December 11, 2023 School Board Summary
KEY TAKEAWAYS: Witt announced that she will not be the board president in 2024. The school board will not pursue the proposal to put a cell phone tower on school property. All three school principals answered questions about bullying in our schools and described the procedures related to notifying parents and reporting. A lawyer from CCHA answered questions about how they will approach the task of rewriting and organizing all our school policies. Although the school board voted in November to hold an open-door policy committee meeting before the December school board meeting, it didn’t happen and it seems there will be no policy committee going forward. There was a discussion about Airbnb rentals in our school district. The superintendent provided a somewhat discouraging update on how the search for a new JSHS principal is going.
Agenda with links to board documents
TOPIC TIMESTAMPS (Youtube Recording)
12:45 Community member comments about school board member behavior
23:00 Proposed cell phone tower on school property will not be pursued
27:16 Bullying presentation and discussion with all three principals
1:04:05 Rewriting all school policies outsourced to a law firm
1:35:55 Policy committee reenactment script read by Witt, Austin, Greiner, and Roth
1:43:18 Revision of policy 2520 on requests to remove library materials
1:57:49 Survey results from district priorities
2:17:27 Equity and engagement position job description
2:28:18 Wonderland Lease at Happy Hollow
2:45:10 Discussion on Safe/Accessible Neighborhoods Resolution
2:56:10 Witt announces that she will not be board president in 2024
2:58:44 Update on JSHS Principal Search
The following is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions.
1:06 - Sara Delaney, WLES principal, and Rhonda Lanie, WLES assistant principal, recognized 2 students from each grade at WLES for the Good Citizenship Club with the life skill of courage.
9:30 - Amy Wood, CEO at LARA Educational Opportunities who runs the regional spelling bee, recognized Sharanya Kar as the 2023 regional spelling bee winner with a plaque. Kar participated in the National Spelling Bee in Washington DC and made it to the fourth round!
13:15 - Witt recognized John Dennis, WL alumnus and outgoing mayor, for his leadership and service to the community. Dennis was not in attendance. Thank you Mayor Dennis for the many years of service to our community.
14:37 - Communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began):
David Kucik (parent) directed his comments to the school board collectively and individually asking that actions and behaviors change both before and during school board meetings. First, the board needs to work to achieve consensus on issues. Split votes, especially 4-3 votes, suggest that the decision may not have been appropriately vetted and is not what is best for students and their education. Second, the contentious behavior at board meetings and frequent 4-3 votes puts in jeopardy hiring top teachers and administrators. He recommends holding regular work sessions to prepare for voting and therapy work sessions to help board members learn to interact professionally. Third, he believes that the school board should set an example for how administrators and teachers should interact. He expressed his frustration with the 4-3 vote to change the school district’s policy vendor at the November school board meeting. He said that this was not an urgent issue and did not need to be a rushed vote. He concluded by asking board members to work to find common understanding and said that this work should produce more unanimous votes. I agree with what Kucik shared. All seven of us need to be intentional in vetting and discussing the proposals. I believe that working together professionally is achievable even with our differences. I agree that holding regular work sessions to discuss the issues and try to find compromises would be a great way to increase the number of unanimous votes. This would send the message that the board is making better decisions.
19:40 - Approval of the Agenda for the December 11, 2023 regular meeting.
Voted 7 out of 7
20:09 - Approval of the Minutes of the November 13, 2023 regular meeting. Mumford said that she would not vote in favor of the minutes because rather than describe what was discussed in the meeting, the minutes use the phrase “discussion ensued.” The Indiana Public Access Counselor has said that this use of the phrase “discussion ensued” is not in compliance with Indiana’s open door law (full message here).
Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford and Wang opposed, Yin abstained)
22:31 - Approval of the Minutes of the November 30, 2023 Executive Session.
Voted 7 out of 7
23:00 - Witt asked the board to vote to decide to either move forward or not with the cell tower proposal that was shared last month (1:05:40). Yin said that the board should not pursue it because of the concerns shared by a community member at the November meeting (12:45). Yin said that the board already decided against a similar proposal two years ago (August 2021 (7:50) and September 2021 (7:57)). A cell tower on school property could bring health concerns and would take away from our limited open space. Austin said she agreed with Yin that the board should not pursue it. She said her reasoning is that they are not offering enough money and she doesn’t think the community would support the proposal based on her experience from two years ago.
