GOSHEN COUNTY – Board chairman Lena Moeller called the meeting of the Goshen County School District Board of Trustees to order at 6 p.m. in the Torrington Middle School. Present at the meeting were fellow board members Val Sharp, Chris Alexander, Wade Phipps, Kate Steinbock, Tony Goulart, Dylan Hager, Kelly Strampe and Sarah Chaires. Superintendent Ryan Kramer, business manager Marcy Cates and director of curriculum and instruction, Kevin Derby were also present at the meeting. Student representatives Kaiten Schilreff of Lingle-Ft. Laramie High School (LFL), Aaron Dykes of Platte River High School (PRS), Keeng Velasquez of Torrington High School (THS) and Kaycee Kosmicki from Southeast High School (SHS).
Following the Pledge of Allegiance, a motion was made by Goulart to adopt the evening’s agenda, which was seconded by Sharp. A presentation from the student representatives was added to the agenda prior to a motion being made. The motion then carried by vote and the board moved on to item two, information and proposals where the student representatives provided their reports.
Student representatives from across the district offered varied insights on the Leader in Me program’s implementation and impact.
Schilreff acknowledged the program’s strong potential to benefit students and staff but emphasized current delivery methods need improvement. Calling for more hands-on activities, interest-based lessons, and student-led initiatives, Schilreff stressed tailoring the program to student interests is essential for increased engagement.
Dykes reported successful implementation at PRS, where weekly 40-minute sessions cover the eight habits of highly effective people. The school has developed a leadership structure with Pod Commanders and Pod Leaders managing information flow, while students handle practical responsibilities. Student surveys revealed increased friendliness, stronger connections, and improved time management throughout the school community.
Velasquez highlighted a key concern: many students believe the program would be more effective if introduced in elementary or middle school rather than high school. He noted younger students would likely be more receptive to leadership concepts, while high schoolers have already developed their own approaches. Torrington High School currently conducts sessions weekly during Blazer time.
Kosmicki observed particular benefits for struggling sports teams and noted strong engagement among elementary students, who have embraced concepts like growth mindset. While acknowledging some high school reluctance, she expressed optimism about the program’s long-term cultural impact as younger students develop leadership skills will benefit the entire school community.
Next, the board moved on to a report on Accelerated Reader program by Derby.
The administrative team has decided to discontinue the Accelerated Reader (AR) program after extensive evaluation of its effectiveness and practices across district schools, Derby explained.
The Renaissance platform tool, which has been used in the district for over a decade, allows students to earn points by reading books and passing comprehension tests. While acknowledging some positive aspects of the program, administrators identified several concerning practices and questioned whether it provided adequate return on investment.
Derby raised concerns about problematic implementations in some classrooms, including students missing recess or specials for not meeting point goals, librarians needing to password-protect tests to prevent cheating, students taking tests based on movies rather than books, and AR scores being factored into grades. He emphasized these practices were not universal among staff.
Data analysis revealed significant performance issues. District-wide, only 55-62% of students taking AR tests met the 85% proficiency threshold set by Renaissance. Performance was particularly low in younger grades, where administrators determined the program may not be developmentally appropriate for students still learning to read rather than reading to learn.
The program’s assessment questions were also criticized as surface-level multiple choice items lacking depth of knowledge. Additionally, the ATOS leveling system sometimes restricted students to books within narrow grade bands, potentially limiting access to high-interest materials could motivate reluctant readers.
While cost was a factor – approximately $6,600 annually with projected increases to $8,000-$9,000 – administrators stressed effectiveness concerns drove the decision more than budget considerations.
The district communicated the change in April and provided alternative assessment suggestions including book bingo boards, blogs, presentations, student-created quizzes, and informal check-ins. Administrators established guidelines for alternatives: no punishing students for not reading, allowing choice in book selection including high-interest “dessert books,” avoiding excessive silent reading periods during instructional time, preventing testing from interrupting library or class time, and not incorporating reading assessments into grades.
Staff members were encouraged to discuss alternative approaches with administration align with these principles.
Moving on to committee reports, the board heard from Sharp regarding the district policy committee.
The committee, consisting of three board members and several staff members, reviewed three policies currently in second draft form and included in board packets: visitors to schools, staff conflicts of interest, and retirement and resignation of classified staff. Sharp indicated these policies are on second reading, which may be the final reading before adoption.
