November 13, 2023 School Board Meeting Summary
KEY TAKEAWAYS: The referendum passed with 80% support! Without the referendum funding, our schools would have had to make drastic cuts. At this meeting, the school board heard a proposal to put a cell phone tower on school property and also heard an update on the city’s early childhood education study. There was a first reading on a revision to the policy regarding library materials with the vote scheduled for the December meeting. The 2025-2026 school calendar was approved. The school board voted to require the policy committee to comply with Indiana’s open door law, however this may matter very little because the most important decision at this meeting was a 4-3 vote to hire a law firm to work directly with the superintendent to revise, rewrite, and reorganize all our school district policies. This was done without a first reading and over strong objections from the non-PAC members of the school board. There was no explanation for why we could not wait until the next meeting to vote so we could receive a quote from a competing vendor, have the law firm answer our questions, and allow time for community comments.
Agenda with links to board documents
TOPIC TIMESTAMPS link to Youtube:
12:45 Communication from the audience on cell phone tower proposal
18:36 Motion to discuss school policies was rejected
20:16 Motion to delay vote to hire law firm to rewrite our school policies was rejected
36:28 October regular meeting minutes
45:50 November work session minutes
50:38 Erin Easter described the city’s early childhood education study
1:05:40 Proposal to build a cell tower on school district property
1:37:34 Proposal to revise school policy on library material removal request procedures
1:42:40 Vote to require the policy committee to comply with open door law
1:56:26 School calendar 2024-2025 revised and calendar 2025-2026 approved
2:31:29 IDOE Performance Reports for each school
2:42:30 Employee Classified and Administration Wage Increase
2:50:19 A 4-3 vote to hire law firm to revise/rewrite all school district policies
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.
3:01 - JSHS principal, Ron Shriner, and English teacher, Lisa Mills, recognized 6 students as student writing mentors. These talented high school students help junior high students during study hall. I’m impressed with the wide variety of ways our students help each other!
12:45 - Communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began):
Joanne Zhang shared her concerns about the proposed cell phone tower listed on the agenda. She appreciated that the school board rejected this proposal 2 years ago and doesn’t know why it is being proposed again. She said West Lafayette City rejected a similar proposal and noted that other states and cities do not allow cell phone towers near schools. She shared a packet with each board member on research by www.ehtrust.org about the hazards of cell phone towers to human health.
Graham Whitcomb (parent, JSHS science teacher and union president) shared his appreciation to the community for the approval of the referendum and his appreciation for the collaboration with the corporation. He also appreciated the additional funds to pay for AP exam fees. He said that he will invite teachers and counselors to serve on the principal search committee.
18:36 - Approval of the Agenda for the November 13, 2023 Regular Meeting. Mumford made a motion to add an agenda item to discuss policies related to background checks and the school district safety plan. Yin seconded it. In September, Witt sent an email to the board regarding personnel background checks and Mumford said that she would like to discuss it. Mumford also said that she had questions about the school district safety plan. No questions or comments were made.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
I don’t know why the PAC members are unwilling to discuss the background checks legislation. Perhaps they just don’t want non-PAC members to be able to add something to the agenda? Most other school districts allow an item to be added to the agenda if at least 2 members want to discuss it (e.g. TSC’s policy). Our recently-revised policy requires support from at least 4 members to add an agenda item.
20:16 - Yin motioned to delay the vote on agenda item 14 Legal Service Review: Policy, changing it to “information only.” Wang seconded it. Yin said that this item is not ready for a vote: we do not have complete information on the services and the costs; the quality of service seems to be a downgrade; the public has not been adequately informed; the title of the agenda item is misleading; this proposal to overhaul all policies should have a first and second reading before a vote; the only public discussion was at a 7am Friday morning work session 3 days before; there was new information shared after this work session and there has not been sufficient time to review it. Rather than a rushed vote, we need more information and the public should be informed
Witt said that the proposal to switch policy vendors from Neola to the law firm of Church, Church, Hittle, and Antrim (CCHA) as described in the vendor document was shared with board members at the June 12 school board meeting (1:43:21). At that meeting, Witt said that she would wait until after the referendum vote to put this on the agenda at the November meeting. Witt claimed that the school board discussed the issue at the June meeting and that she asked board members for feedback. Witt said that school board members have had 5 months to study this topic and the superintendent is recommending the switch, so this should be voted on now. Mumford pointed out that at the June meeting, Witt said that the board would discuss the proposal in November and then vote on it in December (video recording 1:44:18). Mumford said that Friday’s work session was the first opportunity to discuss the topic and the work session ended before getting to all the questions. The information is incomplete and so the school board is not ready to take a vote. Witt explained that we need to vote now because policy changes need to happen before Greiner can prepare administration guidelines. I do not know why our school district “needs” administrative guidelines, nor do I know why there is such urgency.
