A "secret vote" by the Lakeville school board has called into question whether the board violated Minnesota's open-meeting law and has some residents demanding greater transparency.

The six-member board took an anonymous vote earlier this month on which of them should be the next chairperson, vice chair, treasurer and clerk. Each member cast a ballot and outgoing chairwoman Roz Peterson tallied them. The vote was done during an open session, but who voted for whom wasn't shared since they didn't sign the ballots.

Holding a private or secret school board vote is a violation of state law, said Bill Kautt, associate director of management services at the Minnesota School Boards Association.

"The votes have to be public and recorded for that purpose, the way I look at it," Kautt said. "It must be recorded how they vote."

But then things get complicated.

The vote wasn't official, contended Michelle Volk, the member who won the most votes as chair. Members can change their vote up until the Jan. 13 meeting, when an open vote will be taken.

Since the board didn't take any official action, they could argue that the open-meeting law wasn't violated, said Janet Hey, an expert from the Minnesota Department of Administration's Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD).

But it's not a clear-cut situation, Hey said, citing a Mankato court case that set precedent. That case said straw polls that ended up serving as official votes weren't allowable because the public is entitled to know how each member voted.

So it may depend on whether the results on Jan. 13 match the results from the Dec. 15 vote.

But Jackie Craig, a parent and 2014 Lakeville school board candidate, said she believes the action was wrong even if it didn't technically violate the law.

"It's, like, are you kidding me?" she said. "This is a group of grown, professional people. You have to be able to vote out loud."

Lakeville resident Andy Charrier said he looked up open-meeting law after hearing about the poll.

Straw polls "are a violation of the open-meeting law as well," he said. "I think it violates it both in the spirit and the letter of the law."

"My question would be, what is the interest that is being served … by keeping that voting secret?" Charrier asked. "What are you hiding, or what are you afraid of hiding?"

Saving time, avoiding conflict

School board member Jim Skelly said the board held the secret vote to save time.

"I would say this was an effective way to get a lineup set," he said.

Reaching board consensus on who should assume which role has historically been a "stressful and difficult matter," Skelly said.

Volk said it was a way to avoid conflict.

"We've done [an open vote] in the past and it looks pretty divisive in the community," she added.

The anonymous ballot was Peterson's idea, Volk said she believes. It was a way to "smooth things over with the board because it gets pretty personal."

The rest of the board reorganization workshop, including members advocating for various positions, was done openly, Volk and Skelly said.

The board wasn't intentionally trying to keep secrets or violate the law, Volk added.

"I don't know why [conflict] looks bad," Charrier said. "What you're really telling the community in that case is that you have passionate, interested, invested people who want to lead the school district."

Transparency a 'key value'

When asked why the vote couldn't have been taken publicly, Volk said the board "certainly could have said it out loud."

Skelly admits he understands that the vote may have looked shady. "I can certainly see how it looks from the outside in, and I'd certainly share that concern if that was my frame of reference," he said.

Transparency is a "key value" as well as "an improvement area for our school board," he added.

Craig agreed that improvement was necessary. One reason she ran for the board was because there was "too much of the back door stuff" happening via e-mail and in private meetings.

She cited a meeting this past summer in which board members were passing notes, and a reporter informed the group it was an open-meeting law violation.

Volk said that was merely a joke.

One thing is for sure: Many people aren't familiar with the intricacies of the open-meeting law, said Kautt.

"I think the common, everyday, ordinary citizen probably doesn't know the law," said Kautt. "It's complicated."