Observer Report: Northfield School Board, 6.8.26

Meeting Video Recording

1. Call to Order by Board Chair Claudia Gonzalez-George at 6:00 pm. All board members present.
   
   
2. Agenda Approval/Table File approved unanimously (see Board Packet and Table File)
   
   
3. Public Comment
   1. No members of the public signed up to comment.
      
      
4. Announcements and Recognitions
   1. Congratulated new NHS alumni after graduation. First time since 2010 that commencements were inside. Thanked the facilities, NHS administration, for their help. 350 students (including 10 students from ALC, and some students who completed HS through the Big 9 Online).
   2. Held ALC graduation ceremony last Thursday, 25 students graduated this year.
   3. Claire Forbord Natl Bus. Prof Association of America, 3^rd place finish, highest ever place finish for a Northfield Public Schools student.
   4. Baseball team advancing to state tournament. First game on June 11 against Mankato West.
   5. Makaya Petricka-state championship title in 800 meters! School record and class AA record.
   6. Three NHS Students received their FoodSafe Certification through culinary arts curriculum.
   7. Farm Days held at each Elementary. Tiffany Kortbein and FFA Advisor help to coordinate.
   8. 4^th and 5^th grade track and field day was a huge success!
   9. Finished season of music programs-band, choir, orchestra. Thanked the music staff for their collaboration.
   10. Recognition of Dr. Hillman:
       1. Board member Ben Miller used the opportunity to recognize Dr. Hillmann given that it’s his last regular board meeting. First met Dr. Hillmann while board chair at Prairie Creek and shared story about Dr. Hillmann’s portable fan. Shared how rare it is to have a true servant leader like Dr. Hillmann. Miller went to Wikipedia to see if he was there (he’s not…yet), but if he gets in there, will link to servant leader. Appreciated thoughtfulness and the way Dr. Hillmann developed culture of leadership with the board. Nfld and students of the district are better for his leadership.
   11. Board member Jenny Nelson shared memory of Dr. Hillmann. Brought handwritten letter he wrote to her as a parent before time on the school board. She read it out loud. Appreciated it and said will really miss him!
   12. Board member Amy Goerwitz mentioned Science Rocks at Spring Creek School—shout out to them. Then read prepared remarks in honor of Dr. Hillmann: Kept future of education at the heart of the work. Lead with transparency, integrity. Impact felt for years to come. “Today—we want to say back to you—we appreciate you, Matt….Your dedication, presence, and belief in community. Your leadership has made a lasting difference. Thank you for your years of service, and excited for what lies ahead for you. Success in next chapter.”
   13. Board member Corey Butler shared “you  have made me better as a person, and this community is better for having you and Mary in it. Look forward to continued support.”
   14. Board member Jeff Quinnell—thank you for continued friendship and service. Firmly remember hiring you for first job in district—was in HR—appreciate all you’ve done, but asked Dr. Hillmann about jobs he has had in District? Hillmann replied that he first held Director of HR. Was nervous to be district’s lead negotiator. Chris Richardson said he could teach him (he did), and then also served as Dir. Of Technology. After a few years restructured—Dri. Of School Operations—then 10 years ago interviewed and Julie Pritchard offered him the job.
   15. Board member Maggie Epstein—attended 5^th grade graduation at GVP. Picture up there of Hillmann speaking to 5^th grade. She moved to town before kids started. Then they started and realized how great the district was. But started watching school board meetings on YouTube and realized it was Hillmann’s leadership that made it so wonderful. Thank you!
   16. Gonzalez-George—keep in mind you’re still around, don’t have enough words to express appreciation for Hillmann, next to me believing in me, we’ll do this together and it will be fun. Fun to be a partner with Matt. Have always been very welcomed by Dr. Hillmann. Thank you for being a part of my life and being a better leader!
   17. Hillmann appreciated the comments. It’s important to tell people now, in the moment, how they have impacted you. Sometimes miss those opportunities, and try to do that. Have loved every minute of this job. Think about all the people, admin, staff, teachers, students, family, business community to work alongside. Nfld Public Schools is like major league baseball. Genuinely grateful for everyone at the table. This board has been a model for the state, from support, togetherness, and have thought about others who have helped, including Julie Pritchard, Ellen Iverson, Rob Hardy, Margaret Colangelo, Fritz Bogott, Tom Baraniak, Robert Coleman, Noel Stratmoen. Has never felt that the superintendent has been lonely. Appreciate the opportunity I have had here, and am excited for Dr. Anderson. Thank you! 