Austin verified that when each school district policy is rewritten by the law firm, these new policies would still need to go through a two reading process for approval. Austin said that the community will be better informed when each policy is rewritten. Wang said that he wants more information before voting on this proposal. There is a third service provider, ISBA, and Wang noted that we only have price quotes from Neola and CCHA so far. He would like representatives from the 3 vendors to come and share about their services and answer questions. Wang explained that this is much bigger than just changing vendors because the proposal effectively repeals all our policies and allows the new vendor to write entirely new policies. Wang described it as allowing the vendor to write a new school district “constitution.” Marley asked if the board is being asked to vote on this proposal at this meeting or if this is just a first reading. Witt said that this is not a first reading, she is asking the board to vote on the proposal. Schott said, “Dr. Greiner would not bring this to our attention for a vote if he wasn’t committed to it. I have the utmost confidence in the proposal he is making to us. I see no reason to change what he is asking us to do.” Witt called for a vote on Yin’s motion to change the agenda item to a first reading rather than a vote.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
This was discouraging. Witt knew this proposal would be controversial and had asked us to wait to discuss it until after the referendum vote. She told the board that we would discuss it at the November meeting and then vote at the December meeting. It is not clear why she changed her mind and decided to push it through immediately without getting the third price quote and the other information that we requested. The school board was then asked to vote to approve the agenda (the proposal itself is brought to the board for a vote at 2:50:19 below).
Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford, Wang, and Yin opposed)
36:28 - Approval of the Minutes of the October 9, 2023 Regular Meeting. Wang motioned to have information added about the topics discussed by public comments. Yin seconded it. Wang shared that there were 8 community members who spoke last month (58:59) to share concerns and comments on a variety of topics and this should be documented in the minutes. Witt said that our legal counsel said that the names of those who speak and the nature of their comments do not have to be included in the minutes because Indiana law only requires the minutes to reflect the general substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided. Witt said she is concerned with adding a summary of community members’ comments in the minutes because they could be misinterpreted. Mumford said that she has seen other school districts list the public comment topics without summarizing what each person said. Mumford said that our meeting minutes need more detail and again reminded the board that the Indiana Public Access Counselor said that the repeated use of the phrase “discussion ensued” in our meeting minutes violates Indiana law: “This office is not convinced the phrase “discussion ensued” captures the general substance of anything. Undoubtedly, the law gives a governing body some latitude when it comes to the content of meeting minutes. Even so, it must be more than noting a discussion ensued” (full message here). Witt asked Mumford if her google search is superior to our legal counsel’s opinion. Yin suggested that we could follow the example of the Carmel district’s minutes or we could ask those who spoke to provide feedback before the minutes are approved at the next school board meeting. Witt asked if community members would need to return the following month to make edits. Yin said they wouldn’t need to come to the meeting, they could just email their feedback after the draft of the minutes is posted. When asked, our legal counsel would not confirm that our meeting minutes were in compliance with state law, but said that there was little legal risk to our school corporation because if the minutes are found to be noncompliant the worst thing that would happen is that the school board would have to revise the minutes (September 11, 2023 18:11).
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The school board was then asked to vote to approve the minutes.
