February 12, 2024 School Board Meeting Summary
KEY TAKEAWAYS: Chad Rodgers was hired as the new principal of the JSHS in a 5-2 vote. Many teachers from the high school attended the meeting to show their support for hiring Mr. Rodgers. The process of replacing all school policies (about 400 of them) with new policies that are written by a law firm began in this meeting with the first batch of 10 new policies presented for a first read. The administration announced that the high school would not offer social studies classes this summer. The board reversed the January board compensation decision and voted to give members a pay increase for each meeting attended.
Agenda with links to board documents
TOPIC TIMESTAMPS (Youtube Recording)
● 2:04 Student recognitions
● 13:55 Communication from the audience
● 26:40 Agenda approval and minutes from 6 prior meetings
● 45:05 Rewriting all school policies - first batch
● 1:26:43 Hiring Chad Rodgers as JSHS Principal
● 1:57:10 Proposed work session for a 3-5 year strategic plan
● 1:59:12 Social studies summer school change
● 2:11:06 School district website redesign
● 2:18:18 Increasing board member pay
● 2:35:55 End of the WVEC lease of the building next to WLES
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.
2:05 - Margaret Psarros, WLIS principal, and Stephanie Qualio, WLIS assistant principal, recognized 1 student from each grade for art, orchestra, band, general music, and choir. I enjoy this time to celebrate our great students.
12:50 - Austin recognized Roberta Julian, administrative assistant to the superintendent, for her birthday and for all she does to help the board.
13:55 - Communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began):
● Becky Creech (parent, JSHS science teacher, and coach) said she is excited about the approval of the new JSHS principal. She trusts Greiner and the board to select the best person for our students and staff. She served on the interview committee. Creech said that she disagreed with Yin’s statement last month that there were few quality candidates. At each stage of the interview process the committee was asked if they were satisfied with the quality of candidates or if they would like to reopen the search. The interview committee never asked to reopen the search. Creech said she also disagreed with Mumford’s concern about the search timeline. Creech stated that Zionsville used an identical principal search process and similar timeline. In West Lafayette, the interview committee consisted of teachers, administrators, parents, and students. Three board members were included in the third-round interviews of the two finalists. Creech is correct that at the December meeting (2:58:44) I expressed concern about our early application deadline of December 11 and the rushed timeline to complete all first round interviews by December 21. I think it is incorrect to describe our search as having a similar timeline to Zionsville. They followed the typical principal search timeline with an application deadline of January 8 and first-round interviews in mid-January. Yin’s concern at the December meeting (2:58:44) was that we had only received 4 complete applications by our December 1 deadline. Greiner reported that the search committee completed first-round interviews with 5 candidates. I wonder how many in the first-round interviews were internal candidates? It would have been awkward for the committee to ask to reopen the search with colleagues as candidates,
● Rachel Sandberg (JSHS English teacher and union leader) said that 80% of the JSHS teachers are union members. She served as chair of the principal search committee which included 5 staff members. She thanked Greiner for including teachers in this decision. She said that the board is being asked to approve the person, not the search process. Sandberg said that board members who vote no because of concerns about the process are insulting the professionalism and the personal integrity of school leaders. She said that teachers, administrators, parents, students, and three school board members were involved in the search process. Sandberg said that a split vote on the principal hire would be an embarrassment to the community. The interview process was the superintendent's decision. He had initially invited three board members to be part of the search committee, but ultimately decided to only include teachers and administrators on the search committee. After narrowing it down to three candidates, the search committee invited two parents and two students to observe the 2nd-round interviews (candidate presentations). Very little information about the candidates was given to the parents and students invited to see the presentations. It appears that teachers and administrators were well represented in the search process, but the community was not.
● Shane Fry (JSHS PE teacher and football coach) spoke in support of the new hire for the JSHS principal. He said that our administrators know what it takes to be a principal at WLCSC and they know what our students, parents, and staff value. Fry said that the teachers on the search committee represented several different subject areas and extracurriculars and have experience teaching in and out of our district. He presented a statement of support for the principal hire signed by 90% of the JSHS teachers. Strong teacher support for the new principal is wonderful and hopefully will translate into support for the changes he plans to make.
