The Forest Lake Area School Board met for nearly eight hours Thursday night and Friday morning, but remains deadlocked 3-3 in the picking of a new school board member.

The lack of a majority vote in favor of any of the candidates meant that all of the agenda items that followed were not resolved either.

That means bills were not paid, the levy was not certified, and the audit was not accepted.

When three board members, Gail Theisen, Jill Christenson and Julie Corcoran, left around 2 a.m., the remaining board members, Board Chairman Curt Rebelein, Tessa Antonson and Mark Kasel, set a special meeting for 6 p.m. Wednesday to continue the meeting.

What happened

The agenda roadblock resulted from the resolution, crafted by Rebelein, regarding next steps for filling the vacant board position.

Adopted by the school board on Nov. 20, it included this language: “The special order of business of adopting a resolution naming one of the selected finalists to fill the seat vacated by former member (Luke) Hagglund shall be scheduled to take place at the December 4, 2025 board meeting.”

A “special order,” under Robert’s Rules of Order, is an important agenda item, set aside for a specific time in a meeting, handled before general business.

Because the board had voted in favor of that resolution on Nov. 20, no other business could be conducted on Thursday night or Friday morning.

“It was a sad night for our district,” said School Board Member Gail Theisen. “Being held hostage in your own boardroom for eight hours was scary. … Robert’s Rules is meant to be a guide. (Rebelein) uses it as a tool to hijack meetings and accomplish his own personal agenda.”

Thiesen said she was disappointed the board didn’t complete its business. “We weren’t doing our due diligence and doing what we’re elected to do: being judicious, paying our vendors.”

Rebelein said he expects the matter to be settled at Wednesday’s meeting.

“We need to get bills (paid) as soon as humanly possible,” he said. “Hopefully, we’ll meet resolution on that, and then we’ll move immediately into board bills. Of course, that all assumes that we are able to obtain a quorum on Wednesday night.”

Appointing someone to fill the vacancy requires a simple-majority vote, he said.

“We did try earlier in the evening to schedule and postpone all business to the 10th, and (Theisen, Corcoran and Christiansen) were unwilling to pass that resolution or that motion, so I do not know if they’re available. I just hope they are.”

As for the addition of the “special order” language, Rebelein said he repeatedly questions members during board meetings “to make sure they understand what they’re voting on.”

“There did not seem to be any concern that evening,” he said. “We had already made an amendment to that resolution, so it was my feeling that the board members – who have roughly 40 years of tenure – understood the basic motion that was in front of them. I did not realize, and none of the other board members expressed, that they had any confusion about what we were doing on November 20th.”

“It is not the board chair’s prerogative to decide what rules to enforce and what rules not to enforce,” he said. “It’s my job to simply adhere to the rules that the board has agreed upon. And I did that to the best of my effort last evening. I plan on doing that again next week.”

Rebelein said the board has several more weeks to certify the levy. He also said there should not be an issues if bills don’t get paid until next week.

“I’m willing to have conversations with every board member who’s willing to reach out to me and propose ideas,” he said. “I threw out a lot of ideas last night, and they seemed to go nowhere.”

Seven interviewed

A slate of seven people interested in filling the vacancy on the school board were interviewed on Wednesday. They included: Andi Courneya, Scot Doboszenski, Princesa Hansen, Paul Pease, Kenneth Rutford, Jim Smith and Daniel Tuott.

Another candidate who was considered was Laura Ndirangu, who was a candidate during the 2024 school board election. The school board voted to include an additional finalist from the pool of people who ran for school board last year but did not win a seat; Ndirangu received nearly 11.8% of the vote in 2024, coming in fifth behind current board member Tessa Antonsen (12.2%). Ndirangu, however, declined to be interviewed.

Related Articles

St. Croix County hires law firm in solar farm review

Stillwater Twinkle Party and giant tree lighting set for Saturday

Ex-Washington County deputy sentenced for driving drunk while off duty, crashing into family’s SUV

Washington County, church agree to $7.35M package for Lake Elmo Avenue-Minnesota 36 interchange land

Afton State Park to close next week for deer hunt

Hagglund resigned on Oct. 24, citing a move out of the district. The original plan for appointing Hagglund’s replacement – proposed by Rebelein – was to have the board immediately vote on a resolution appointing Doboszenski to fill the remainder of Hagglund’s term; his term expires on Jan. 4, 2027.

