had read Carman’s column before it was published, but insisted she did not write any part of it, although she had suggested some edits. She said she had confirmed the Wrenshall board vote in a phone call to Wrenshall chairman Matt Laveaux. Lehto defended the letter and said she felt it was factually correct.

Carman didn’t apologize for writing the letter. She said she didn’t think talks with Wrenshall could succeed without a professional facilitator.

Gustafson talked about what the board had voted on during its Jan. 28 meeting — it was her motion to “move ahead with consolidation discussions” that had passed — and what might happen in the future with the two school districts. She also addressed Carman’s claim of receiving “media requests” for information after the Wrenshall vote.

“I get that you get a media request,” Gustafson said. “But to go over what the board actually decided is overstepping your authority. I don’t know where it goes from here, but it’s something that I’m really quite upset about.”

Gustafson wasn’t the only one upset. Four community members addressed the board on March 4 about Carman’s column and its assertion that discussions with Wrenshall were over. (Community members can’t speak at COW meetings, although they can attend them.)

“What board action directed the superintendent to terminate discussions with Wrenshall and publicly do this in the newspaper, based on the trumped-up requirement of a neutral facilitator?” Diane Soden-Groves asked. “This is a debacle, and again I ask, who is in charge here?”

“The state told me there are about 25 school districts with split schools, where elementary and high school are separate,” Mike Salzer said. “I honestly believe this decision should be made by the taxpayers, not just by the school board.”

Dave Chmielewski, husband to board member Chmielewski, asked the board to look at it from a financial angle, without emotions.

“[Consolidation with Wrenshall] is a cure for certain capital issues,” he said. “You’re increasing your enrollment, diluting buildings from three to two, and diluting administrative overhead expenses.”

When Hagenah left the March 7 Carlton COW meeting, he also cut off Chmielewski, who had been asking numerous questions about the idea of consolidation and how to have a conversation with Wrenshall, and making some fairly pointed criticisms of Carman’s actions.

“I have a lot to say, and it’s gonna fit in because that was my request, to talk about this letter.”

“I think that (the) process was a very bad choice. I think if you want to earn respect from us, that this should have been brought to the board.”

A video of the board meeting shows Lehto looking away from Chmielewski then, and addressing Hagenah, asking him to wait.

“No, this meeting’s done, you don’t have a quorum,” he said, getting up and leaving the room.

“Well, I have a lot to say, so please put it on the next meeting agenda again,” Chmielewski responded, before Lehto adjourned the meeting.

The Carlton School Board will meet next at 7 p.m. Monday in the high school library.

Wrenshall board members have said recently that consolidation isn’t off the table but they would only entertain an option that included a school in Wrenshall.