● Marydell Forbes (JSHS English teacher and former union leader) asked board members who are considering voting no for the JSHS principal to search their hearts and consider their motivation. Is this about the best interests of the students and staff or is it about a personal agenda or vendetta against the opposing voting block.
● David Kucik (parent) asked the board to provide a representative to the zoning board meetings that hear special requests for transient guest houses. At the previous zoning board meeting there was one request and no one rose in support of it. Eight or nine people spoke against it and Mayor Easter submitted a letter opposed to the request. The zoning board approved the request 4-3. Kucik said that the community needs school board representation at the zoning board meetings.
● Natalie Lucas (parent and JSHS parent council president) said that she was invited to sit in on the second-round principal interviews. Lucas said that there were 3 candidates in the second round and that the interviews were well organized, professional, and confidential. She felt that all three candidates were qualified and that there was no bad choice.
26:40 Approval of the Agenda for the February 12, 2024. There was no discussion.
Voted 7 out of 7
27:05 Approval of the Minutes of the January 8, 2024 Executive Session. There was no discussion.
Voted 7 out of 7
27:30 Approval of the Minutes of the January 8, 2024 Organizational Session. Wang moved that the minutes not record “No” votes for the board officer elections. Mumford seconded it. Austin said she sent an email to Wang explaining the importance of consistency in how votes are reported in the minutes. Wang said the minutes should record what took place at the meeting and there were no “No” votes made during board officers’ elections. Witt said that Robert’s Rules are specific about documenting ayes and nays with names and said not listing “No” votes would be out of alignment with our own bylaws. Mumford said that there is no requirement to record “No” votes when they never happened. Austin verified that the motion is to record only the either/or votes for board officers rather than “Yes” and “No” votes for board officers. Mumford noted that she expressed this same concern one year ago when the organizational meeting minutes had this same error. In addition to this error, last year’s organizational meeting minutes also incorrectly recorded Austin as having received 7 votes in the board officer election when she had in fact only received 4 votes. She argued against correcting the error because “our students and staff are best served by a board that is united” and she was opposed to “creating a paper trail of times when the board has disagreed” (6:31).
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The motion to correct the errors in the organizational minutes did not pass.
Yin motioned to add to the minutes that “Wang recommended allowing public comments at the beginning of the organizational meeting and he noted that Indiana code requires public comments before any voting. Witt said the organizational meeting is an exception to that rule and said that our agenda follows the sample provided by the Indiana School Board Association (ISBA).” Mumford seconded the motion to include this statement in the minutes. Wang asked if our school attorney, who is present, could give her interpretation on the requirement to allow public comments before any final actions. Austin said that our attorney did not have time to prepare for this question and asked the attorney not to respond.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The motion to add a record of this discussion in the minutes did not pass.
I emailed the ISBA to ask if public comments should be allowed at the beginning of the annual organizational meeting before voting takes place. The answer I received was: “Yes, state law requires public comment before the board votes on an agenda item. This includes the organization meeting and the election of officers. The Public Access Counselor has issued an opinion on this matter and concluded that since the board votes on the officers, the law requires public comments before the votes on the election of officers.”
Voted 4 out of 7
The motion to approve the organizational minutes passed.
37:52 Approval of the Minutes of the January 8, 2024 Regular Meeting. Mumford noted that these meeting minutes include a brief description of the discussion topic, more than was recorded in the past. She asked Schott about his role as secretary in improving the minutes. Schott said he worked with Julian and Austin to determine what should be included in describing board discussions. Recording the general topic of board member discussion is a great step in the right direction.