The committee is also developing a new policy on student-initiated organizations. This draft will be sent to the district’s attorney for review and is expected to return to the board in November.
Three additional policies are undergoing substantial revision but are not yet ready for board consideration: advertising or solicitation in schools, staff participation in political activities, and vendor relations, sales calls and demonstrations.
Steinbock presented the committee with a request to review the district’s field trip travel policy, last updated in November 2020. Both Steinbock and Sharp had independently been considering whether the policy’s limitations needed updating. Sharp confirmed the committee would submit the policy for review.
Next, Alexander provided an update on the activities committee’s recent discussions, focusing primarily on mileage reimbursement procedures for officials.
The committee spent considerable time examining how to compensate officials who travel to assist with events, as well as district personnel traveling to other locations. Key questions included determining which budget would cover mileage costs and establishing the starting point for mileage calculation – whether from the official’s home location or from within town limits. The committee also addressed scenarios where officials from outlying areas like New Castle or Lusk might carpool with others to destinations such as Cheyenne.
Alexander also noted the Wyoming High School Activities Association (WHSAA) is considering changes to school classifications, though he admitted the details left him more uncertain than before the discussion began. The committee learned classification decisions rest entirely with WHSAA rather than the local district, meaning the board has no decision-making authority in the matter.
When asked whether classification changes would require board action, Alexander clarified WHSAA dictates those determinations to the district, including how classifications are structured.
Moving on to public comment, Moeller announced revised public comment procedures based on a recent federal court case, explaining the changes stem from “a court case called Pauley v. Wilson in Sheridan County number 2 where the board chair and the board of trustees were brought into a lawsuit for not allowing someone to speak during public comment” about a personnel matter.
“In an effort to adhere to what Federal Court Judge Johnson has said and the practice that has been approved in Sheridan County number 2,” Moeller outlined new rules: any public comments about specific employees or “any identifying information as well about the employee” must now occur in executive session rather than open session.
“The board has to be consistent in how we treat personnel matters,” Moeller stated. “So even if it is going to be positive comments, those still need to be made in executive as well as any negative.”
Comments on non-personnel topics may be made during regular public comment. Moeller emphasized “these meetings are conducted for the purpose of caring on business of the schools in the school district. They are not public hearings.”
She requested “all public comments be respectful, be professional, no vulgar use of words.” The board “will not respond and no questions will be answered, no rebuttals.”
For employee complaints, “the employee that is subject of those complaints has the right to also be in executive session at the same time.” Personnel comments will be addressed individually after regular public comment concludes.
Rebecca Cohorn addressed the board regarding agenda item B under new business, which concerned hiring an outside consultant.
“I would like to discuss letter B under new business,” Cohorn said, noting her awareness of the proposed engagement letter for independent counsel.
Cohorn expressed concern the consultant would circumvent previously established guidelines. While affirming her support for free speech, she stated conditions on the support.
“I cannot defend your right to free speech when you will not respect and defend my right to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the right to educate my children the way I see fit,” Cohorn said.
She indicated online comments had led to bullying and harassment which wouldn’t occur in face-to-face interactions. Cohorn referenced an existing Goshen County School District policy designed to handle such situations.
Her primary concerns centered on the necessity and appearance of hiring outside counsel. She worried the consultant would simply recommend actions the board already knows it should take and hiring an independent consultant “that shines a bad light on this board in that it appears that this independent consulting is being hired to cover something up or to prevent someone from facing consequences.”
Cohorn drew an analogy about accountability: “I have the right to shout fire in a crowded movie theater. I then have the expectation to face the consequences of that action.”
She concluded by calling the consultant hiring “a waste of that money, especially if we come to the same conclusion that should have been reached all along.”
House District 5 Rep. Scott Smith (r) expressed reservations about hiring an outside consultant, citing concerns about bias and cost overruns at the state level.
Smith said the state frequently hires consultants and commissions studies, making it difficult for him to support such expenditures in the future. He noted consultants often arrive with predetermined agendas.
He cited a legislative property tax study where a consulting group received $50,000. After reviewing the list of stakeholders, Smith found they were all individuals who spent taxpayer money, with no representation from taxpayers themselves.
Smith also warned about projects exceeding their scope. He described a state-hired consultant whose study ballooned to $10 million and became “a stamp of approval” without returning recommendations to the legislature as intended.