Voted 5 out of 7 (Mumford and Yin opposed)
45:50 - Approval of the Minutes of the November 10, 2023 Work Session. Mumford made a motion to add more details to the subject of the meeting section. Wang seconded it. Mumford said that after Wang brought this up at the October 9 school board meeting (1:35:27) she asked the Public Access Counselor about the requirements for work session minutes. The Public Access Counselor said, “If it is a general work session, you wouldn’t need to give a word-for-word rote recitation of everything that was discussed but a little more detail, perhaps in the form of a summary paragraph or two, would be more appropriate.” Yin agreed that a short summary of what was discussed at the work session should be added to the minutes.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The school board was then asked to approve the work session minutes.
Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford, Wang, and Yin opposed)
50:38 - Mayor-elect Erin Easter told the board about the city’s early childhood education study. She said that there is not enough early childhood education to sufficiently meet all the needs in our community. There are questions about affordability, quality, and sufficiently preparing children for kindergarten. This involves both the WLCSC and TSC school districts as both serve the city of West Lafayette. The study has 4 components. First will be a quantitative data analysis of availability projections. Second will be a qualitative analysis with focus groups from the community to find out what parents are looking for and what is already provided. Third will be cost modeling to determine hard costs compared with sliding costs as well as how subsidies like On My Way Pre-K would work. Fourth will be a document and literature review. Mumford asked about the timeline. Easter said the quantitative analysis is currently happening and they are planning to schedule focus groups for the beginning of the year. They had originally hoped to have this done by early spring but it may be later in the year. Wang asked about the funding. Easter said the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) will cover the entire cost of the study and that it will point to possible funding mechanisms.
1:05:40 - Jason Riggs with Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile shared a Cell Tower Proposal Presentation. There are two proposed sites. The first option is at the athletic complex off of Salisbury street next to the parking lot and HS softball field. The second option, which is what they prefer, is at the Bob Friend Ballpark between the Little League fields and the HS baseball diamond with access from LaGrange street. It would be a 50x50 foot area that would have the cell phone tower and equipment. He shared that currently there are cell phone antennas on the water tower at Lommel Park. American Water is requiring the antennas be removed because of maintenance issues. He shared photos of the change in cell coverage with and without the proposed cell towers. This proposal will help T-Mobile to continue providing coverage and will also provide an opportunity for additional revenue to the school district as other carriers may also want to put equipment on the tower. Responding to the concerns shared during the public comments, Riggs said the federal government sets safe limits for health concerns and cell phone carriers are within these limits. He also shared that he has two children and that there is a cell phone tower right outside their school district’s elementary, middle, and high schools. Yin asked where the other cell phone provider towers are located and if the T-Mobile equipment could be added to those towers. Riggs said there are no towers in this area. Yin shared that one of her concerns is the amount of property the cell phone tower requires along with the appearance of the fencing and signage. We already have limited space for school kids to run around. Witt said that this is a community decision and that details would be shared publicly before decisions are made. Wang asked about the maintenance access that would be needed. Riggs said that there would be an easement that would allow access and that access is typically needed monthly. Wang asked about the compensation for the school. Riggs said the rent would be about $1200/month. Austin asked about the appearance of the equipment on the ground, what the fencing would look like, and if it would be safe with children. Riggs said this would be part of the negotiations. Chain link fencing is the standard but they can do a wood or vinyl fence. Landscaping can be included. Schott asked that Riggs provide photos of the towers on other school district property. Greiner asked if they have approached other businesses or organizations in the community. Riggs said they did propose to put up a tower at a park and the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) and Mayor-elect Easter said no. He said the amount of property needed is an issue because there is limited space in this community because so much is residential. If they went somewhere north, like the firestation, then they are too far away from where T-Mobile needs the coverage. Greiner asked why the city said no. Riggs said the proposed location was next to a garden area and it wasn’t what the RDC wanted to see by the garden.