5. Items for Discussion and Reports
   1. Superintendent Focus Areas Final Report
      Hillmann—set five goals, but in future reminded the board to help the superintendent to decide on just three. Will let report stand although highlighted that the work-based seminar experience course is ready to go! AI academy was interesting—had to think in between each session because of the speed of changes. Also highlighted the policy challenge as a fun way to get people involved!
   2. Goerwitz: Very impressed by amount of work on top of everything else. Thank you for the thorough listing. Also have memories on goals, but your enthusiasm for so many areas was hard to stop—lots of vision, lots of plans.
6. Legislative Wrap-up:
   MASA end of session update in the board packet (pages 13-16). Hillmann highlighted:
   1. the limited funding-$37.1 million dollars across many bills and policies.
   2. compensatory revenue—with the new formula—we’re right about the same next year as last year (based on Free and Reduced Lunch numbers at the site level).
   3. Requirement of July 1, 2028 to have anonymous threat reporting systems. NPS is ahead of the game and have signed MOU with Sandy Hook Promise for “See Something, Say Something” (program that meets state criteria).
   4. Legislature authorized operating capital fund for utility bills—a pretty big deal! Asked for flexibility, so this is good as a way to relieve the general fund.
   5. Technical adjustments with READ Act.
   6. Grooming Bill—real emotional testimony at legislature, but also police requirements to report, and additional mandated reporting training beginning August 1, 2026.
   7. Constitutional amendment this fall to reform the permanent school fund. 2.5 million acres put in a trust when state was founded, and allows 2.5% of dividends to use for public education.
   8. Statewide referendum to increase to 4.5%. Nfld would stand to gain $106,000 if approved with no additional tax implications.
   9. Thanks the Legislative Action Committee!
7. 2026-2027 Student Citizenship Handbook: Hillmann shared that the school administrators did not have any major changes. Reminded that they have done significant overhaul in the last few years. One change is the name of the Title IX coordinator (new HR Director) if table file is approved. Reminds that this handbook is disciplinary policy.

6. Consent Agenda approved unanimously without discussion.
   1. Minutes
   2. Gift Agreements
   3. Overnight Field Trip Requests
   4. Personnel Items
      
      
7. Items for Individual Action
   1. Resolution Certifying the Population Estimate for the 2026 Payable 2027 Levy:
      Director of Finance Valorie Mertesdorf noted that the population census is part of formula for that. This process allows school district to update that. A few hundred in population increase which will allow a few thousand dollars.
      
      Roll Call vote—all board members voted in favor, motion passed.
      
      
   2. FY 2026 Audit Engagement Letter:
      Letter from Clifton Larson Allen establishes fees for annual audit. Mertesdorf shared that they have used CLA for many years. Letter similar to previous years with slight increase as expected.
      
      Motion passed unanimously.
      
      
   3. Ice Arena Lease
      Hillmann commented that the lease in the table file had a few minor changes from previous draft. Section 4—changed payment date to July 15 instead of June 30. Moving ahead we will pay for it with lease levy reimbursement. Also cleaned up language in Section 5, clarified $250,000 cap and that the district would get 300 hours. Modified addendum C to make it payment date of July 15. Grateful to move forward, partner at table for a long time, and will be a great place for kids to participate and community to be proud of. Great example of intergovernmental work and working with community partners. School board approves first, then goes to City Council.
      
      Motion passed unanimously.
      