Voted 0 out of 7 to pursue the cell tower proposal
27:16 - At the November meeting, Mumford requested a presentation and discussion on bullying in our schools (3:20:40). Greiner invited Sara Delaney (WLES Principal), Margaret Psarros (WLIS Principal), and Ron Shriner (JSHS Principal) to explain how bullying is handled in the schools. Delaney and Psarros shared a presentation on Bullying Protocols and Procedures. They discussed the legal definition of bullying and said that students and staff are trained to understand the difference between conflict and bullying. Conflict is a disagreement or argument in which both parties express their views, have equal power, and generally the hurtful behavior stops once there is realization that someone is being hurt. In contrast, bullying is behavior with the intent to harm or humiliate, there is a difference in power (size, age, social status), and is repeated in that the behavior continues even when they realize they are hurting someone. School administrators are working together to have common protocols and forms at all three school buildings. Indiana code requires that all schools educate students on bullying by October 15 each year. Guidance counselors teach lessons on bullying at WLES and WLIS. There are school- and grade-level assemblies on bullying at WLIS and JSHS.
When potential bullying is reported, a building administrator investigates and determines if the behavior is conflict or bullying. Shriner clarified that teachers often do some initial investigating before bringing it to an administrator. The parents of all students involved are contacted. If it is determined that the behavior is bullying, then the behavior is documented and a report is sent to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), parents are notified, and corrective actions are taken. Staff are made aware of the bullying situation and expectations moving forward.
Marley asked how the school handles behavior that involves cell phones off campus. Psarros said this makes it difficult as they cannot search a student’s phone. She said that if phones are an issue they work with parents and said that parents are generally cooperative. Anonymous accounts make things even more complicated. Shriner said that cell phone issues often are investigated by the police. Witt asked him at what point he contacts the police and Shriner said that it depends but isn’t typical and he isn’t sure at what point he would do that. He said that this is difficult to talk about because there are so many different factors, variables, and circumstances. Shriner said that it is encouraging to hear that parents are generally cooperative.
Mumford asked the principals to clarify when parents are informed. Delaney shared that once the initial investigation has begun parents are contacted. Mumford asked if a student were to report potential bullying in the morning, would parents be informed by the end of the day? Psarros said the timing would depend on how long the administration needs to be able to investigate and so may not have a resolution by the end of the day. Mumford said that as a parent, she would like to be notified that day, even if the situation has not yet been resolved. She would want to know that the situation is being investigated. Psarros said that if it takes longer than a day to resolve the situation, they typically inform parents, but she ideally wants all the facts before she shares anything with parents. Mumford asked when parents of JSHS students would be informed. Shriner said he agrees with Psarros and said that he understands that it is tough to have something go overnight, but has no case studies to share with the board. Shriner said that he generally believes that parents are informed before the day is over.
Mumford asked how anonymous information can be shared with school administrators. Students are sometimes not comfortable sharing what they know, for example, information about who owns an anonymous social media account. Shriner said he didn’t know, but said that he has received screenshots from parents and students in the past. Psarros said that she has received anonymous letters in her mailbox and in the dropbox at the front of WLIS. She said they are working with the technology staff to create a reporting form on the website that can be anonymous. Psarros said that when something is shared with them, they keep it confidential and do not share with others how they received the information.
Mumford asked about a recent public comment where the person said that her child was physically bullied at the high school, but this was not reported to the state (1:20:10). Shriner said that bullying can be reported to administration but it may not meet the legal requirements of bullying. He said he didn’t know about the IDOE report and that it could be an error.
Mumford asked if there is an appeal process for incidents that are reported and determined not to be bullying. Shriner said that parents and students have a right to disagree with the administrator’s determination. He said that if he was a parent of a child who was being bullied, he would contact the police. Austin asked the principals to verify that they cannot share with those who report incidents what disciplinary actions have been taken. The principals agreed. Mumford asked if parents would be informed if the incident was determined to be bullying or not and the principals said that parents would be informed of the determination. Witt asked the principals to verify that they would intervene if a student was in grave danger or at risk of immediate harm and they said they absolutely would.
