Embedded Files
During the July 14, 2026 Board of Trustees meeting, the District received a statutory grievance that raised a number of legal allegations and policy concerns regarding the relocation of Lake Pend Oreille High School. The document was submitted during public comment and is available to read in full here: Grievance Compilation
In the interest of transparency, this page summarizes the primary legal allegations raised in the grievance and the District's findings based on applicable Idaho law, administrative rules, and responses from the appropriate state and local agencies where available. While the full grievance also includes policy concerns and opinions regarding District decisions, this page focuses primarily on the legal claims and their associated findings to provide a clear, concise, and accessible reference for the community.
We encourage readers to compare the quoted "Code Language" in the grievance with the actual Idaho statutes and administrative rules it cites. In every legal allegation reviewed by the District, the quoted "Code Language" does not match the actual text of the cited law. Original source documents are linked throughout this page so readers can verify the information for themselves.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that The District violated Idaho Code § 74-201 by making major policy decisions in secret.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. The grievance inaccurately quotes the statute and attributes requirements that are not contained in its text. Additionally, the Board's consideration and approval of the LPOHS relocation occurred during public meetings with publicly posted agendas, meeting materials, opportunities for public comment, Board deliberation, and voting in public.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that the District violated Idaho Code § 74-204(4) by failing to specifically identify individual action items on Board meeting agendas. The coalition contended that placing items such as the Human Resources Report and Payment of Bills under a general "Consent Agenda – Action Items" heading did not satisfy Idaho's agenda requirements or provide lawful public notice.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. The grievance's quoted code language does not match the actual text of Idaho Code § 74-204(4). It includes language that is not contained in the statute and omits language expressly authorizing multiple eligible agenda items to be grouped and voted on as a single consent agenda action item. The District identified the consent agenda as an action item on its published agendas, included the supporting materials in the Board meeting packet, and complied with Idaho's Open Meeting Law. An independent review by the Deputy Prosecutor likewise concluded that the District's agendas met the statutory requirements.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged the Board's actions regarding the LPOHS relocation are null and void under Idaho Code § 74-208, and individual Trustees may be personally liable for civil penalties.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. Idaho Code § 74-208 is an enforcement provision that describes the potential consequences if a violation of Idaho's Open Meeting Law is established. The grievance's quoted code language adds their own language and omits significant portions of the statute, including provisions regarding enforcement, time limits, and the opportunity for a public agency to respond to or cure an alleged violation. Because the District complied with Idaho's Open Meeting Law, the remedies and penalties described in § 74-208 do not apply. An independent review by the Deputy Prosecutor likewise concluded that the District's agendas complied with Idaho law.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that relocating Lake Pend Oreille High School to a new site constituted discontinuing an existing school facility and claimed Idaho Code § 33-511 required the District to conduct a standalone public hearing before approving the relocation.
District Finding
The allegation misrepresented Idaho Code § 33-511. The statute does not require a standalone public hearing, operational evaluation, or unrestricted public presentations before relocating a school. The requirements cited in the grievance are not contained in Idaho law. Although the grievance presented this language as though it were quoted from Idaho Code § 33-511, these words do not appear anywhere in the statute.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that Idaho Code § 33-512 requires the elected Board of Trustees to separately debate and approve school calendars and that placing two years of school calendars, including Flex Friday schedules, on the consent agenda violated that requirement.
District Finding
This allegation is incorrect both in its interpretation of Idaho law and in its description of the District’s process. Idaho Code § 33-512 grants the Board of Trustees the authority and responsibility to adopt the annual school calendar; however, the statute does not require calendars to be separately debated, prohibit the use of a consent agenda, or require individual approval of calendar components.
