A few surprises happened along the way to the Northridge Board of Education voting in November to approve a 5% bonus for outgoing district treasurer Britt Lewis.
One surprise, at least for one board member and some people observing the meeting, was that the nearly $6,000 bonus was proposed at the Nov. 18 meeting without prior notice. Another series of surprises came in an awkward scene when the person casting the deciding vote said “no” and was asked repeatedly by the two who voted “yes” if he had mistakenly voted “no” and whether he was confused.
At one point during that questioning of board Vice President Jeffrey Schrock by President Evelyn Vance and board member Doug Hart, another board member, Jayma Bammerlin, cautioned Vance about what appeared to be a pressuring of Schrock to change his vote.
“Mrs. Vance, I think we need to be careful,” Bammerlin said.
Vance did not respond to requests this week for an interview to answer questions about the meeting. Board policy says that only the board president can speak for the board, which oversees a district of about 1,200 students in the rural, 137 square miles between Johnstown, Alexandria and Utica.
Lewis, who speaks proudly about the district’s “clean audits” during his 14-year tenure, has occasionally drawn complaints from some district residents and co-workers on points such as supervising his wife in her role as the district food-service director until recently, contributing to a “dysfunctional environment” in the district office, and a lack of responsiveness to internal communication and requests for public records.
Lewis is retiring as treasurer at the end of this month, but the board voted in October to give Lewis a new, one-year contract for 2026 at his current pay – $114,624 – to work as a “fiscal projects consultant” and retire from the district at the end of 2026.
He has said he will work in that position in the coming year to ensure a “smooth and successful transition” for his replacement, Matt Lauvray – who will be paid $145,000 and has been working alongside Lewis the past four years as the district accountant.
The proposal to give Lewis the 5% bonus – $5,731 – on his way out of the treasurer’s position was made by board member Hart, who also has been with the district 14 years.
The proposal took some by surprise, including board member Kate Creager, who can be heard in a video recording of the meeting saying she said she knew nothing about it until it was proposed during the meeting.
This came during the second-to-last regularly scheduled meeting for Bammerlin, Hart and Schrock. Bammerlin and Hart did not seek new terms, and Schrock, who ran as a write-in candidate in November, was not re-elected.
The last scheduled meeting for the current board is set for 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 16. New board members Jessica Cermak, Rachel Smith and Andrew Williams will join Creager and Vance on the board in January.
Smith said this week she attended the November board meeting in person, and she was surprised by what she witnessed.
“Mrs. Vance asking ‘Mr. Schrock, you were a no?’ regarding his decision on the vote for Mr. Lewis’ incentive package, and then Mr. Schrock changing his vote shocked me.”
Smith wondered: “Is every board member able to make the decision that’s best for the district based on facts and data, or are board members being pressured to change their votes by other board members during public meetings? No other board member was asked if they were sure of their vote.”
Williams said Wednesday that “Mrs. Vance stopping the vote count to ask Mr. Schrock if he’s sure he wanted to vote ‘no’ on the treasurer’s incentive package – and the confusion that followed – is a prime example of the current board’s dysfunction that’s been on display.”
Williams also noted that “Vance did not ask any other board member if they were sure of their vote. Mr. Schrock was the only board member asked this question, and then his vote changed,” adding that “Northridge voters and families deserve school board members who take their responsibility to the district seriously.”
Bammerlin said on Nov. 18 that the bonus proposal required further discussion. She made a motion to table it for a future meeting because she said the board had not done a performance evaluation of Lewis to support the bonus award.
The motion to table the bonus proposal appeared to be headed toward approval when Creager, Bammerlin and Schrock all voted yes. But Hart immediately questioned Schrock, sitting to his right, if that was really how he meant to vote.
“You vote to table?” Hart asked.
Schrock then changed his vote to “no,” so the motion to table was rejected in a 3-2 vote.
“I voted to table this because this was a surprise to me,” Creager said. “I will be voting ‘no’ on the bonus.”
Then came the vote on the bonus for Lewis.
Bammerlin voted no. Creager voted no. Hart voted yes. And when it was Schrock’s turn, he voted no.
Hart’s head snapped toward Schrock.
Lewis, who calls the roll for all board voting, didn’t look up, but paused.
The vote was 3-1 against the bonus at that moment.
Lewis called for Vance’s vote, and suddenly, it was 4-1 against the bonus – who voted yes and then no and then yes again.
It quickly became a 3-2 vote against – with a giggle and self correction from Vance, who quickly clarified with, “Yes! I’m a yes!”
Then Vance looked toward Schrock, sitting to her immediate left.
“Mr. Schrock, you were a no? For no incentive?” Vance asked.
Hart, talking over Vance to Schrock, said, “Are you voting against Mr. Lewis’ incentive compensation?”
Before Schrock could answer, Vance said to Schrock, “Did we confuse you? We did the vote for the table, and then…”
Schrock then responds with, “Oh, I’m for it, then.”
Vance presses Schrock again by saying, “You’re for what, the incentive, which is the 5 percent?”
Looking concerned, Bammerlin leans forward and says, “Mrs. Vance, I think we need to be careful.”
Vance replies by saying, “With what? I just want to make sure everyone knows what we’re voting for.”
“Mr. Schrock,” Vance says again, “are you voting for the incentive or against it?
Schrock’s microphone was off, so his response is inaudible.
“Mrs. Vance, can you clarify what just happened,” Bammerlin said.
“Do you want me to clarify it, or him?” Vance asked.
Bammerlin shrugs and Vance says that Schrock is “voting for the incentive. Those are his words. Is that correct, Mr. Schrock?”
Again, Schrock’s response is inaudible and he makes no head motion.
“We have two no’s and three yes’s,” Vance said. “The motion passes, 3-2.”
Alan Miller writes for TheReportingProject.org, the nonprofit news organization of Denison University’s Journalism program, which is supported by generous donations from readers. Sign up for The Reporting Project newsletter here.
Britt-Lewis-Employment-Agreement-Effective-Janaury-1-2026