Mumford asked what the school’s role is if student-to-student bullying happens off school property or after school hours. Shriner said the report should go to the police. If the behavior carries over into the school day and is disruptive to the learning environment then school administration would become involved. Mumford asked if school staff have been trained in restorative justice techniques. Shriner said they give students and staff a list of how to communicate about bullying and said that he didn’t bring the specifics with him but there is an email that goes out to the staff. Mumford asked how parents have access to what is being shared with students. Psarros said it is shared through guidance lessons and they let parents know when guidance lessons take place. She said that if a parent has a question, she would encourage the parent to come talk with her and she can share the content.
Yin asked how many conflicts are reported each year and noted that there are very few bullying incidents at our schools according to the IDOE report. Delaney said that low-level conflict is very common at WLES. Psarros agreed that there is a lot of conflict at WLIS and that it is often resolved with an adult mediating and using it as a teaching moment. Shriner said he prefers dealing with student conflict rather than teacher conflict. Yin asked at what point along the conflict to bullying continuum parents are informed. Psarros said that at WLIS parents are contacted if there is a conflict or bullying incident. Shriner said that parent contact does not always mean a phone call. He said that there was a situation at school breakfast that morning and it was documented in Skyward rather than a phone call to parents. The board thanked the principals.
1:04:05 - Jessica Billingsley, legal counsel from Church, Church, Hittle, and Antrim (CCHA), was asked to share how her law firm will handle the upcoming school policy transition from the prior provider Neola. She said that CCHA will share bundles of recommended policies to the superintendent that could then go to the policy committee or could be presented directly to the entire board for a first reading. As this process progresses there will be bundles of new or revised policies that are on first readings and others that are on second readings to be voted on. Depending on the topic of the policies and the board’s preferences, there are usually 5 to 10 policies in each bundle. During the process of transitioning to new CCHA policies, the law firm will also provide spring and fall updates that coincide with state and federal legislation. Austin asked about how the transition from the old policies to new policies will work. Billingsley said that each recommended CCHA policy will come with the corresponding Neola policies that would be replaced once the new policy is approved. Marley asked her to share the advantages of using CCHA instead of Neola. Billingsley said that CCHA streamlines the policies and said that Neola has several policies that are duplicates. CCHA condenses policies so that the related information is in one place rather than spread across several policies. Billingsley said that the CCHA philosophy is to only have policies that are legally required. Yin noted that we currently have over 400 policies and asked what the final number will be after the CCHA transition. Billingsley said it will be between 100 and 200 policies. Yin asked about access to the Neola policies once they are replaced and Billingsley said the district will save all the old Neola policies which can be referenced if needed in the future. Yin asked about the format that will be used to share policies online and Billingsley said this will be a school administration decision. Witt said that Greiner will make a recommendation in the future about how to share policies. Yin asked how long this transition will take and Billingsley said it will depend on how many policies the board reviews at each meeting but most likely will take one year. Wang asked about the contract for these services. Billingsley said it is a flat fee and will be included in an engagement letter. The rushed 4-3 vote at the November meeting (2:50:19) to hire CCHA to revise/rewrite all our school policies was referenced by the parent who gave a public comment at the beginning of the meeting. There was no urgent need to justify the PAC members pushing this to vote over the strong objections raised by the non-PAC members and with no second reading or opportunity for public comment.
1:38:55 - Witt explained that at the November meeting (1:42:40) the board voted to hold a “reenactment” of the last policy committee meeting. Witt, Austin, Greiner, and Roth then read from a script where they discuss revising policy 2520 for a first reading at the November school board meeting. Witt said she chose to do this reenactment as part of the school board meeting rather than holding a separate meeting. No discussion was allowed.
1:43:18 - Greiner asked the board to approve revisions to Policy 2520 regarding requests to remove school library materials. He shared the current policy, recommended changes, school library material removal request procedure, and removal request form. Witt said Mumford asked at the November meeting (1:37:34) that the request procedures be included in policy 9130. Witt said she asked legal counsel and they said that it isn’t legally necessary to put the procedures into a school policy. However, the procedures will be placed into a new CCHA policy during the transition. Greiner said that he doesn’t want to make any changes that would require a third reading and that the board can make desired changes when the new policy is brought to them during the CCHA policy transition.