Additionally, the factual claim that the District approved two years of calendars through a consent agenda is inaccurate. All district calendars were presented to and approved by the Board of Trustees as individual action items during public meetings, providing the required opportunity for Board discussion and public transparency.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that Idaho Code § 33-517 requires the Board of Trustees to publicly deliberate and separately approve personnel reductions, contract terminations, and staffing reallocations. The coalition further alleged that the administration bypassed Board oversight by using the monthly Human Resources Report to implement staffing changes, including a PE teacher transfer, a culinary teacher separation, and the elimination of a full-time counseling position.
District Finding
This allegation misrepresents Idaho Code § 33-517. The grievance's quoted "code language" does not reflect the actual statute. Idaho Code § 33-517 does not establish requirements for Board approval of staffing reallocations, personnel reductions, or contract terminations as described in the grievance.
Additionally, the allegation's factual claims are incorrect. The District has not enacted a reduction in force (RIF). The staffing changes referenced resulted from voluntary transfers, retirements, and standard personnel processes. The monthly Human Resources Report is publicly included in Board meeting packets—not hidden—and consent agenda items remain subject to Board review, discussion, removal for separate consideration, and action during a public meeting.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that Idaho Code § 33-1002 requires alternative secondary programs to operate on separate physical sites from traditional schools in order to receive state funding allocations. The coalition further alleged that relocating Lake Pend Oreille High School (LPOHS) near Sandpoint Middle School would violate this requirement and result in a loss of more than $314,000 in state funding.
District Finding
This allegation misrepresents Idaho Code § 33-1002. The statute establishes the formulas used to calculate public school funding allocations, including the use of attendance and enrollment factors, but it does not establish a requirement that alternative schools must operate on separate physical sites from traditional schools in order to receive funding. The statute does not create a “separate-site rule” or an automatic funding penalty based on a school’s physical location.
Additionally, the allegation’s factual premise is incorrect. The planned LPOHS location will be a separate and distinct campus from Sandpoint Middle School, with its own building address, designated facilities, and parking. The relocation does not merge LPOHS into another school or eliminate its identity as a separate alternative secondary school.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleges IDAPA 08.02.03.110 requires LPOHS to be physically separate from traditional schools, and the relocation violates alternative school requirements.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. IDAPA 08.02.03.110 does not contain a separate-site requirement. The rule requires alternative programs to provide specialized instruction and services for eligible at-risk youth and to maintain designated differences from regular secondary programs. The Idaho Department of Education recognizes that alternative programs may operate within existing school facilities when appropriate. Additionally, the new LPOHS campus will be a separate and distinct facility from Sandpoint Middle School.
IDAPA 08.02.03 (110 found on page 12)
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that the Board agenda did not clearly identify the Resolution to relocate Lake Pend Oreille High School as a separate Action Item, arguing the agenda did not provide sufficient public notice under Idaho's Open Meeting Law.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. The Bonner County Prosecutor's Office found the agenda complied with Idaho's Open Meeting Law. The Action Item was properly identified, the Resolution was publicly posted in the agenda packet before the meeting, and no violation was found.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that transporting LPOHS students to another campus for electives eliminates the school's alternative status and disqualifies it from alternative funding.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. IDAPA 08.02.03.110 requires alternative programs to provide designated differences through specialized instruction and services for eligible at-risk students. The Idaho Department of Education has advised that students may take elective courses at another school and that attendance is reported through the state's ISEE system. The District has consistently met state requirements for its alternative secondary school through annual applications and audits and will continue providing the specialized instruction and support required by Idaho law.
IDAPA 08.02.03 (110 found on page 12)
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that assigning the LPOHS principal to serve as both a 0.5 FTE administrator and 0.5 FTE school counselor violates Idaho Code § 33-1212. The coalition contends that because the statute requires school counselors to spend most of their time in direct service to students, an individual serving simultaneously as a principal cannot satisfy the statutory requirements for the counseling assignment without obtaining a State Board waiver.
District Finding
This allegation misinterprets Idaho Code § 33-1212. While the statute requires school counselors to spend most of their counseling time in direct service to students, it does not prohibit an employee from serving in both administrative and counseling roles.