      
   4. Policy Committee Recommendations
      Quinnell interrupted to make a motion, Gonzalez-George invited him to open discussion. Quinnell wanted Hillmann to comment on policies 203 and 209. Hillmann noted that these were discussed quite a bit at the last meeting. 203 is bylaws of the board and some changes were made from last meeting.
      1. Under duties of chair in 203-gives Chair responsibility in letter I to facilitate investigations into board member. I
      2. In 209 investigation isn’t the default so clarifies Chair’s role.
      3. In 209 there’s a board procedure for having a violation of board policies. Hillmann noted that he has no concern on this board, but has seen it on other boards where they have struggled when they have not had a process. 209 allows a systematic procedure for walking through violations and gives future boards the steps they would need to go through. First step is good faith effort to solve themselves and offer chance for correction. If not that, then goes to board chair. Then they try to readily resolve this, like mediation. If that doesn’t work, then the board chair is empowered to say it has been resolved or not. If others don’t like their decision, they can vote to change the chair in the next election. Then lists possible sanctions. State statute for years allowed the possibility to remove a board member, but nothing in between no action to full removal. This now has some options that the board can take (censure, docking compensation, etc.). Reiterated again that he has no concern for this board, but wants to give the board a set of tools to use.
      4. Goerwitz: appreciate how it outlines possibilities for doing things in a nonpublic way  and options ahead of time. As someone spoken to a bit in early years by senior board members, appreciates it.
      5. Nelson: In 209, seeing that you’ll be overseeing MSBA policy, why doesn’t MSBA have this in  policy handbook?Hillmann: In new role will be in partnership with other staff, but will not directly oversee this. Used example of AI. MSBA didn’t feel ready a few years ago to go full policy, so did pieces. MSBA continues to work through this issue. Sometimes districts move ahead before there’s a statewide policy. Wouldn’t be surprised if something like this would come forward from MSBA. Said it felt important to get ahead of this. Maybe there’s an iteration of this that gets refined in the future. It hasn’t been a completely pervasive thing.
      6. Nelson: MSBA not likely to implement because of Rock Ridge School District in MN had lawsuit about 209 and circuit courts ruled in favor of board member. That district has had to payout now. She sees gaps in here and nervous that we would be put in that position and general fund could be compromised as a result of being in litigation. Would like to see this revised and would not vote yes tonight. One factor that brought Rock Ridge to lawsuit was because the board said they violated the code of ethics, which is what we say. Ours seem loose, too. Like it says board members attends meetings, but maybe need clearer definition (like attend 75% of meetings). MSBA had a redline on 209 code of ethics policy, where the natural consequences are the consequences. MSBA also says that it should be starting point as the board establishes their own standards. As long as we use that (written expectations/guidelines and not rules), we need to provide more concise, better parameters.
      7. Hillmann appreciated the work Nelson did to look into it, and that yes the redline is just a starting point. NPS policies now on four year review cycle. This policy was adopted in 2004 and has been updated several times since 2019. Good to look at through a new lens. Hillmann was looking at this more through the conflict resolution lens. Sometimes districts don’t have this in 209 but have as a stand alone policy. We put it in there to embed in an existing policy. This felt like the best place to put it. Asked: Is Code of Ethics still right for us? Or is there a greater amount of specificity needed to hold accountability for violations?
      8. Nelson: All the duties and obligations of code of ethics, all are excellent, but only when added section three it changes how to view code of ethics –needed more concise. So either leave as is or if add section 3 go in an update so that code of ethics can hold up to potential litigation.
   5. Hillmann: Did Rock Ridge have sanctions?
      • Nelson: Yes they did.
   6. Hillmann: Don’t know enough about that Rock Ridge case to know. If Section 3 was separated into its own policy, would that make it better?
      • Nelson: No, because this separate policy still references code of ethics in 209. Would have the same issue.
   7. Goerwitz: Understands what Nelson is saying and is a policy to continue to look at. Is this a step towards improvement though? With other policies, have a procedures document. Could this be in that (less formal)? Is there a stop gap measure in the meantime? Good to have some clarity and specific guidelines. But what are our options? How can we move forward to improve what we can now and line it up to look at again next year?
   8. Hillmann: Procedures are a document that accompanies policy for administrators to implement. Few procedures are board approved. But since this is board responsibility, not administrator responsibility, this is the dilemma. Procedure is still at the level of policy because this is something the board is administering for itself. Could separate it, but it would do the same as it put into a separate policy. Administrators should not be involved in policing the board.
   9. Miller: Good call out that this is the board’s document, not the superintendents. As a board member, don’t know if we would be having conversation unless we tack on the last piece to set up a process to hold members accountable that is clear and fair. To Gonzalez-George’s point—it hasn’t existed, this is what we have. We could get more specific, but that level of specificity can sometimes bring its own problems. Little bit like you know it when you see it with respect to going outside of norms. Set ups process for chair and board for when that happens. We are mincing words with policy or process. Benefit in saying these are the rules and this is how we will handle it. Better than saying you’ll get kicked off the board. If discomfort with language, ask why? Step back—does this help us meet our self-governing process? Seems reasonable for a graduated approach depending on the issue. Best time to think about is when you don’t need it. Unique position to plan for future and point to process.
   10. Quinnell: Based on discussion—sounds too wishy washy and not enough teeth. Sounds close, would like an option to vote no on 209 or make motion to table for further option, unless we can come up with a rewrite for tonight.
   11. Butler: Echo what Ben said. Policy is about future, not today. Set good policy when necessary. Watched a number of school boards the last few years where policy like this has come forth as a result of relationships. Meant to be a tool to help the group work together. We do well now, but don’t know what that looks like in the future. Some of Nelson’s comments regarding specificity are tied to state statute. This is middle ground from nothing to kicking people off. Give us some tools to address those. Having graduation of consequences is important. Comfortable with this, but appreciate concerns.