“You always have the right to delegate your responsibility but ultimately you cannot delegate your authority and responsibility,” Smith said, urging officials to make sound decisions and avoid wasting taxpayer funds.
Kim Cawthra, a longtime Goshen County resident and 28-year county employee, addressed concerns about confidential information being disclosed from executive sessions.
Cawthra said she attended school in Goshen County and graduated from Torrington High School. Her mother served as secretary to multiple superintendents, holding the state record for most superintendents served. Her husband is a retired teacher and coach from Torrington High School.
She reminded trustees board members cannot discuss executive session items with the public. Executive sessions are closed meetings allowing boards to discuss sensitive and confidential issues privately, with only board members present. The sessions are designed to ensure confidentiality, foster board independence and oversight and enhance relationships among board members.
However, Cawthra said she has seen comments about executive session events made publicly. She cited confidential documents left on a local bank’s copy machine which ended up in a citizen’s hands, leading to social media accusations the district was “sweeping things under the rug.” She also referenced comments describing sessions as “causing stinch so bad that you need to shower when you get home.”
Cawthra said such disclosures violate Wyoming State Statute 16-4-408 on executive sessions and the Goshen County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees Leadership Governance policy, which was adopted in 2003 and updated in January 2025.
Thomas Massey requested to speak to the board regarding personnel matters and Moeller called for a motion to enter into executive session pursuant to Wyoming State Statute 16-4-405(a)(ii). Steinbock made a motion, which was seconded by Stampe. The motion carried and the board entered into executive session at 6:52 p.m.
The board returned to regular session at 7:04 p.m. and Kramer then provided the superintendent’s report, which included the 2025-26 school year student enrollment numbers.
Superintendent Kramer presented September student enrollment numbers, noting an overall district decline of approximately 42 students in average daily membership compared to the previous year.
LaGrange saw an increase in September enrollment. LFL High School decreased by approximately five students, LFL Elementary decreased by five students and LFL Middle School decreased by approximately four students.
Lincoln Elementary had a reduction of about 15 students from the previous year. Southeast Elementary increased by five students, while SHS decreased by one student and Southeast Junior High decreased by five students.
Trail Elementary decreased by about one student, THS decreased by one student, Torrington Middle School decreased by seven students and PRS decreased by four students.
Kramer said average daily membership determines budget projections. While the district uses a three-year average, it provides some leniency in funding, the 42-student decline requires ongoing monitoring as the school year progresses. He said he would continue providing monthly enrollment updates.
Next, the board went on to approve the consent agenda, agenda item six, which included approval of the minutes of the September 9 regular board meeting, the September 18 special board meeting and the September 30 special board meeting as presented (a), the monthly bills as presented (b) and the district monthly fiscal statement and fund balance comparison report (c). Item d, the acceptance of a Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) grant awards for title I funds in the amount of $902,125.27 and title II funds in the amount of $223,187.06; item e, the acceptance of WDE Career and Technical Education Cutting Edge Grant in the amount of $25,000 for the purchase of drones and game/graphic design program; a donation to Cotant’s Totes of Hope from the Torrington Rotary Club in the amount of $5,000 (f) and item g, the approval of additional 2025-26 school year WDE chapter 20 transportation safety exceptions as presented were also approved in the consent agenda. Also approved was a request for exception of the field trip policy to allow students to travel to Laramie (h); a request for exception of the field trip policy to allow students to travel Chadron (i) and item j, a request for exception of the field trip policy to allow students to travel Pheonix, Arizona were also approved by the board. Chaires motioned to approve the consent agenda, which was seconded by Goulart. The motion then carried by vote.
Next, the board moved on to agenda item seven, new business.
Under item 7a, the board considered the adoption of a proposed GCSD #1 Board of Trustees board norms.
Moeller informed the public the board met with trainer Brian Farmer for approximately three hours to develop skills for more effective governance, noting the board is relatively new with five new members.
Following the session with Farmer, the board held its own workshop to continue the conversation and establish board norms. Moeller asked Trustee Strampe to read the norms, which she compiled formally.
Strampe said the board norms include: putting the good of students first, prioritizing local issues, maintaining an environment where everyone feels comfortable speaking, respecting the roles and responsibilities of the board and district personnel, discussing different views openly and thoroughly, collaborating for the good of the district and introducing sensitive topics in advance when possible and always in good faith.
