Board aims to resolve Lanning, Garcia fracas after election
By Marcus Clem
St. Joseph Board of Education members called off a previously planned Thursday meeting to consider potential punitive steps involving two board members.
Board member Whitney Lanning faces a single charge of second-degree harassment. The Thursday gathering had been planned to consult with EdCounsel LLC, the law firm that advises the school district. Board members would then take appropriate action. Instead, these matters will next come up at noon on Wednesday, April 3, at the Noyes Administration Building. On Tuesday, board members Kim Miller and David Foster joined calls for Lanning to resign that have come from various other elected officials. Their statements, and any response from Lanning, are likely to appear Friday on the Perspective page of the St. Joseph News-Press Weekender. All Perspective content is unrelated to news stories and the reporters who work on them.
“It doesn’t change anything for me,” said Board President LaTonya Williams. “Of course, every member of the board has their own opinions about things. My focus is doing what’s best for the district, and the community and their kids.”
On Feb. 26, Lanning is alleged to have shouted expletives at colleague Isaura Garcia, and to have pursued her and thrown objects without hitting anyone, as shown in school district security camera footage. The maximum penalty Lanning faces, if convicted of second-degree harassment, is a fine of up to $2,000 or a jail sentence of up to one year.
State law restricts the board’s ability to punish a member on its own, and St. Joseph board members are not subject to recall elections. Hypothetically, the most severe penalty for an elected member is a majority-vote motion of censure. Board members are otherwise entitled to serve out their terms or resign.
“Yes, we are still having a censure vote on April 3,” said Board Vice President Kenneth Reeder. “They don’t think that will make her resign, do they?”
A member’s voting authority lasts until their term runs out, pending any reelection. In the case of Garcia, that authority will persist until at least April 2025; for Lanning, until April 2026.
“A censure is an acknowledgment that a majority of the board is not in agreement with a board member’s actions,” Williams said. “It is not a way to remove privileges off a board member.”
On the matter of putting off the scheduled March 28 meeting, Lanning and fellow board member Rick Gehring declined to comment. Garcia did not respond to a request for comment, nor did David Foster. Miller reaffirmed that these matters won’t be considered until April 3.
According to Reeder, the meeting of April 3 is timed such that actions taken do not influence April 2’s elections, in which voters will choose three board members, and either pass or reject a $20 million bond issue.
“The reason for pulling back until after the election is, several board members did not want to further jeopardize the bond,” said Reeder, who alone voted Jan. 22 against placing the bond on the ballot.
Williams and Reeder are candidates for reelection, along with Kim Dragoo, Warren Ingram III, Ronda Chesney, Jacob McMillian, Mike Moore, Tami Pasley and Sean Connors. Another candidate, Steven Carrillo, quit the race earlier this month. He will remain on the ballot for legal reasons.
Regardless of what the board does on April 3, Lanning will later that day go before Judge Chad Gaddie of the Buchanan County Circuit Court for further proceedings on her alleged offense.