Mumford noted that a very similar proposal was brought to the board in August (7:50) and September (7:57) of 2021 prior to her and Wang serving on the board and Greiiner being hired as superintendent. It was scheduled for a vote at the October 2021 meeting, but then the vote didn’t happen. Mumford asked why this proposal was rejected previously and why it was again being brought to the board. Greiner said that soon after he was hired, Vertical Bridge asked to share this proposal but he told them no. He said they approached him a few months ago and he said he would allow them to come after the referendum vote. Witt said that when it was previously presented, “the drawings were ugly. There was no care or attention given to the way it would affect the site.” Witt said there had been only one proposed site at the athletic complex and it would cause disruption to athletics. Riggs said this proposed tower is different from the one proposed in 2021. They would use outdoor steel cabinets for the equipment, with heating and cooling units, that are locked and hard to get into. The noise is similar to a house with an AC unit. Mumford asked how the previously proposed tower affected athletics. Marley said the concern was the amount of space they needed and Witt said that access was also an issue. Mumford asked if the school board had asked for any community input for the previous proposal. Witt said it was discussed at a public meeting. She said the other detail that has changed from the previous proposal is the compensation. Mumford recommended seeking community input before this is brought to a vote. She said that rather than expecting community members to individually email the superintendent, we should actively seek input to find out what the community wants. Greiner said this can happen and they also have not decided if and when this vote would be added to the agenda. Witt said the difficulty is that we only have access to the school community and that other people live in these neighborhoods. She said that putting out a survey from our schools is not going to necessarily collect the input needed from the whole community. Riggs said that even if the school district agreed to move forward with the lease then they have to go through the zoning process and everyone would be notified at that point. I agree with Witt that just asking for input from the school community is insufficient. If the administration decides to move forward with this proposal I want to see an effort to obtain input from the whole community.
1:37:34 - Greiner shared the recommendation for revisions to School Board Policy 2520 on library materials. This is the first reading with the second reading and vote scheduled for next month. These revisions are being made to comply with recent changes to Indiana code. In addition to the recommended version above, Greiner also shared the current policy, draft with recommended changes, school library material removal request procedure, and the removal request form. Mumford asked if the requirement to have a catalog of materials in the library and listed on the website is already complete for all three schools. Greiner said it is already done. Mumford said that this proposed policy references policy 9130 which currently only says that the school board will “consider” hearing citizen complaints, in contrast, Indiana code requires the school board to review a removal request. She recommended that policy 9130 be revised to include the removal request procedure. She said that other school districts have already handled it in this way. Greiner asked how this was done at other school districts and Mumford shared policies from Southmont, North Montgomery, and BCSC that could serve as examples.
1:42:40 - Wang made a motion that the school board policy committee follow open door law when they meet to discuss revisions to policy 2520 before the next school board meeting. Mumford seconded it. Wang explained that our policy 0155 requires school board committees to follow open door law by holding public meetings. Witt said that 2 board officers, Witt and Austin, and 2 administrators, Greiner and Roth, met to discuss these policy revisions to make sure the school board had adequate information and to prepare the materials, but Witt argued that it wasn’t a committee meeting. Witt and Austin are the school board members that Witt assigned to serve on the policy committee (February 8:55). Witt asked Wang if he wants them to reenact the meeting they already had. Wang said there is no need for a reenactment, but he did want them to follow open door law and meet publicly to discuss revisions to policy 2520 before the next school board meeting. Witt said that they already met to discuss the revisions, so if they were to meet again then it would just be a reenactment. Wang said that it is important for the school board to follow Indian’s open door law, so if a reenactment is what that entails, then that is fine. Greiner said that they need to meet to respond to Mumford’s proposal to revise policy 9130 and that this could be done in a public meeting and so it wouldn’t just be a reenactment. Witt said the difficulty is that this is supposed to be the first reading, with the vote in December. The vote cannot be postponed until January because Indiana law says it has to be passed by the end of the year.
Mumford said that she attended the ISBA fall regional meeting with Witt, Greiner, Wang, and Yin. At this meeting, ISBA legal counsel shared a recent Public Access Counselor opinion that school committees are all required to follow open door law. The only exceptions are for booster clubs, parent-teacher groups, internal staff meetings, teacher union committees, and ad hoc gatherings. Mumford said she was surprised that the policy committee met the day after this meeting with no attempt to follow open door law. Witt said that the issue is the phrase “policy committee.” Witt asserted that there is no policy committee. She said that she is aware of the Public Access Counselor’s viewpoint and that it is not legally binding. Witt said that when this information was shared at the ISBA meeting that many in the room noted that it is not common practice in other school corporations. Austin explained that “ad hoc” means “as necessary” and said that it was necessary for the superintendent to hear two board officers’ (Witt and Austin) recommendations on the policy revisions and clarified that they only met for half an hour. Greiner recommended that the policy committee follow the open door law as Wang motioned. Witt called for a vote.
