Forest Lake Area Schools held a special meeting Dec. 3 primarily to interview applicants for a board vacancy, hearing from multiple candidates about priorities such as student achievement, safety, educator input and rebuilding community trust.

The meeting opened with roll call and approval of the special meeting agenda. Board leadership explained the process for filling the vacancy: the board received 11 initial applications, two applicants withdrew and two were unable to attend; the board planned roughly 20 minutes per candidate, with each board member allotted about three minutes of questioning.

Paul Pease, the first candidate, told the board he would focus on four pillars—student achievement, opportunity, safety and community engagement—and described starting a volunteer-run science club in the district. When asked about recently adopted model policies and student groups, Pease said he worried some policy changes might create obstacles for student-led activities but added the district must follow the law, including federal directives under Title IX.

Ken Rutherford described a decision-making “pyramid” that weighs protocols, student and teacher impact, and teamwork. He emphasized listening to front-line educators, supporting programs such as FFA and said he would step aside or abstain when district decisions directly implicated his private business.

Jim Smith, a veteran educator, emphasized learning-focused priorities: stronger literacy and career- and college-readiness pathways, a high bar for the next superintendent and restoring community confidence in the board. He said he intended to serve for one year and not run for election afterward.

Later candidates echoed similar themes. Several applicants said they would prioritize a trusting, collaborative relationship with the superintendent while maintaining board oversight. Multiple candidates framed transparency, community engagement and evidence-based instruction as central to rebuilding trust after a year of contentious public debate about district policy.

Board members asked applicants about conflict-of-interest handling, relationships with district staff, balancing academics and social-emotional learning and how each would repair community trust. The conversation included direct questions about social media activity and outside funding in school board elections; candidates gave a range of responses about transparency, campaign contributions and community engagement.

After the interviews the board discussed how many finalists each subcommittee should forward to the next meeting. Members debated whether to select one or two finalists per subcommittee; the chair moved to recess for 10 minutes and then reconvene in subcommittees to make selections. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Board staff reminded the public that subcommittee meetings are open but that the live stream would pause during those smaller meetings for technical reasons.

The board did not make a final appointment during the session; subcommittees are to meet immediately after the recess and the board will announce finalists when it reconvenes.