Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor
I am a member of the Lake Mills Community School Board. The Feb. 14 edition of the Graphic had an article regarding early retirement and the denial of a request. Contained in the article was information that was not correct, and also, a lot of information and discussion that was left out. I feel the need to explain our recent school board actions.
In our December meeting we, as a board, approved offering early retirement package to eight school staff who met the criteria. The offering of an early retirement package is a valuable tool, which school districts can use to reduce the district salary cost. We decided the deadline for requesting early retirement benefits was Jan. 15, 2018. That date is important, in that, it is early in the hiring season to allow administrators a better opportunity to find replacement staff. We also have a clause in the early retirement policy that allows the school board to consider requests after the deadline for “special circumstances.” The board approved two requests for early retirement benefits at our January board meeting. The controversial request was made on Feb. 9, which was after our deadline of Jan. 15. The article in the Graphic states the request came in “one or two days“ past the deadline, when in fact, it was over three weeks past the deadline.
The clause regarding special circumstances is where we, as a board, differ on this issue. As I stated in the February monthly meeting, I would be more open to honor this request if the special circumstance was an issue of health concerns, that was discovered after the deadline. I feel I could defend allowing the benefit as a show of support for the staff.
The Feb. 9 request stated a spouse had a new job and would take the couple out of our community. Other board members felt this is a “life-changing event.” I felt this was a change in her life that had very poor timing for her.
I was curious where we, as a board, would draw the “line in the sand,” so I raised a hypothetical situation, (which I feel could very easily happen if we grant the request before us) where an eligible staff made a request, AFTER the deadline, stating their spouse had received a pay raise and that staff member didn’t feel the need to continue working. If that staff member did NOT move away, would we grant the same early retirement benefit? The answer I received from fellow board members was “no,“ because that staff didn’t move away. To which I asked, “we are asked to grant the request to someone who is moving and deny the same benefit to someone who does not move?” That didn’t seem fair to me. Is it only a special circumstance if a person moves?
Through this discussion, I reasoned that I could not give the motion on the table a second. My decision was not a personal issue with the staff, but rather an issue of bad timing. If the benefit request had been made prior to Jan. 15, this would not be an issue. My decision was not easy, but feel that if we consider this a special circumstance, we open the door for other eligible staff to request early retirement well beyond the Jan. 15 deadline and ultimately defeat the original intent of that deadline.
As directors of Lake Mills Community School, we all give a lot of thought to issues brought to us. I felt the need to explain and add the information and discussion that helps justify my thoughts.
Don Knudtson
Lake Mills