Phipps made a motion, which was seconded by Hager and Moeller called for discussion.
Chairperson Moeller asked how the board would hold members accountable to the newly established norms and whether the board intended to follow them.
Trustee Alexander said he had been “directly assaulted” by people upset with his votes, including being called a conspiracy theorist and confronted after a vote. He said no one was held accountable despite governance rules and state statutes prohibiting such behavior. Alexander said he had difficulty voting yes on the norms because “it doesn’t happen” and “it just doesn’t feel like it’s going to happen that way anyway.”
Trustee Sharp said she had been called “nitpicky” and referred to as “gotcha.” She said behavior expectations are already covered in the leadership governance document and the board should follow existing rules rather than adding more. Sharp said she was “not interested in adding more rules to rules that we don’t even follow now.”
Trustee Strampe expressed confusion objections were raised after hours spent developing the norms with the consultant. She said the norms had been in the board agenda since the previous week and represented an attempt to fix past problems and improve relationships.
Trustee Hager said he shared Strampe’s sentiment, noting during the three-hour session no one raised the objections now being presented. He questioned how the board could work together in the future if members agreed to norms in private but rejected them publicly, adding it made him distrust their statements.
Alexander responded false accusations were made against him within the past week, though he could not speak specifically about them.
Trustee Goulart said the challenge was board members “cannot agree on what these words mean” despite sharing the same vocabulary. He suggested tabling the norms until members could agree on the meanings of words, which “might be a long haul to get there.”
Trustee Chaires said Goulart’s statement deeply concerned her because the board’s job involves words, enforcing policy and following board governance. She said if members cannot agree on basic words, she feared for the board. Chaires asked how the board holds itself accountable to existing governance documents, not just new norms. She expressed sadness over four hours spent discussing norms “was for no reason whatsoever.”
Moeller said the board asked her to contact consultants Sue Bellish and Brian Farmer, which took hours of personal time. She said resistance was not expressed until the night of the board meeting, which was frustrating. Moeller said the previous two weeks involved countless hours on school board matters, but “not one time” involved discussions benefiting children or the district – only “drama” and “political BS.” She said the board must work together to benefit the district and students, not personal or political agendas. While disagreement is healthy, members must be able to work together and move forward.
Sharp said she intended to vote for the norms until the situation Alexander mentioned, which showed “we couldn’t even abide by them for one meeting.” She said the problems involve both sides and all members are passionate, but she is not willing to be personally attacked.
Strampe said the norms should be viewed as “a promise or a commitment” and members should strive to meet them despite imperfections. She noted the board was already “discuss[ing] different views openly and thoroughly” during the conversation. She suggested printing the norms for board meetings and said putting “the good of the students first” at the top would positively impact meetings and interactions.
Moeller said she appreciated the word “commitment” and acknowledged frustration with the board’s inability to conform to norms not yet adopted. However, she said the board must start somewhere to work together for the good of the district. She emphasized the norms are not “gotchas” or rules but commitments the board makes to encourage conformity for the district’s benefit.
Moeller then called for a vote where Chaires, Phipps, Steinbock, Hager and Strampe voted in favor of adopting the new board norms and Goulart, Alexander and Sharp voted against.
Next, the board moved on to item 7b where they considered the approval of a letter of engagement for independent consultant. A motion was made by Chaires and seconded by Steinbock. Moeller then opened the topic to discussion.
Goulart noted housekeeping items, saying he did not receive an email with the engagement letter, likely due to oversight. He asked if the board could approve the consultant without the public knowing the firm’s name and whether was addressed in the letter.
Moeller said the letter was drafted with the intent it could be shared with the public.
Goulart asked if the board could state the firm’s name in the public meeting, which Moeller confirmed. She said transparency made important and asked about the cost.
Moeller said the rate is $250 per hour and the work would take approximately four to five hours.
Goulart asked if there was a not-to-exceed amount. Moeller said the engagement letter states the anticipated hourly cost but does not include a not-to-exceed figure.
Goulart asked if the cost could go beyond what was suggested. Moeller said the firm provided an hourly rate and estimated the work may take four to five hours, so it could take longer if something emerged during the review.
Goulart asked if not an actual dollar figure or not-to-exceed amount having having presented transparency or statutory problems.