Hagglund told the Pioneer Press that he planned to vote on Doboszenski’s appointment himself.

An attorney for Education Minnesota, however, sent a letter to Rebelein on Oct. 22 stating that the vote would be illegal because Hagglund’s resignation did not take effect until after the meeting.

The board decided against that plan and voted instead to hold a special meeting to determine a different process and timeline to fill the vacancy.

The new board member will serve on the board for the 2026 calendar year.

Rebelein said Friday that Doboszenski remains his top choice to fill the vacant seat.

By JAMES ROBSON, AP Soccer Writer

The United States could hardly have asked for a better draw at the 2026 World Cup.

The co-host should expect to stick around at its own party until at least the round of 32 after being grouped with Paraguay, Australia and the winner of a European playoff between Turkey, Slovakia, Kosovo and Romania in Friday’s draw, attended by President Donald Trump in Washington.

U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino will take nothing for granted but with none of those nations ranked in the top 20 by FIFA it would be a major disappointment if his team failed to advance as one of the top two in Group D or via the safety net as a best-performing third-place qualifier.

Another co-host, Mexico, will also expect to progress from a group with South Africa, South Korea and one of Denmark, North Macedonia, Czech Republic or Ireland.

Third co-host Canada’s group could look significantly more difficult if four-time world champion Italy qualifies via the playoffs. Canada, which has never won a point at the World Cup, also drew Qatar and Switzerland.

Supersized World Cup creates benign draw

The relatively kind draws for the co-hosts looks like a consequence of a supersized 48-team World Cup, up from 32 teams.

With so many teams and a seeded draw, it was natural the biggest nations would be kept apart in the opening phase.

There was no obvious “group of death.”

Related Articles

Iran to play at least one World Cup game on U.S. soil

Photos of the FIFA World Cup draw for the 2026 soccer tournament

FIFA gives Trump a peace prize in a departure from its traditional focus on sport

Argentina and Messi to open World Cup against Algeria, US starts against Paraguay

A supersized World Cup field begins taking shape at Friday’s draw

France was drawn with Senegal, Norway and one of Bolivia, Suriname or Iraq.

England, ranked No. 4, has No. 10-ranked Croatia, Ghana and Panama.

The group phase may deliver shocks but it is hard to see the real jeopardy for the top seeded teams.

Defending champion Argentina has to navigate only Algeria, Austria and Jordan, while European champion Spain has Cape Verde, Saudi Arabia and Uruguay.

Spain coach Luis de la Fuente, however, insisted danger was all around.

“People think there are easy groups but it is a very similar level,” de la Fuente said. “This will be a historic World Cup because there’s an exceptional level all round. These games force you to play at your best.”

Some standout matches

Morocco was one of the stories of the last World Cup by becoming the first African team to reach the semifinals. And it has the chance to make a statement in its first game next year against mighty Brazil.

Morocco coach Walid Regragui said it will be “one of the greatest matches” of the tournament.

“We want to try to win the group or at least get through to the next phase,” he told TV Globo. “Since the 2022 World Cup everyone wants to beat us.”

England vs. Croatia is a repeat of a 2018 semifinal. Croatia won on that occasion and was a semifinalist again in 2022. England is one of the title favorites next year after back-to-back European Championship finals.

There’s a repeat of one of the biggest ever World Cup upsets when France takes on Senegal. Senegal stunned the then-defending champion France 1-0 in 2002.

“We know this is a very tough group, we cannot rest,” France coach Didier Deschamps said.

Big tests for underdogs

Tiny Curaçao and Cape Verde will share the stage with titans of international soccer.

Curaçao is the smallest nation by population ever to qualify for the World Cup and will play four-time champion Germany. Cape Verde is the third smallest to qualify and is grouped with Spain.

Scotland, at its first World Cup since 1998, faces familiar opposition in Brazil. The nations have met on four previous occasions at sport’s biggest event — 1974, ‘82, ’90 and ‘98 — and Scotland didn’t win any of them.

The Scots were also grouped with Morocco in 1998 and will meet again.

Haiti completes Group C.

Messi and Ronaldo could go head-to-head

Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are on course to set a new record of appearing at six World Cups.

