Did the Richfield Field Lights Controversy Affect the School Board Election?

Last week voters opted for some major changes for the Richfield School Board, ousting all incumbents and bringing in almost all new blood.

Incumbents David Lamberger, Sandy Belkengren and John Easterwood were defeated by newcomers Christine Maleck and Tim Pollis, as well as a past board member Peter Toensing, who served one term between 2007 and 2011.

In the weeks leading up to the election talk of the controversial decision to install baseball lights on the field resurfaced. Two of the three incumbents (Lamberger and Belkengren) supported the project. On Patch's Speak Out Board, Jennifer Behnke wrote:

"Richfield's School Board is in need of some new faces. It was just over 15 months ago that Mr. Lamberger and Ms. Belkengren voted to take general fund money - money that could be spent on anything in Richfield Public Schools - to add lights to the baseball field at Richfield High School. They voted for baseball lights at a time when elementary schools in the district had over 30 students per class and ran out of supplies before the end of the school year. The district was facing more than half a million dollars in cuts."

The day after the election more chatter on the subject started on various Patch articles. Richfield Patch also asked its Facebook followers if the baseball lights issue was a factor for them when they hit the polls Nov. 5. Of the respondents, most sited the lights as a major determining factor. However, others also stated the need for fresh faces was important to them, too:

Veronica: "Yep. Like I told my kids, I want people on the board who can put the needs of the district as a whole ahead of the needs of a few. Kids are more important than lights. Past performance IS an indicator of future choices, obviously. That's what political records are all about."

Kirsten: "Yes - not because of the lights themselves, but because that decision was indicitive of misguided and out of touch spending and decision making by an antequated board...happy to have the fresh blood and up to date parents on the board!"

April: "With out a doubt - we don't need lights on the baseball field. The games are played after school, not at night. Waste of time/money. Which explains why those that were on the board for years, are now out. We needed "new blood" in there, w/ fresh good ideas, and ways to make it right, and better, the way it should have been all along."

Carly: "Yep, it sure did. I also wanted to see a younger group of parents who have kids currently in the district."

Gordon: "No, i voted for the winning slate of candidates because I felt they would serve well and bring a fresh perspective to the school board. I also think the issue of having school age kids enrolled in the district is important. But I don't believe in dwelling in the past, and the baseball field lights issue is an issue of the past."

While the lights may have been a major factor for many voters, Easterwood did not support the project, yet failed to retain his seat. 

In a recent Star Tribune article, Maleck said one of the most common complaints she heard on the campaign trail was that none of the incumbent candidates currently had children in Richfield schools:

“The demographics in Richfield have changed a lot in the past 15 to 20 years,” Maleck said in the article. “I think a lot of voters supported us because we are living the life of a typical Richfield parent who’s really involved in our schools.”

When you went to the polls, what factors did you consider when you casted your votes? Tell us in the comments section.

For updates and other information about the community, join us on Patch, Like us on Facebook and follow Richfield Patch on Twitter.