Lakeland School Board may be undermining its own levy

The Lakeland Joint School District has historically been well run, with students standing out academically and athletically.

It has been solid and strong, with statewide recognition for its quality staff and administrators. It has shown to be a school district that deserves support. 

But the recent action of the board of trustees has left not just us, but others, wondering what's going on.

Trustees this week placed Superintendent Rusty Taylor on paid administrative leave for the remainder of his two-year, $156,000 per-year contract. He started July 1. That’s a lot of money, more than $200,000, he’ll be receiving for not working. His stay here was short. The board offered no reasons for the action, other than one trustee saying it was not a good fit. It seems like there was a hurry to get Taylor out the door. For such a critical position in a school district, one would expect a better vetting process to avoid this type of thing. We expect a superintendent to last longer than a little more than eight months. 

It’s particularly bad timing, too, as the district recently announced it would be asking voters to support a $3 million-per-year, five-year plant facilities levy that will be on the May 19 ballot. This is not a frivolous ask. The district has aging HVAC units, needs security and safety upgrades, and there’s plenty of preventive maintenance to do. It is necessary. But stability and trust are keys to building levy support, and right now, we would argue the Lakeland School District is raising questions and not providing answers.

The Lakeland superintendent post of late has been one marked by change.  

Consider that Taylor replaced longtime Lakeland teacher and administrator Lisa Arnold, who served as superintendent for three years during which the district struggled with levy failures. Arnold's predecessor, Becky Meyer, left the district in 2020 after a split board failed to extend her contract. So, depending on when the next superintendent is hired, this person would be the fourth in six years. That’s too many over a short time.

And depending again on when the new superintendent is hired, the district will be paying two people for that job, while at the same time asking voters to pony up for a levy. That doesn't sound like a winning combination.

Levy support also depends on confidence in leadership. Sudden changes, like putting a superintendent on paid leave without an explanation, raises questions. At some point, perhaps even now, voters will ask whether the problem is with leadership or with governance. 

We don’t want to see the need for this levy to pass to be overshadowed by placing the superintendent on paid leave for 16 months. We ask trustees to remember they are elected and with their authority comes great responsibility to let the people know what is going on, and why. Voters deserve clear communication.

Don't get us wrong. We have no doubts trustees want what is best for students and staff. Of course, they do. But they should be aware their actions will be scrutinized and will affect levy support. Before asking the community to invest millions in schools, trustees should do their best to focus on transparency so they earn the public trust that leads to levy success.