Mumford asked why the policy committee did not hold an open door meeting prior to today’s school board meeting as was required by the school board’s November (1:42:40) decision? She asked for an explanation for why this approved motion was not followed. Witt responded that it was never agreed to have an open door meeting. The decision was to have a reenactment and it made more sense to have the reenactment during the school board meeting before the vote for the revision to policy 2520. Mumford read text of the approved motion as recorded in the November meeting minutes: “Mr. Wang made a motion to hold an Open-Door Meeting, prior to the December Regular Board Meeting, to discuss the content that has been shared with the board and the public regarding policy 2520.” Mumford then shared the exact wording of Wang’s motion as recorded on the youtube livestream (timestamp 1:43:18): “I would like to make a motion to propose an open door meeting convened by the school board policy committee to make a recommendation about policy 2520 revision before the next board meeting, December meeting.” Witt said that Wang shared this concern with the board via email and that she responded that she would not hold an open door policy committee meeting and was planning to only hold a reenactment. Schott noted that “it was a very good reenactment.”
Mumford said that her concern, previously shared at the November meeting (1:37:34), about not including the removal request procedure in policy 9130 is that the revised policy 2520 says that parents should refer to policy 9130 for the removal request procedure, but policy 9130 does not contain the procedures. Mumford said that the revised policy should direct people to the correct location of our procedures. When she shared this concern at the November meeting, she was told that a revision would be considered. Mumford said that her concern was not about whether or not revised policy 2520 is legal, her concern is that she wants the community to have clear access to the procedures and recommended that they be included in policy 9130 as stated in the revised policy 2520. Mumford said that if there had been an open door policy committee meeting or a work session prior to this school board meeting, the board would have had an opportunity to address this. Witt responded that no one had requested a work session this month. Mumford said that she has repeatedly asked to schedule work sessions and would like to have work sessions every month to review the documents in the school board packet as is done in many other school districts. Witt said that there has to be a specific topic for work session agendas and Mumford’s requests to put a discussion of the board packet on a work session agenda is not allowed. Witt’s view is not correct. LSC, TSC, and Carmel Clay all hold work sessions every month to review their school board packets. I’ve frequently requested to hold work sessions and these requests have been denied (see for example the June 2023 meeting 28:58 and 1:17:24).
Witt said the board has a legal obligation to pass policy revision 2520 by January 1, 2024. Greiner said he can ask Billingsley to have this be one of the first policies brought to the school board to address the concerns shared by Mumford. Witt said that Mumford should have shared her concerns earlier than the email she sent on November 28. Mumford said that her November 28 email was to share the links to where other school districts put their procedures in their policies and that she shared all her concerns at the first reading in the November meeting (1:37:34). Witt said she didn’t recall hearing Mumford’s concerns and that they would just have to disagree. She asked the board to pass revised policy 2520 to be in compliance with Indiana law. I have no issue with the policy 2520 revisions, but was surprised that the policy committee ignored the vote on Wang’s motion and my recommendation to revise policy 9130. My concern is that it is difficult to find the procedures and this revised policy directs people to the wrong place.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:57:20 - Greiner recommended the approval of the Personnel Report. There was no discussion.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:57:49 - Roth shared a presentation on the Survey Results for District Priorities. Last year they started a tradition of an annual retreat for administration and school board members to set district priorities. After the priorities are decided, the administration sends out a survey to gather feedback from the staff and community. The survey asks for a ranking of priorities and also allows a section for open-ended responses. This year they received 150 responses with the majority coming from parents or guardians of current students. Last year they received 223 responses. The hope is that the staff and community will realize that this is a yearly opportunity to share feedback. Witt said with only 4% of parents responding, she wondered how many responses would be needed to make the information valid. Roth said she doesn’t know about the validity, but the message should be that this is another way to share feedback, that they want feedback, and will use the feedback. Yin thanked her for seeking community feedback and said that it is helpful for people to have this opportunity to share. She asked about separating feedback from the different schools because there may be different priorities at different schools with the example that some schools do better at communicating than others. Yin asked about specific suggestions that were shared in the open-ended feedback section. Roth said of the 35 open ended responses that the majority mentioned the need to continue to promote mental health with the next highest responses being in regards to continuing to seek feedback. She said if any specific feedback was shared then that was passed on to the specific school or director. Yin asked if they would share the feedback with the board members just like they did last year and Roth said they would.