Voted 7 out of 7
40:04 Approval of the Minutes of the January 8, 2024 Annual Finance Meeting. Mumford reminded the board that she was elected as the board of finance secretary at the last meeting and asked why she was not allowed to collaborate with Julian in writing the board of finance meeting minutes. Austin noted that the finance board meets just once a year and said this was an oversight. Mumford said that the current version of the minutes contain a great deal of content that was never shared at the meeting. She edited the minutes by crossing out lines that were not said in the meeting and adding a brief description of the discussions that were omitted. Mumford said that she had emailed her proposed revisions to the full school board. Witt said that she is concerned with accepting any member’s summary of the meeting, particularly Mumford’s. Witt said that she will first need to review the transcript of the meeting. Austin moved to table the approval of these minutes to allow for a review. Why did Austin nominate me and Witt second my nomination if neither actually wanted me to serve as the finance board secretary? My view is that the minutes should accurately record what was shared in the meeting.
Voted 7 out of 7
The motion to table approval of the finance minutes passed.
44:08 Approval of the Minutes of the January 22, 2024 Executive Session.
Voted 7 out of 7
44:33 Approval of the Minutes of the January 26, 2024 Executive Session.
Voted 7 out of 7
45:05 Austin asked Jessica Billingsley from Church Church Hittle and Antrem (CCHA) to share details about the first batch of new policies her firm wrote for our school district. Billingsley said that she would describe each of the 10 proposed policies and allow for questions and discussion. She said the plan is to do the 2nd reading and vote on these 10 policies at the March meeting.
Wang asked her to first describe the contract and how much her firm will be paid to rewrite all the policies. Austin told Wang that this isn’t the appropriate time for a discussion about the contract. Mumford said that when she asked Austin and Greiner for the contract details, she was told to ask during this meeting when Billingsley would be present. Austin relented. Mumford said that before discussing this group of proposed policies, she also wants to understand the overall vision for how all school policies will be rewritten. Wang verified that there is a new contract with the law firm that is in addition to, not replacing, the existing legal counsel contract. Mumford noted that this additional contract has not been shared with the board and asked if we are paying CCHA to come to every meeting in which the board discusses the new policies. Billingsley said that a flat fee of $16,000 covers all services while rewriting all the policies, which includes attending board meetings as many times as is necessary. Mumford said that she requested that the board meet in a work session before this regular school board meeting to discuss these new policies, but that the request for a work session was denied. She expressed concern that discussing the details of 10 newly proposed policies is not being respectful of the time of the teachers, administrators, and community members who are in attendance at the meeting and recommended that future discussions take place in work sessions. Mumford also recommended that the first reading take place only after each policy is discussed and edited in a work session so the community has a month to review the edited version of each new policy before the board holds the second reading and vote. Austin said, “the board is elected to represent the community, but it's not a direct democracy in the same sense that Congress is.” Austin then asked Billingsley, “I don't think any of the policies, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are going to be substantively different from the policies they're replacing. They're simply going to be more concise. Is that correct?” Billingsley hesitated and eventually replied that this is generally the case. If the policies are not going to be substantively different, then why are we doing this? Rewriting all school policies is a serious undertaking and requires the board to be willing to hold work sessions to discuss and revise what the law firm produces. My view is that policies should be publicly available in their final form for a month before the board is asked to vote to approve them.
Marley proposed that we do the 1st readings at this meeting, then hold a work session after board members have had time to distill what is in these new policies, and then vote after the 2nd reading next month. Marley said that the officers will schedule a work session to discuss the policies. Wang asked Billingsley to explain the layout of the new policies as well as the procedures for rewriting all the policies. Yin noted that this project is massive, taking over 400 policies and reducing them down to about 100. She said that there needs to be an overall plan and that she would like to see the big picture before focusing on the details. Witt said that Billingsley already shared the plan at the December meeting (1:04:05). Austin said that the board can ask additional questions about the overall plan for policy revisions at the work session that she will schedule. My view is that this effort to rewrite all school policies has been poorly managed.
Austin invited Billingsley to share about the policies and said that this would count as the first reading. Billingsley gave an overview of the 10 proposed policies:
A100 Non-Discrimination and Anti Harassment - The proposed policy says: “West Lafayette Community School Corporation does not discriminate or tolerate harassment on the basis of a protected class including but not limited to race, color, national origin, sex, gender, age, religion, genetic information or disability in the programs or activities which it operates or the employment therein or admission thereto.” Billingsley said this statement is legally compliant but noted that some school boards include gender identity, transgender status, and gender nonconformity in the list. Each is already included in our current non-discrimination policy. Witt said that the reason for the expanded list in our current policy is to create an environment where all our students and families feel welcome.
