School Board Meeting 5/13/2026
Main Takeaways
The board decided to issue an RFP for both facilitation services and communication services for the November 2026 referendum.
There was significant discussion about if outside communications help is needed. Some board members felt the community may feel skeptical about this type of consulting. But it was acknowledged that the board/administration needs help in creating better communication tools, generating clearer informational documents, and finding ways to create two-way communication with the community.
There was continued emphasis on listening and community engagement before setting next steps for the referendum. The board decided not to move forward with a survey. The discussion focused on facilitated focus groups/listening sessions to gather additional community feedback.
Full Notes
*These are unofficial notes from the video recording of the meeting. AI was used to create these notes. They were reviewed by a community member.
This meeting included a major facilities planning update centered around whether the district should seek outside support for future community engagement and communications work related to facilities planning and possible future referendum discussions.
Staff Appreciation Week Recognition
The meeting opened with recognition of Staff Appreciation Week. Administrators and board members thanked teachers and staff for the work they do throughout the school year both during and outside normal school hours. Dr. Fckler described the district-wide breakfast events held at each building and emphasized the importance of making staff feel valued and appreciated. The Board also thanked district staff and PTOs for helping organize appreciation efforts and acknowledged the amount of behind-the-scenes work required to support students and school operations throughout the year.
Facilities Planning Update and RFP Discussion
The majority of the meeting focused on a facilities planning update and discussion around possible RFPs for community engagement facilitation and communications support.
Dr. Foeckler described the facilitation role as “a neutral independent bridge to the community”. They would be focused on organizing summer engagement sessions and helping gather community feedback around facilities planning and possible next steps.
The board also reviewed a proposed timeline that would move quickly through posting RFPs, receiving proposals, conducting interviews, and potentially selecting firms before the end of May.
Debate Over Communications Support vs. “Selling” a Referendum
One of the strongest themes throughout the meeting was the board’s sensitivity around how hiring communications support could be perceived negatively by the community.
Several members acknowledged concerns already circulating that hiring communications support could look like “selling” a referendum or spending taxpayer money to persuade voters.
Board members repeatedly emphasized that they did not view the role that way.
Instead, multiple members framed communications support as improving clarity, organizing information better, helping explain facilities needs, and helping residents understand the reasoning behind district decisions.
One board member described it as “how do we tell our story better?”
Several members also discussed the challenge that some residents still do not understand why the board views a new middle school as necessary instead of continuing renovations. Members said that even after years of facilities discussions, many community conversations still begin with “Why can’t you just fix up the current building?”
Discussion Around Community Facilitation and Listening
The board also spent significant time discussing the role of a facilitator and whether outside facilitation is necessary. Several members argued strongly that facilitation is essential if the district genuinely wants to hear from residents and rebuild trust following the referendum outcome.
One recurring theme was the belief that surveys alone may not provide nuanced enough information, while open town halls can sometimes become dominated by a small number of voices.
Several members described facilitators as potentially valuable because they could structure discussions, help encourage participation, surface themes, and help the board hear from residents who might not normally engage publicly.
At the same time, board members also acknowledged concerns about cost, administrative workload, and making sure the district is careful stewards of time and resources. One board member emphasized that even issuing an RFP has real costs in terms of staff time and district effort, not just dollars.
Cost Discussion and Timing Concerns
The board discussed rough estimated costs for facilitation and communications support based on conversations with other districts. Administration estimated:
roughly $20,000–30,000 for facilitation work over the summer
and roughly $5,000–7,000 per month for communications support.
Several members cautioned against over-focusing on preliminary numbers before the district actually receives proposals, emphasizing that the purpose of an RFP is to gather information rather than commit to spending immediately.
There was also discussion around timing. Some members expressed concern that delaying engagement work too long could make it difficult to maintain momentum or realistically prepare for future referendum timelines.
Discussion Around “Leaving No Stone Unturned”
Another theme throughout the discussion was the idea that the board owes it to the community to fully explore all available engagement/communication approaches before deciding next steps.
Several members emphasized that issuing an RFP does not commit the district to hiring anyone and gathering more information is part of responsible decision-making. One member specifically said the board had committed to “leaving no stone unturned” when evaluating ways to improve engagement and communication moving forward.
There was also repeated acknowledgment that future engagement efforts could potentially change board thinking or influence future referendum structure and priorities.
Several members stressed if the board already believed it was simply going to return with the exact same proposal and approach then there would be little point in conducting additional engagement work at all.
Approval of RFPs
Later in the meeting, the board formally approved moving forward with RFPs for community engagement facilitation and communications support services.
During final motion discussion, members made small wording adjustments to avoid the term “marketing” and instead refer more specifically to “communication services.”
The motion passed unanimously.
Donations and Personnel Approvals
The second half of the meeting shifted into more routine district business.
The board recognized over $253,000 in total district donations for the school year, including scholarship support and PTO funding.
The board also approved:
multiple teacher hires
staffing agreements with Nicolet High School
professional development plans
and lease renewal agreements related to Milestones programming.
Several board members thanked district administrators for successfully filling teaching positions early and highlighted the mix of experienced educators and newer teachers joining the district.
Overall Tone of the Meeting
The overall tone of the meeting was cautious, and process-focused.
Board members appeared aligned that additional community engagement is necessary and communication needs improvement.
However, there was also clear sensitivity around public trust and perceptions of referendum advocacy. One of the clearest themes of the night was the board’s effort to distinguish between advocating for a specific outcome and improving how the district listens, explains, and communicates with the community.
Public Comment
No public comments were made at this meeting.