Should Argentina and Portugal win their respective groups, the earliest the two greats could meet would be in the quarterfinals in Kansas City.

Messi ended his long wait to win the World Cup when he led Argentina to glory in 2022.

Ronaldo is still waiting to win the one major trophy that has eluded him and this is surely his last chance, given he will be 41 when the tournament kicks off.

AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer

By STEPHEN GROVES and LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military opened fire on two people clinging to the wreckage of a boat allegedly carrying drugs, congressional lawmakers learned this week as they seek more answers about the attack and the legal underpinnings of President Donald Trump’s military campaign in international waters near Venezuela.

The Sept. 2 strikes on an alleged drug boat were the first foray by the U.S. military into blowing up vessels allegedly carrying drugs. But this particular attack and the broader military campaign, which so far has destroyed more than 20 boats and killed more than 80 people, is now under intense scrutiny. Lawmakers who oversee national security committees heard this past week from the Navy admiral who ordered the initial strikes, including the follow-up that killed the two survivors.

While Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley stated clearly that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not issue a “kill them all” order on the survivors, Democratic lawmakers say the scope of the mission was clear — to destroy the drugs and kill the 11 people on board. The lawmakers and military experts say the sequence of events is alarming, potentially violating the laws of armed conflict that safeguard human rights and protect American troops.

What lawmakers learn in the weeks ahead, and how far they are willing to press the administration for answers, presents a defining moment for the U.S. military under Trump’s second-term command. It is testing the scope of laws that have long governed soldiers on the battlefield and will almost certainly influence the course of the tense standoff between Trump’s White House and the government of Venezuela.

Here’s what’s known about the boat strikes and what other information lawmakers are still pursuing.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., speaks to reporters following a classified briefing for top congressional lawmakers overseeing national security as they investigate how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth handled a military strike on a suspected drug smuggling boat and its crew in the Caribbean near Venezuela Sept. 2, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

What lawmakers have learned

Bradley told lawmakers that he ordered a second attack on the wreckage of a boat that was carrying cocaine because it was believed that bales of the drug were still in the hull of the boat, according to a person with knowledge of the briefing who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

For several minutes, two people, shirtless and at one point waving, had climbed on the piece of the boat that was still floating.

They were “drifting in the water — until the missiles come and kill them,” said Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, adding that their slaying was “deeply concerning.”

However, Sen. Tom Cotton, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he believed the video shows the two people trying to flip over the piece of the boat. For him, that was enough of an indication that the survivors were trying to “stay in the fight” and were therefore still justifiable targets.

Bradley told the lawmakers that the rationale for the second strike was to ensure that the cocaine in the boat could not be picked up later by cartel members. Lawmakers previously had been told the second strike was ordered to sink the boat.

The rationale grows out of the legal opinion that the Department of Defense is using as the entire basis for its military operation against drug cartels, especially because Congress has not explicitly authorized the Trump administration to conduct the campaign.

Under the Trump administration’s legal opinion, drugs and drug smugglers en route to the U.S. are essentially viewed as terrorist threats and can be targeted with the same rules that apply to the global war on terror.

That’s a dramatic shift from traditional practice that views drug running as a serious criminal crime, but one to be handled typically by law enforcement, usually the Department of Homeland Security’s Coast Guard, rather than the military.

Democrats say the conclusions of the Trump administration’s legal argument are troublesome. “That incredibly broad definition, I think, is what sets in motion all of these problems about using lethal force and using the military,” Smith said.

That’s led lawmakers to call for the public release of the legal argument that undergirds the military campaign, a roughly 40-page opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

“This briefing confirmed my worst fears about the nature of the Trump administration’s military activities,” Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services committee, said in a statement. “This must and will be the only beginning of our investigation into this incident.”

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, leaves after meeting with Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a classified briefing at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

What lawmakers are trying to find out

The Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, which has been classified by the Trump administration and was only made available to lawmakers in November, was signed on Sept. 5, according to lawmakers who have reviewed it. The attack in question, however, was conducted three days before, on Sept. 2.

Lawmakers want to know under what orders and instructions the operation was conducted.