A125 Nepotism and Conflict of Interest - The nepotism portion of this proposed policy is required by law.
A175 Required Reports and Protection of Whistleblowers - This is not required by law but is considered a best practice for school districts.
A200 Firearms, Weapons, and Destructive Devices - This is required by several state and federal laws. Witt asked that Billingsley make an adjustment to allow the fencing team to have swords. She noted that our current policies already allow for this.
A225 Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect - This policy is not required by law but is considered a best practice for school districts. Wang asked why one of the section in our current policy 8462 was not included: “Annually, the Corporation shall provide age-appropriate and research and evidence-based instruction on child abuse and child sexual abuse to students in Kindergarten through Grade 12.” Billingsley said her view is that listing required training does not need to be included, but that it can be added if the board wants. Wang said that he would like this included. Austin said that after all the policies are rewritten, the next step will be writing administrative guidelines and things that don’t make it into the new policies could be included in the guidelines.
A250 No-Tobacco Policy - This policy also includes prohibition of e-cigarettes and vaping.
A275 School Wellness - This is required by state and federal laws. Several wellness goals are specified as required by law.
A300 Responsible Use of Technology - This is lengthy and various aspects are required by state and federal law.
A325 Communicable Disease - This is not legally mandated but CCHA received lots of requests from other districts for a policy of this type during the pandemic.
A350 Civility and Decorum - This is not legally required but CCHA received lots of requests from other districts for a policy on this topic.
Mumford asked if Billingsley could prioritize revising policy 2520 on library curriculum materials; policy 5117.01 on bullying; policies 5605 and 5610 on student suspension and expulsion; and policy 3112 on board and staff communication as CCHA prepared the next batch. At the December Meeting (1:43:18), Greiner said that a rewritten policy to replace policy 2520 would be one of the first brought to the board, but that hasn’t happened yet.
1:25:55 Witt motioned that we change the agenda to approve the personnel report before the strategic planning so that those in attendance for the approval of the JSHS principal don’t have to wait any longer.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:26:43 Greiner asked for approval of the Personnel Report. He gave his recommendation that the board approve Chad Rodgers (who was in the audience) as the new JSHS principal. Greiner noted that Rodgers has twelve years of experience as a principal or assistant principal at the junior and senior high school level. He currently serves as Principal at Greencastle High School. Prior to being an administrator, he taught chemistry for 15 years and also coached girls basketball. Mumford asked for clarification on Rodgers’ contract and noted that the regular teacher contracts for every teacher in the district were recently posted on the school’s website and asked if this is a legal requirement because the teacher contracts had not been posted previously. Greiner said posting contracts on the website was done in his previous school district and said that it is legally required. Mumford asked if addendums to contracts are also posted. Greiner said that his contract and his contract addendum are shared publicly. Mumford asked if there are addendums for principals or other administrators. Greiner said that no one other than the superintendent has a contract addendum and that details about retirement and other benefits are included in the handbook. Contract addendums are becoming more common for principals. Greiner was clear that Rodgers is being hired on a regular teacher and administrator contract with no addendum.
Wang made a motion to separate approval of the JSHS principal from the rest of the personnel report. Yin seconded it. Wang shared that he doesn’t have any issues with the personnel report but has some comments in regard to the hiring of the principal so would like to keep these items separate.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The motion to vote on the JSHS principal hire separately did not pass.
Wang shared his appreciation for the community survey, those who served on the committee, and the candidates. He said that this was a difficult call for him given all the information he collected. Wang said that improvements were needed in the hiring process. There should be a rigorous screening of applications at the beginning in order to limit difficult situations at later stages of the search. This would have enabled the hiring process to be better supported and would have been more likely to have resulted in a unanimous vote. Wang said that he hopes that the new principal will serve as a catalyst for a unified and stable leadership team. When Rodgers was recommended to the board, important details about him were not disclosed. Not sharing information with board members caused a lot of unnecessary issues in this search.