   12. Epstein: Clarify that this policy 209 is already in place without this section. We’re not adopting a brand new policy. Also think that we have this policy in place now and if someone were to violate it we could follow this procedure ad hoc. Worry about overly specific requirements because you get in situations where a censure is forced when that isn’t what we want. Comfortable tabling 209 for new section to get info from lawyer and MSBA to learn more if opening up to future litigation. This is the only policy that changes the way they operate in ways different from state statute. Ok with taking more time to get it right.
   13. Gonzalez-George: Appreciate the checks and balances in the new update. Had conversed with Hillmann about updates. In Section 3, D, gives her comfort. Responsibility to take care of the reputation of the board, and take care of the individual board member, lies with the chair. There is safety in that it preserves the relationship in the process. If it does come to the full board, we don’t have to have a discussion in public about how to proceed.
   14. Nelson: All of that was interesting. Tough to have rules and not have accountability section. Likes that! That’s not the part she’s fighting. We’re ignoring the gaping hole. District has been involved in lawsuits before and paid out hundreds of thousands for settlement. Must acknowledge the precedent set (with Rock Ridge) and that makes her nervous. Should learn from those mistakes and now we can look at it to make as concise as possible. Agree with other board members—don’t want to make obligations so tight with extreme rules— not going to ignore that this will make NPS vulnerable with the court precedent. In the future, can’t look away. Cannot vote yes to it as is. Ok with tabling it for future discussion and information (from new superintendent, third parties).
   15. Miller: Googled Rock Ridge case—and it was dismissed and no settlement was paid. We’re getting speculative. Current language has served us. One thing missing is tie back to statute. If they violate code of ethics, could result in removal from board. Now we’re clearer in tying behavior to consequences. A little surprised by the reluctance and pushback. We’re here, function well, as upright citizens. So—why are we worried about this? I’ll support this because it is the right and ethical thing to do because this guards against consequences.
   16. Quinnell: If someone moved to table discussion, what would be reasonable amount of time to table
   17. Nelson: Court of appeals ruled in favor of board member. Now much worse! District has went through several levels of litigation.
   18. Hillmann: In my time, NPS has only had one legal case. Did not pay hundreds of thousands, but yes did pay for legal fees. Board has never had one against itself. Legal fees to defend the board is a fair perspective. Those are the things to consider. Looking through Rock Ridge case is important. Understood it was dismissed with prejudice, but yes—that district did have to pay legal fees. Proud of this discussion—you are a thoughtful and deliberate board. You need to take the time you need to get it right—as much or as little. One option: move forward and ask policy committee to bring back revisions. Recommends to take these two policies out, approve other policies, then send them back to policy committee. Some of the steps have happened over the year in less formal ways because of the culture of the board. That’s ideal! But in the way we see society moving, if it becomes worse than that, it is wise to consider, but you have to be comfortable. What creates a violation? What is the consequence?
   19. Gonzalez-George: asked who was on policy committee (Epstein, Goerwitz, Quinnell). Reminded that the policy committee brought this to us and wrestled with it. Board’s responsibility to understand that.
   20. Epstein: Because this relates to own self-governance, would be uncomfortable if there were several board members uncomfortable with it. Taking more time to verify that this policy is tighter than what has been seen would be good. And 209 is already in place and wants to be ok that most are ok with it.
   21. Gonzalez-George: If and when time comes for a conversation is had with board member and cannot be resolved, can’t imagines a time when Chair, Superintendent, etc. wouldn’t bring in the lawyer for a conversation and consult. Policies are updated on a cycle. Can accept now and in cycle return to it.
   22. Quinnell: Again—would motion to set 6 months to discuss.
   23. Nelson: If we did take more time, am on board with accountability for sooner rather than later. One area that I looked at was policy 103. It’s not comparable to section 3 resolution, but some similarities—discuss issue with person directly. Looking at person-to-person first—in agreeance. Wants to mention that policy 103 can be used in same fashion as section 3 in 209. If we’re worried that community members, staff, other board members, etc. that there is currently a process in section 103. Might not be policy we would like to see, so if we take some extra time, there is a safeguard right now.
   24. Gonzalez-George: 103 wouldn’t be great.
   25. Nelson: Yes, agree. It’s not ideal, but it is there.
   26. Goerwitz: Since significant revision to 209, was that run by attorney and MSBA?
   27. Hillmannn: had general conversations, used policy from another district that was vetted by another attorney. Didn’t have our attorney look at it (that would mean payment to them for their time) but did use pieces that were already vetted. Try to reuse those things. Spoke with them about several components.
   28. Goerwitz: Significant questions from board, agree with Epstein to have unanimous consent. Makes sense to do more vetting. This is a step in the right direction, but need to get to point where we are comfortable.
   29. Quinnell: End of year sounds right.
   30. Miller: What substantively changes from now and then? Discomfort will likely not go away. Unlikely to get to 100% consensus. When the board speaks, you uphold opinion of board. If you choose to go against what board voted on, you go against policy. This spells out what happens. Let’s vote on it tonight.
   31. Butler: Agree with Miller. It is a tool for us. To Gonzalez-George’s point if something were to elevate beyond a chat, legal team would get involved. Comfortable where we are at. If will of the board is to come back to later, that’s ok.
   32. The board then proceeded to spend significant time working through the language of an amendment and procedure to ensure that the board and minutes reflected an accurate depiction of what they were voting on. Hillmann clarified the parliamentary procedures at times. Ultimately, the first amendment to the original motion did not pass. Went back to original motion. Epstein offered amendment to remove 203 and 209 for separate consideration. Roll call vote passed unanimously.