The District's staffing plan consists of two separate 0.5 FTE assignments: principal and school counselor. Idaho Code § 33-1212 applies to the counseling assignment—not the employee's combined workday. During the counseling portion of the assignment, the majority of time will be devoted to direct student services, consistent with the statute.
The allegation also incorrectly states that a State Board waiver is required. No waiver is required for a combined administrator/counselor assignment when the employee meets the applicable school counselor certification requirements.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that relocating LPOHS constitutes a change in educational placement for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or Section 504 plans under federal special education law. The coalition contended that the District was required to conduct individual IEP team reviews before relocating the school and that failing to do so violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. The Idaho Department of Education reviewed the allegation and determined that it did not meet the threshold for an IDEA complaint. Relocating a school campus is not, by itself, considered a change in educational placement under IDEA. All IEPs are reviewed annually to ensure proper accommodations are being provided. Additionally, students are not required to attend elective classes at Sandpoint High School, and the new LPOHS campus will remain a separate facility.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that the District's use of E-codes and Flex Fridays violates Idaho attendance requirements by allowing students to be counted as participating in instruction while off campus without sufficient teacher-directed learning. The coalition further alleged that these practices improperly affect attendance reporting and were implemented without proper Board approval.
District Finding
The Idaho Department of Education determined that the District's use of E-codes and Flex Fridays complies with Idaho law and state hybrid attendance guidance. Both practices are authorized under Idaho Code § 33-1619, Board-adopted policy, and the District's approved hybrid learning model. The Idaho Department of Education confirmed that the District's attendance procedures are consistent with its Virtual and Hybrid Attendance Guidance.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that Sandpoint High School (SHS) seniors who are unlikely to graduate are systematically transferred to LPOHS during the final quarter in order to improve SHS's reported graduation rate.
District Finding
Students cannot be "transferred" to LPOHS to improve another school's graduation rate. Students must meet Idaho's eligibility requirements, complete LPOHS's enrollment process, and voluntarily choose to attend.
LPOHS exists to help students who are at risk of not graduating earn a diploma. The graduation data does not support the allegation that the school is being used to manipulate graduation rates. LPOHS's graduation rate increased from 50% to 80%, and Sandpoint High School's graduation rates are not top tier in State rankings.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that the District routinely has students complete undated homeschool withdrawal forms that are later used to withdraw students after they stop attending school, thereby removing them from state and federal graduation cohort calculations and artificially improving graduation rates.
District Finding
This allegation mischaracterizes the District's withdrawal process. Students are not required or coerced to sign homeschool withdrawal forms. During the intake process, parents—not students—were asked whether they intended to continue educating their child at home if the student ever stopped attending. If the parent indicated that homeschooling would be their plan, they could complete and date a homeschool withdrawal form at that time because the intake meeting was often the only opportunity the school had to meet with the family.
The form was not used every time a student left LPOHS. It was not used for students who dropped out, earned a GED, or transferred to another school. It was only intended to document a parent's stated intent to homeschool if that became the student's educational path. The District did not use this process to remove students from graduation cohorts or manipulate graduation data, if it was used universally, graduation rates would be at 100%.
In September 2025, the Idaho Department of Education approved an online withdrawal process. As part of the District's commitment to continuous improvement, the previous intake practice has been discontinued, and the District now uses the state-approved online withdrawal process.
Screenshot of Grievance Allegation
Summary of Allegation
The coalition alleged that the District's planned relocation of LPOHS improperly uses or commingles restricted School Modernization Facility Fund (House Bill 521) dollars intended for the Sandpoint Middle School renovation and that the District failed to comply with required state reporting and transparency requirements.
District Finding
This claim is incorrect. The Idaho Department of Education confirmed that districts are required to submit their modernization project information only once to qualify for House Bill 521 funding and are not required to submit revisions as projects change. The allegation is not supported by the Idaho Department of Education's guidance for the School Modernization Facility Fund
Page updated
Report abuse