Mumford said that she was not permitted to be involved in the principal search and had shared her concerns along the way that this was not a well-run search. She said that she was grateful to have been able to meet with Rodgers in person and found him to be competent and willing to address the most serious issues at the JSHS. Mumford said that this is why she decided to vote to approve the hiring of Rodgers despite still having some concerns. My highest priority was that our new principal have significant experience as a high school principal and I’m pleased that Rodgers is an experienced leader. Several people have asked why I didn’t share my specific concerns about Mr. Rodgers publicly. I shared my concerns with the superintendent and the other board members, but I did not think it is appropriate to share at the public meeting.
Witt said she appreciates those who served on the interview committee and said that it is important for everyone to understand that this is the superintendent's hire, not the board’s hire. Rodgers is who the superintendent recommended and his hire is supported by the teachers who signed the statement shared by Fry. I agree that this is Greiner’s hire and he chose how to run this search. It’s the board’s job to evaluate the superintendent’s recommendation and I appreciate the serious consideration from the board.
Yin shared her appreciation for those who were involved in the search. She said she appreciates the teachers’ passion and their commitment to our students. Yin explained that she still has concerns about this search. Specifically that there were a small number of applicants and few complete applications. Our early application deadline discouraged receiving more applications. Only a small number of applicants had experience as a principal. Yin said that insufficient information was shared with board members. She said that she doesn’t take the community’s trust lightly and this is taking a risk, so she has decided to vote no. She said, “My vote is not a personal attack on Mr. Rodgers. I hope that Mr. Rodgers understands: as an elected official, I serve the community members, not the superintendent or any candidate. I need to stand behind every vote I cast and be responsible to the voters who trusted me and rely on me to make the right decisions for their children and teachers.” Two high school teachers in attendance laughed out loud as Yin made this statement. My view is that the whole hiring situation was a very difficult one. I assume that Yin has some of the same concerns that I have about hiring Mr. Rodgers. Although I decided to vote differently, I respect her vote and the professional way she described why she was voting no.
Marley said that he also represents the community and has for the 16 years that he has served on the school board. He said the duty of the board is to pick the best superintendent and that was done. He said we now trust him to make these decisions. Marley said that he told Greiner that this hire was his call. He said the committee of 20 people made the decision to hire Rodgers. Marley said that he doesn’t know Rodgers, but knows people who know Rodgers. Marley grew up in Greencastle and went to high school at the school where Rodgers is currently principal.
Schott said he appreciated Rodgers willingness to meet with the board members personally and also his willingness to take this position considering it will likely be a 4-3 or 5-2 vote. Schott said that this is Greiner’s hire and that he went above and beyond to include a variety of members from the community on the search committee. Schott is correct that Greiner could have chosen to do this search without a committee. However, allowing two students and two parents to observe a presentation from three candidates without giving them any information about the candidates, is not the same as seeking informed input about all the candidates from community members. Rodgers knows Schott’s wife who is a JSHS chemistry teacher, girls’ basketball coach, and assistant athletic director.
Voted 5 out of 7 (Wang and Yin opposed)
The personnel report was approved which makes hiring Mr. Rodgers official.
I hope that Mr. Rodgers will be a fantastic principal and will be successful in addressing many of the JSHS’s difficult challenges. One strong advantage he has is that the JSHS teachers are enthusiastic about his hiring. Starting off with strong support from his employees will enable him to make important changes. Several news articles covering this vote described concerns expressed at the meeting. On the Friday after the meeting, Greiner sent an email to all families sharing more details about the process. WLFI shared a story that also included the statements Wang and Yin gave at the meeting. A major concern with the search was the information that was not shared with school board members and not shared with all the committee members. I googled Rodgers before meeting him and was able to ask questions about situations that had not been disclosed to the board. I anticipate that there will be additional communication from the administrators to the community.
1:57:10 Greiner presented a memo on Priorities, Updates, and Strategic Planning. He said that he would like to set 3- to 5-year goals as well as strategies to achieve them. The memo includes a list of vendors and firms that he is considering hiring to take us through the planning process. He recommends that the board schedule a work session to develop a plan.