Voted 4 out of 7 for the motion (Austin and Marley opposed, Schott abstained)
Witt said she voted in the affirmative because of Greiner's recommendation. Schott said he abstained because it was confusing. Marley asked if Greiner was aware that public notice is required to follow open door law and Greiner said that he is aware. Marley said they would also need to livestream the policy committee meeting. Witt said her plan is to meet immediately before the next school board meeting. Marley said it will take a lot of collaboration and some expense. Witt said she agrees and that it is not as efficient. The PAC member’s arguments for why the policy committee has not complied with Indiana’s open door law are weak. We have been arguing about this issue as a board ever since I joined the board. It’s great that Greiner finally decided that it makes sense to follow the law. On the other hand, it’s disappointing that this happened in the same meeting that the board voted to hire a law firm to rewrite all our board policies, essentially replacing our policy committee with an outside contractor.
1:56:26 - Greiner recommended the approval of an amended 2024-2025 School Calendar and 2025-2026 School Calendar. The 2024-2025 calendar is being amended to add a two hour early dismissal in October for parent teacher conferences. Wang asked who served on the committee and Greiner said he received input from the teacher’s union. Wang asked if any parents were invited to give input and Greiner said no. Wang mentioned that spring break and fall break lining up with Purdue is important for some of the parents. He also mentioned that fall break was extended from 2 days to 4 days last year. Witt said that the reason fall break was extended was the calendar committee’s recommendation for the mental health of our students. Greiner shared that the fall break cannot match with Purdue’s because WLCSC wants their fall break to be at the end of the first 9 weeks. Schott asked that we stop the discussion and just vote. Mumford said that she has not yet been able to ask her questions. Mumford said that the state requires 180 school days but several years ago, we submitted a waiver to have 178 student days and 2 professional development days. Mumford said that some school districts, like BCSC, have been approved to have 176 student days and 4 professional development days. She asked about the right number of student days for our school district. Greiner shared that the previous superintendent made the decision to request 178 student days and 2 professional development days. Greiner said that this is working, so he has not considered anything different. Mumford asked why snow days are scheduled as makeup days instead of e-learning days as is common for other districts. Greiner said that our school district prioritizes in-person learning, but if there were multiple snow days, then we would consider e-learning days. Austin asked Becky Creech (JSHS science teacher and the union representative who served on the calendar committee) to share her thoughts. Creech said that she has seen the issues that students have from the e-learning during Covid and said the teachers want students in the classroom. She also shared that teachers want 178 instructional days instead of 176 so that they have more time with students. Creech said that it is important to her that fall break is 4 days long for both students and teachers. She said that we start at the beginning of August so that graduation can occur before Memorial Day.
Mumford asked if there had been consideration of an inclusive calendar. In 2020, WL Care proposed an inclusive school calendar and Mumford asked if this was discussed. Witt said it was discussed and they decided to add a comment at the bottom of the calendar letting parents know that students can miss 9 days of school per semester with parent permission. Greiner said that new attendance reporting is conflicting with the number of days students are allowed to miss. He shared that in the future they may need to recommend changes to the handbook regarding attendance. Yin shared that the two policies referenced at the bottom of the calendar, policy 5200 and 5223, are confusing and complicated. I still don’t know why 178 is the right number of school days for our district as compared to either the 180 or 176 options. I would like to see our school district adopt a more inclusive school calendar. Most of all, I want the calendar committee to include parents in addition to teachers and administrators. Many parents have asked to serve on the calendar committee and none have been allowed. Adding additional perspectives to the committee will help us arrive at a better calendar for our community.
Voted 7 out of 7 to approve amended 2024-2025 calendar
Voted 7 out of 7 to approve 2025-2026 calendar
2:12:52 - Greiner recommended the approval of the Personnel Report. He said that the position of mental health specialist is filled by Alyson Smith.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:13:44 - Roth shared a presentation on our use of the Stem Grant for Professional Development. In September 2022, we were awarded a grant from the IDOE. The JSHS had the highest STEM course completion in the state in 2021-2022 and Siya Goel (Class of 2022) was on the 2022 Governor’s STEM team. The grant provided $250,000 for professional development and $250,000 for supplies and equipment. The professional development funding has been spent and they are currently accepting proposals for the supplies and equipment.