2:17:27 - Roth asked for approval for the Equity and Engagement Position job description that has been redesigned by bringing in the engagement portion with details from the IDOE family friendly rubric. They have gathered feedback from administration, staff, school board members, and the community. Wang asked how much of this person’s time would be dedicated to working towards the family friendly designation. Roth said it is difficult to determine at this point because there are various responsibilities. Administration and staff have asked that this person share lessons with students on respect and understanding that we are all different. Wang verified that it is not an administrative position. Roth agreed and said that they do not supervise anyone and that it is a support position similar to the mental health counselor. Yin asked who will be the supervisor and evaluate this position and Roth said it would be herself with input from the building principals.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:28:18 - Cronk recommended approval of a Wonderland Lease. The memo shares that they will be leasing classrooms to store equipment and offer classes. Yin said that currently they are hosted by the Temple Israel next to WLES. Roth shared that they have been looking for a place that could be used that would allow them to store their materials as well as be able to offer classes on Fridays and Saturdays. Yin said the rent they will be charged is low and basically just covers utilities, but that this is a service to our community for students in and out of the district. She also asked about the concern that previously students were able to walk from WLES to Temple Israel after school so this would cause a transportation issue. Roth said they didn’t discuss this but it didn’t seem to be an issue. Delaney shared that there were about 6 students who would walk over after school to participate and that their parents have said that they won’t have difficulty with the change of venue. Witt asked about custodial services and Cronk said that as part of the lease the school district will provide upkeep.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:34:50 - Cronk recommended the approval of the Property Insurance Renewal and shared the Premium and Rate Comparison. They met with Henriott Group, our consultant, and it was recommended to continue with ASTRA for property insurance with a 3.73% increase. They recommended switching to Evolve Lloyd’s of London for cybersecurity insurance. The rate will be 25% less than in 2023 because of the school’s IT department setting up a number of network safeguards and also there has been decreasing premiums across the industry. Wang asked for more information on Evolve Lloyd’s of London and Cronk said she knows of other school corporations who have had to use them because of incidents and that they are helpful and great to work with. Greiner also shared that we had limited cybersecurity insurance options before some safeguards were put into place so with the IT department adding them then we now have more options.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:42:27 - Cronk recommended the approval of the Accounts Payable WLCSC and Accounts Payable WVEC. She also shared Financial Report - Funds, Credit Card Statement, and Claims Docket Breakdown.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:45:10 - Witt shared that Witt, Greiner, and Mayor elect Easter have been having a discussion about safe and accessible neighborhoods. The city is considering setting restrictions on transient housing in R1 zones. If the school board is aligned with this issue then she would like to provide a statement from the board in support of Easter’s recommendation. The statement would express concerns for families and children in providing them with access to neighborhoods that are safe, accessible, multi-generational, and walkable. Austin asked if the statement would include anything specific about Airbnb rentals. Witt said the intent is to not include anything about Airbnb, and instead make a more positive statement of what we want for our community and schools. Mumford asked if the board could have access to the statement being proposed. Witt said they would look at this in the January meeting and the purpose of the current agenda item was for a conversation on interest and feedback from the board. Yin shared that she would like the statement to include a more explicit statement against transient housing. Greiner shared that part of the reason for putting out a statement is because community members have emailed him and the entire school board with their concerns with the transient housing in the school district. Wang shared that he would like to see more agenda items on topics of concern that are shared from community members via email. Witt said that some of the feedback from the community is discussed during school board meetings, but some is not appropriate for a school board meeting.
2:56:12 - Witt shared that the January 8 meeting will include an executive session at 5:15 pm with the public meeting starting at 6:00 pm which will include an organizational meeting followed by the school board meeting. The first order of business at the organizational meeting is to elect a board chair for 2024 with nominations and voting. Witt stated that she is not going to seek or accept a nomination to be the 2024 board chair. Witt has served as board president for 2 years. I’m hopeful that this change will improve school board meetings and encourage a more collaborative approach working together with all seven school board members, rather than just four.