Related Articles

Federal judge appears skeptical of Trump’s ongoing command of California National Guard troops

FACT FOCUS: Trump said weaker gas mileage rules will mean cheaper cars. Experts say don’t bet on it

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order violates the Constitution

Indiana House Republicans pass Trump-backed map, setting up high-stakes Senate fight

Trump meets Mexican President Sheinbaum in person for the first time at World Cup draw

Bradley told lawmakers this week that he had not personally read through the entire legal opinion, according to the person with knowledge of the briefing. And while Hegseth has said that military lawyers, known as judge advocate generals or JAGs, were kept in the loop on the operation, lawmakers found out Thursday that the JAGs for special operations command and southern command, the two command posts for the operation, did not have access to the legal opinion until mid-November.

Bradley also told lawmakers that the orders did not contain a directive to kill all the boat occupants, and Cotton pointed out that the military was still operating under the same orders when it picked up the survivors of a later, separate attack.

Lawmakers on the armed services committees are requesting the written execute order for the operation, which would include the rules of engagement that soldiers were expected to follow. Democratic lawmakers also want to understand what Hegseth communicated verbally to military officials, either by reviewing a transcript of his remarks or interviewing those involved.

The armed services committees also want to hear from Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, who is retiring as the commander of U.S. forces in Central and South America. He had been commanding the overall campaign, but Hegseth announced last month that Holsey would be retiring early.

Lawmakers also want to find out why Hegseth was not in the operation room when the second strike was carried out. He has said he stepped out for other business after the first strike.

So far, Hegseth has been defiant in the face of criticism from Capitol Hill. Just after the briefings concluded Thursday, the military announced that it had struck another boat that it believed was carrying drugs, killing four people. That latest strike, the 22nd of the campaign, brought the death toll to at least 87 people.

By TERRY CHEA and SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Friday sharply questioned the Trump administration’s authority and need to maintain command of California National Guard troops it first deployed to Los Angeles in June following violent protests.

Related Articles

What to know as lawmakers disclose vivid new details of US boat strikes

FACT FOCUS: Trump said weaker gas mileage rules will mean cheaper cars. Experts say don’t bet on it

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order violates the Constitution

Indiana House Republicans pass Trump-backed map, setting up high-stakes Senate fight

Trump meets Mexican President Sheinbaum in person for the first time at World Cup draw

At a hearing in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer suggested conditions in Los Angeles had changed since the initial deployment, and he questioned whether the administration could control state Guard troops “forever” under its interpretation of federal law.

“No crisis lasts forever,” he said. ”I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go. That’s the way it works.”

He pressed an attorney for the government for any evidence that state authorities were either unable or unwilling to help keep federal personnel and property in the area safe and noted President Donald Trump had access to tens of thousands of active duty troops in California.

California officials have asked Breyer to issue a preliminary injunction returning control of remaining California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to the state. Breyer did not immediately rule. He has previously found the administration’s deployment of the California National Guard illegal.

“The National Guard is not the president’s traveling private army to deploy where he wants, when he wants, for as long as he wants, for any reason he wants, or no reason at all,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said after the hearing.

Trump initially called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in response to the protests over his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws, but that number had dropped to several hundred by late October, with only a 100 or so troops remaining in the Los Angeles area.

The Republican president, however, has also tried to use California Guard members in Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, as part of his effort to send the military into Democratic-run cities despite fierce resistance from mayors and governors.

Justice Department Attorney Eric Hamilton said federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state Guard troops as long as he deems that necessary.

The remaining troops in Los Angeles were allowing immigration agents to continue their mission and protecting federal property, he said, noting someone threw two incendiary devices into a federal building on Monday.

The court did not have the authority to review how the president manages a Guard mission that is in progress, but even if it could, it had to consider the violence this summer, Hamilton said.

“We cannot turn a blind eye to what happened in Los Angeles in June of this year,” he said.

Trump’s call up of the California National Guard was the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. They were stationed outside a federal detention center downtown where protesters gathered, and later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.

California sued, and Breyer issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to return control of the Guard troops to California. An appeals court panel, however, put that decision on hold. Breyer was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

California argued that the president was using Guard members in violation of a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs.

The administration said courts could not second-guess the president’s decision that violence during the protests made it impossible for him to execute U.S. laws with regular forces and reflected a rebellion, or danger of rebellion.

In September, Breyer ruled after a trial that the deployment violated the law. Other judges have blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago.

Thanawala reported from Atlanta.