2:31:29 - Roth shared information about performance reports from the state. In the past, IDOE issued report cards for school districts but stopped during Covid. The most recent legislation requires performance reports for school districts. IDOE has not shared much information about these reports: JSHS performance report, WLIS performance report, and WLES performance report.
2:40:50 - Cronk recommended the approval of the JSHS Door Mechanical Upgrade for safety and efficiency. Three quotes were obtained.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:42:30 - Cronk recommended approval of a Classified and Administration Employee Wage Increase. Yin asked who does the evaluations. She also asked if teachers, staff, parents, or student feedback is sought for evaluations. Cronk said evaluations for classified staff are done by building administrators or their department director. Greiner said he evaluates the three principals, principals evaluate assistant principals, and Roth and Cronk evaluate directors. He said that feedback is not solicited. There are set categories that are used to complete the evaluations.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:47:06 - Cronk recommended the approval of the Youth Baseball Lease Agreement and memo. She shared that the youth baseball league asked to include their property insurance in our plan. The league will reimburse us for this cost.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:48:10 - Cronk recommended the approval of the Accounts Payable WLCSC and Accounts Payable WVEC. She shared the Financial Report - Funds, Credit Card Statement, and Claims Docket Breakdown.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:50:19 - Witt asked for approval of the proposal to hire our legal council to Revise/Rewrite All Policies. Included in this proposal is to change the provider of the school district’s policy updates from Neola to the school district’s legal counsel, Church Church Hittle and Antrem (CCHA). Witt shared that there was already some discussion on this topic at the work session on Friday and at the beginning of the meeting (20:36) so she said that she would only allow each school board member to make one comment or ask one question before she calls for the vote. Marley said they have used Neola for as long as he can remember. He said Neola doesn’t allow flexibility or accommodations. 207 school districts in Indiana use them. If we continue to use them, we still have to consult with legal counsel on policies which bring additional fees. If we start using CCHA then we don’t have to pay for duplicated work, they will give us policies that are unique for our school district, and it will be cheaper. CCHA only has 17 school corporations but some are similar to our district. CCHA is willing to come to school board meetings if we want. He shared an example of one of our current policies that says that the school board secretary takes the minutes, yet this hasn’t been done in more than 15 years. Marley said this example shows that Neola’s policies are not well suited to our school district. Austin said if the school board is going to ask administrators to set guidelines, then the policies need to be concise and understandable. Mumford said that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about this recommended change. The work session ended before questions and discussion were complete and now Witt is pushing for a vote without having shared all the information. Mumford said that when Neola recommended policy updates, the school board often revised them. Marley’s example of our policy that requires the board secretary to take the minutes was recommended by our own policy committee and approved by the school board. Mumford noted that our legal counsel has been consulted on many of our past policy revisions and that we were not charged additional fees. Claiming that we would have to pay double is inaccurate. Mumford said there are two different topics that should be considered separately: policy cleanup and policy updates. The policy updates are necessary each year because of legislative changes and we need a vendor to make these recommendations. Mumford said that the policy cleanup should be community led rather than done by a vendor and she offered to lead it. Legal counsel should be consulted for legal advice on policy revisions but our legal counsel should not also be asked to rewrite all our policies.
Yin said that the information on other school districts’ websites who use CCHA was not shared with the school board until Friday afternoon which limited the school board’s time to research. She shared a concern that the policies are not easy to navigate in those school districts. She would like to have CCHA come to a school board meeting and share a presentation on their services and answer questions. She said the community has not been informed about this major change and has not been allowed to share input. Wang said there is still additional information needed and a rushed vote isn’t necessary. He shared that the other school districts who use CCHA have a small number of policies and few details in each section which is not enough. He said that with our current policies, you can easily see where they are different from other school districts who also use Neola. He also shared that Neola’s legal counsel reviews their policy recommendations, so doubling up with CCHA wouldn’t need to happen. He said policy making is a major role of the school board and we should step forward and assume that leadership role and responsibility. He asked to serve on the policy committee. He said we don’t want a tailor to make a classroom table or a carpenter to make athletic uniforms. CCHA has over a 100 years as lawyers with experience in legal counsel. Neola has over 1450 school districts and 40 years experience in school board policies. Schott said because Greiner brought the proposal forward then he supports it. Witt and Yin argued with each other until Witt called for a vote.
Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford and Yin opposed, Wang abstained)
We were told that we would discuss this in November and vote in December. I don’t understand why the PAC members decided they needed to rush this through. The library policy change is important enough to do a first and second reading. But, apparently the decision to hire a law firm to rewrite all our school district policies is something so urgent that we can’t take a month to consider, can’t wait for answers from the law firm, can’t wait to get a quote from a competing provider (ISBA), and can’t even allow more than one comment per school board member.
Our school district has a history of revising the policies provided by Neola to restrict community access to school information and to prevent community involvement in school decisions. In addition to Witt and Austin who currently serve on the policy committee, Schott and Doug Masson previously served on the policy committee and many of these problematic policies were enacted on their watch. Recently, the non-PAC members have been comparing our school district’s policies to those of other school districts, pointing out places where we can improve. This decision to rewrite all the policies will certainly make those comparisons more difficult. Perhaps that’s the point. My biggest concern is that school districts hire a law firm like CCHA to provide legal protection for the school district. It’s not in their job description to advocate for students or for the community. I expect their rewrites of our school policies to put much more weight on administration concerns than on community concerns.
3:12:11 - Greiner said that he wanted to thank the community for approving the referendum. He reported that he posted the JSHS principal position throughout Indiana and also nationally on the National Association of Secondary School Principals. He shared his apology for the division in this decision to switch policy vendors. He said that he wants to hire CCHA because they will minimize the number of policies, get rid of duplicates, and personalize the policies. His team will work directly with CCHA to make the policies and said that we don’t need a school board committee. The school board has two main responsibilities: hire/evaluate the superintendent and set school district policies that provide overall guidance to the superintendent. It makes sense that the superintendent would prefer to do a complete rewrite of all the policies without any school board involvement. What doesn’t make sense is why the school board would abdicate its responsibility for school policies and offer the superintendent unilateral control of the policy rewriting process. It's a rubber stamp on the whole process and will result in policies that are not in the best interest of our community.
3:20:40 - Board Reports
Redevelopment Commission - Marley shared that they discussed the spending plan.
Board teacher discussion - Austin said it was brief but productive. Mumford asked if class sizes were discussed because fifth grade now has 25 students in almost every class. Austin said they did not discuss class size.
Public School Foundation of Tippecanoe County - Mumford shared they had their grant reception. No teachers from WLCSC applied for grants in this round.
Safety - Mumford asked if school board members could review the school district’s safety plan. Greiner said he is working with Mr. Ulrich, JSHS assistant principal, and will share it at an executive session in January. Mumford asked about the new legislation and if this review by the school board needs to be completed before January. Greiner said they would do it early in the school year in the future. At the September meeting, when I asked about school board members’ reviewing the safety plan, there was pushback (1:22:35). New legislation that was effective July 1, 2023 requires the school board to review the school safety plan, so I am happy that they are now trying to comply with the requirement.
Background checks policy revisions - Witt said that the original plan to update policies on background checks is not being considered because it is covered in Indiana Code so it is not a priority to make the revisions.
Bullying - Mumford asked if bullying could be added as an agenda item next month. She would like a presentation to the board on bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, and reporting. Greiner said he would add it to the agenda.
West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation - Schott shared that the alumni newsletter will be sent out later in the month. There is a scholarship information night for seniors on December 4th.
ISBA Webinar - Wang shared that he participated in the ISBA Budget and Financing webinar.
Parks and Recreation - Yin shared that they increased the part-time employee rate and that they have several positions available for instructors and coaches. She shared that some of the open positions are for teenagers.
Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room
Future Meetings (calendar link)
Regular School Board Meeting - Monday, December 11 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.