Then, Hillmann clarifed to return to original motion (now amended) to vote on the other policies. Gonzalez-George read them out loud. Roll call vote: passed unanimously.

Motion to consider 203 and 209 for approval. No further discussion. Roll call vote: Gonzalez-George, Miller, Butler all yes. Epstein, Goerwitz, Nelson, Quinnell all no. Motion did not pass.

Gonzalez-George: What is the process now?

Hillmann: Could make an additional motion, but now goes back to policy committee. Appreciated genuine and fair discussion on these policies. Asked when next time they will meet? Often start in August.

8. Items for Information
   1. Construction Update No. 27: Similar report to last time. Meeting on June 24 to approve bids. Groundbreaking ceremony tomorrow (June 9) at 4:00 pm.
      
      

Nellson: question on value engineering change—provide a second spray booth in woodshop. Would that take up classroom space?

Hillmann: Yes, but would free up some space there, but would free up space in art room. Spray booths would be shared by tech ed and art. They’ll be going back to the user groups to see how they would do that in their space.

Nelson: question on why it says that it will omit CTE space fully?

Hillmann: Where are you looking at?

Nelson: very first page, towards the bottom, of value engineering.

Hillmann: taking some of CTE updates and removing them from construction budget and filled in with long-term maintenance fund. It’s about protecting the construction budget.

Nelson: Is $650,000. So all at once?

Hillmann: Will be over time.

Nelson: So that is our choice and we would be able to determine the time period?

Hillmann: Yes.

Nelson: Reduce welding booths?

Hillmann: Will double from 3 to 6 but not quite as much as had hoped for.

Nelson: Under theater lighting, but it’s $0 savings. Is that a reduction?

Hillmann: Don’t know. Will have to give additional details.

8. Dates for Filing Affidavits of Candidacy: Dates for July 14-28, 2026 in district office. Must be filed in the office of school district clerk and $2 fee. Next school board election will be held Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026.
   
   
9. Future Meetings
   1. Wednesday, June 24, 2026, 5:15 p.m., Special School Board Meeting, Approve bids for the NHS Reimagine project, Northfield DO Boardroom
   2. Monday, July 13, 2026, 6:00 p.m., Regular Board Meeting, Northfield DO Boardroom
   3. Monday, August 10, 2026, 6:00 p.m., Regular Board Meeting, Northfield DO Boardroom
      
      

Gonzalez-George adjourned the meeting at 7:53 PM.

Submitted by Alyssa Melby, Observer, League of Women Voters (watched online)