2:58:44 - Greiner said that the semester ends on Friday, December 22nd with a two-week holiday break and school resuming on Monday, January 8th. He said that the JSHS principal search has first-round interviews scheduled for December 18-21 with second round interviews occurring in January. Mumford asked how many applications were received. Greiner said that they received 16 applications, but that some were not complete. They will consider 13 candidates who have a wide range of experience. Mumford noted that the typical time period for a principal search is January to March for a July start date. She expressed concern that the early deadline for applications occurred before the principal search market typically closes and also that the first-round interviews are scheduled during one of the busiest times of year for a principal. Mumford said that the limited number of applications from experienced candidates suggests the need to keep the application window open through January. Mumford noted that she saw on Indeed that Zionsville and other school districts are accepting principal applications through January with first-round interviews occurring in January rather than mid-December. Mumford said that she appreciates getting the call for applications out early, but doesn’t understand the need to rush the application deadline and interviews. The benefit of accepting applications through January is that we will receive more applications. Greiner said that the Indianapolis area is very competitive and that waiting until January could limit the pool. Mumford said that the board has received only limited information about the applicants, but if Greiner thinks that we have phenomenal applicants there is no need to extend the search window.
Greiner said that even though the application deadline has passed they are still accepting applications and will keep the position posted until it is filled. Yin said that she would like to see the deadline extended because most potential applicants will not consider applying to this position once the first-round interviews are over. She noted that only 4 of the applications received were complete. Witt responded that this information about complete applications was shared in an executive session and is confidential. Schott said he isn’t surprised with the small number of applicants because who would want to work in this environment. He said this position is not a great job because of the board members. Schott said that we are fortunate to have the applications we have received and should proceed with the current timeline. Austin said she agrees with Schott. Marley said that this is the superintendent’s decision and it is a courtesy that he told the board about the process. He said the superintendent should be allowed to continue with his current timeline and that the board can have a voice when he brings the final name for a vote. Wang (who was appointed to the search committee) asked if first-round interviews will be conducted in person and asked if this will limit participation from candidates coming from out of town. Greiner said the interviews will be in person. Wang asked Greiner when the recruiting season is for principal searches. Greiner said that principals are typically not interested in leaving midyear and so would begin looking for new positions now. He said the pool of candidates will be more limited in March, April, and May.
After the school board meeting the position posting was edited and the December 1st preferred application deadline was removed. The school board officers decided to remove all school board members from involvement with the search. Originally Wang, Schott, and Austin had been appointed to the search committee and were planning to participate in the first-round interviews and all school board members had been assigned to participate in second-round interviews. The board officers’ decision means that board members will have no input on the principal search until the final name is presented at a school board meeting. The JSHS principal position is very important to our students and our community. I’m concerned about the approach, but I’m also hopeful because I think there are many principals who would love to be the leader of our JSHS and work with our outstanding students and our incredibly supportive community.
3:14:17 - Board Reports
WL Education Foundation - Schott shared that the foundation partnered with the counseling office to present a scholarship information night on December 4th with over 40 parents and students who attended. Karen McCullough, parent and Director of Scholarship Stewardship and Development at Purdue for Life, was helpful in sharing information. This will hopefully become an annual event. On December 10th, the foundation hosted a watch party for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for Dr. Moungi Bawendi, class of 1978.
Curriculum - Yin and Roth discussed a matrix of activities that will help the community be more informed about the different activities available at each of the schools.
Parks and Recreation - Yin shared that the ice skating rink is open. The Wellness Center is going to be renamed the John Dennis Wellness Center.
Redevelopment Commission - Marley shared that the Grant and Salisbury street improvement project will not be done until after the first of the year. They have approved a request for proposals for a 20- to 30-year comprehensive strategic plan for West Lafayette.
ISBA Trainings - Wang shared that he participated in 3 trainings: legislative webinar; public comments webinar; law seminar. Austin shared she participated in the webinars on legislation and public comments.
Mumford said that she is not assigned to any committees that had meetings this month.
Indianapolis Superintendent Association - Austin shared that she attended a training session in Indianapolis with Greiner.
Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room
Future Meetings (calendar link)
Organizational, Regular, and Finance School Board Meeting - Monday, January 8 at 6:00pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room (enter from North side/pool side of building)
This document is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions. Previous agendas, minutes, and audio recordings can be found at the WLCSC website.
Substack allows free or paid subscriptions. I have chosen to only have free subscriptions to my school board summaries, but substack does not have a way for me to turn off the pledge support buttons.