1:58:25 Approval of Field Trips: Swim/Dive to State Meet in Indianapolis, Robotics to District in Mishawaka, IN, Robotics to District in Plainfield, IN, Robotics to World Championship in Houston, TX, 5th Grade to Camp Tecumseh in Brookston, IN
Voted 7 out of 7
1:59:12 Roth asked for approval for a contract with Indiana Online Academy to provide JSHS Summer Classes. Austin said that community members contacted her asking for lots of options for summer school. Roth said that the pilot program to provide social studies courses over the summer had come to an end. She talked with the social studies teachers and couldn’t come to an agreement that would enable the schools to provide these social studies courses this summer, but she will continue the discussion about possibly providing these courses in future summers to offer students a local summer school option. Yin asked about how this change to summer options will affect students’ course selections. The students have already been submitting their course selections with the deadline being just two days after the school board meeting. Austin shared an example about students signing up to take PE over the summer. Witt explained that WLCSC does not offer PE in summer school. Mumford asked Roth to clarify what she is asking the board to approve. Is the board being asked to approve the contract with Indiana Online Academy and shutting down our social studies summer classes? Roth said that she is only asking the board to approve the contract with Indiana Online Academy. She noted that the district’s preferred provider for online summer school is Achieve Virtual Education Academy, but Indiana Online Academy offers some courses that are not available through Achieve Virtual Education. Roth explained that our district’s social studies summer school pilot ended. If funding is needed in the future to offer local social studies courses, she will ask the board to approve the funding. Mumford asked Roth why this decision is being made in February, just 2 days before students’ schedules are due. Mumford said that the timing puts teachers who have been planning to teach this summer as well as students who have been planning to take a local social studies course in a frustrating situation. Roth said that her future plan is to bring summer school recommendations to the board in December so that contracts can be approved in January. Soon after the meeting, the guidance office sent an email with details for summer school for 2024. Students are allowed to make schedule change requests until the start of spring break on March 8.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:11:06 Roth shared the results of the Website Update Survey that was used to guide the redesign of the school district website. Brandon Hamilton, technology director, shared that the goal was to make it easier to generate content and easier to navigate the website. The school’s new website went live this week.
2:18:18 Austin proposed increasing Board Compensation. In January, Mumford motioned to not pay board members for special meetings. This motion passed 7-0 (28:42). Austin said that this wasn’t discussed prior to the January meeting and that Mumford’s motion “forced” board members to vote against their own financial interest. Austin said that this could negatively affect the ability to attract board members who are unable to volunteer their time. She motioned that we keep the annual pay at $2,000 and increase board compensation per regular meeting from $112 to $150 and increase the board compensation per special meetings from $62 to $75. This would match the maximum rate allowed and the rate used by Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS). She said her motion would make this change retroactive to January 1st. Witt motioned that board members receive only one payment for multiple meetings held the same evening, as has been done in the past. Austin seconded it.
Voted 7 out of 7
The motion to amend the motion to limit pay to one meeting per evening passed.
Yin motioned to table this item to allow time to research compensation information at other school districts to make sure ours is comparable. Wang seconded it. Wang said that IPS, as one of the biggest school corporations, is not comparable to ours and is not a good benchmark. He said we need to do more research to compare to school districts that are similar in size and workload. Schott said, “thank you for reminding us that we can’t only think about ourselves. That was selfish of us as we tend to be on this board.” He said if anyone doesn’t want to receive the compensation then they should donate it to the West Lafayette Education Foundation.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The motion to table this item did not pass.
Mumford motioned to separate this motion into the two different topics: increasing regular meeting pay from $112 to $150 and reinstating special meeting pay at an increased rate of $75. Wang seconded it.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The motion to separate into two separate motions did not pass.
Even though the motion to separate did not pass, Austin announced that the issues were now separated and that we would take this in two parts. She asked the board to vote to increase the pay per regular meeting from $112 to $150.
Voted 5 out of 7 (Wang and Yin opposed)
The motion to increase the regular board meeting pay to $150 passed.