Moeller asked Cates if she was aware of any such issues. Several board members said they had not received the emailed engagement letter. Moeller emailed the letter to the board.
Cates recommended sharing exactly what Moeller stated and said while a not-to-exceed amount is encouraged, it is not required.
Trustee Chaires asked if the board could approve the letter with an added not-to-exceed amount.
After further discussion, the board agreed to add a maximum cap of seven professional hours for a capped amount of $1,750 for the outside consultant.
An amendment was made to the original motion, which included a cap up to seven professional hours by Steinbock. The amended motion was seconded by Strampe. Moeller called for a vote where Chaires, Phipps, Steinbock, Hager and Strampe voted in favor of the engagement letter and Goulart, Alexander and Sharp voted against.
On item 7c, the board considered the approval of offering an employment agreement to Melanie Wolfe as a district social worker for the remainder of the 2025-2026 school year. A motion was made by Chaires and seconded by Sharp. The motion then carried by vote.
Next, the board moved on to item 7d, where they considered the approval of school improvement plans for district schools. Chaires motioned to accept the improvement plans, which was seconded by Steinbock. The motion then carried by vote.
Under item 7e, the board considered the approval of purchase for repairs of the THS cooling tower per district policy 3420 (purchasing guidelines). A motion was made by Hager and seconded by Sharp. The motion then carried by vote.
Next, the board moved on to 7f where they considered the proposed revisions to district policy 1250, visitors to schools. A motion was made by Chaires and seconded by Sharp. The motion then carried.
The board moved on to item 7g, where they considered approval of proposed revisions to district policy 4119.70/4219.50, staff conflicts of interest and renumber to 4307, staff conflicts of interest. A motion was made by Chaires and seconded by Sharp. The motion carried then by vote.
Under item 7h, the board considered approval of the district policy 4253, retirement and resignation of classified staff. Sharp made a motion to approve the policy, which was seconded by Strampe and Steinbock. The motion then carried by vote.
Next, the board moved on to 7i, where they considered the establishment of a committee to consider request for re-naming the Southeast Football Stadium. A motion was made by Chaires and seconded by Steinbock. The motion then carried by vote.
The board then moved on to 7j where they considered the assigning location of board meetings during the 2025-26 school year. Goulart made the motion, which was seconded by Strampe. The motion then carried by vote.
Next, the board moved on to item eight on the agenda, board topics for discussion.
Steinbock said she had been trying to determine how to speak to teachers, students, parents and faculty about recent proceedings. She said she is a processor and writer who is more comfortable reading her prepared statement.
Steinbock publicly and personally apologized to students, staff, faculty and parents for the time, attention and resources recent proceedings required. She said as elected board members; focus should always remain on serving students and ensuring school success. She regretted distractions took energy from the mission.
While being careful with her comments, Steinbock said board decisions were conducted according to established policy. The board’s role in personnel issues and grievances is clearly defined, and if the process is disagreeable, proper mechanisms exist within policies to propose and enact change. Until changes are formally made, the board is bound to follow existing rules.
Steinbock said disagreement is natural but does not diminish the process’s integrity or the board’s commitment to act within its defined authority.
However, she expressed deep concern about public comments made by certain board members on social media. She said the board collectively developed and agreed upon norms rooted in respect, professionalism and unity of purpose, established in good faith with shared understanding the differences would be handled respectfully within board procedure.
Steinbock said it was disheartening and disappointing not all members upheld the agreed-upon standards. She was aware of at least one public post not reflecting the professionalism or respect outlined in board norms. She said such comments appear to stem from personal grievances or agendas, neither of which belong in the boardroom.
She said representing the constituency requires considering all community voices, not just those who speak loudest or share personal viewpoints. Prioritizing “the narrow and often uninformed perspectives of a select few” undermines board credibility and erodes public trust. Personal or political motives have no place in school governance or the board’s work.
Steinbock said she remains committed to the district’s students, staff and families, to transparency in actions and to the professional conduct expected of those entrusted with public service. She expressed hope the board could move forward with renewed focus on “what truly matters: providing the best possible education and support for every student in our district.”
After a bit more discussion on board norms, the board announced the following upcoming meetings: the 2025 Wyoming School Board Association Conference which will be held in Casper on November 19-21 and the regular meeting of the Goshen County School Board on Tuesday, November 11 at 6 p.m.