Austin motioned to reinstate the special meeting payment and increase the amount from $62 to $75 per meeting. Schott seconded it. Mumford said that as she shared last month, the cost of special meeting pay to board members has been used as a reason to not schedule needed work sessions and executive sessions. Board members are paid a fixed $2,000 per year in addition to $150 per monthly regular meeting which means that board members are not volunteers and are being paid for their time. Mumford said that she doesn’t believe that special meeting pay will impact who is willing to run for the school board. She said she is fine with increasing the pay for regular meetings, but asked that board members not be paid for special meetings. Wang said he agrees that board members should be compensated for their time but said that he is not comfortable voting to increase his own pay. He noted that when Congress votes to increase pay it does not take effect until after the next election. He motioned that the pay increase not take effect until after the next election. Yin seconded it. Austin agreed that it is awkward to vote to give ourselves a pay raise. Witt said that the state legislature determined that board members are authorized to vote to increase their own compensation.
Voted 2 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Mumford, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The motion to delay the pay increase to January 2025 did not pass
Austin returned to the motion to reinstate the pay per special meeting and to increase it from $62 to $75
Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford, Wang, and Yin opposed)
The motion to reinstate and increase the special meeting pay passed
Yin commented about a motion she tried to make earlier about reducing the number of board members from 7 to 5 to reduce the cost to the community. Witt said the topic should go to legal counsel because her understanding is that this would be a lengthy process that would require State Board of Education approval.
My view is that the main reason school board meetings are so chaotic is that there is no opportunity to discuss the issues prior to the meeting. State law is clear that board members are not allowed to discuss school issues as a group by email. The law only permits using email to schedule meetings and provide information. Discussion is required to take place either in a public regular meeting (with votes), in a public work session (with no votes), or in some instances in a closed executive session.
2:35:05 Cronk asked for approval for the Indiana Band Association Transportation Agreement and Memo. There was no discussion.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:35:55 Cronk asked for approval for Early Termination of the WVEC Lease as explained in a related memo. Wabash Valley Education Center (WVEC) has been leasing the building next to WLES on Benton and asked to terminate the lease and return the building to the school district. Mumford asked if the school district will still continue to take care of the WVEC finances. Cronk said we do have an agreement with them that we do their accounting and that will continue. Mumford asked why we do their accounting and Cronk said she doesn't know the history. Wang asked about the plans for the building and wondered if the pilot preschool that has been discussed could be housed there. Greiner said that he would like to use that building for the central office staff and then convert the current central office on Salisbury by Happy Hollow into space for the transportation department. Yin asked if this plan has been finalized or if there is discussion for other alternatives like the preschool. Greiner said it is not finalized.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:42:12 Cronk asked for approval of the Disposition of Outstanding Checks. She said that her team is contacting people who have not cashed their checks and that even after a check is canceled, it is still possible to have the check reinstated by providing an invoice. Wang asked about the total dollar amount for these checks. Cronk said that it is a small amount, $2,557 for the school corporation and $657 for extra curricular accounts.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:43:50 Cronk asked for approval of the Accounts Payable WLCSC and Accounts Payable WVEC. She also shared Financial Report - Funds, Credit Card Statement, and Claims Docket Breakdown. Yin asked how the school district spent the grant funds it received to support high ability students and to support literacy with early intervention. Cronk said that the high ability grant dollars were used for professional development for teachers. Roth said that the new literacy grant was approved at the January meeting (1:08:25) and provides stipends to K-3 teachers. The old literacy grant dollars from last year were used to purchase DIBELS (dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills) materials and training.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:47:57 Witt moved to adjourn the meeting and bypass superintendent and board reports. Marley seconded it. Mumford she would like to hear the reports from board members and from the superintendent and that they should be given in the public meeting so the public can be informed. Austin said that she would email her report and revisit it next month.
Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford and Yin opposed and Wang abstained)
2:49:52 The meeting was adjourned.
Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room
Future Meetings (calendar link)
● Work Session - Monday, March 4th at 5:00pm
● Regular School Board Meeting - Monday, March 4th 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, so please ignore the pledge support button.