October 9, 2023 School Board Summary
The referendum is of vital importance to our school district. It provides about 1/5 of our revenue. Without it, our schools would have to cut programs, fire teachers, and increase class sizes. I understand and share in the frustration that many feel about the recent construction and other spending decisions. I agree that we need accountability for those past decisions and that our school leaders need to do a better job of seeking input. However, taking away the referendum funding won’t help us accomplish those goals and it would harm our students. We need the referendum so that our students will continue to receive the outstanding education provided by the West Lafayette Community School Corporation.
Voting Locations:
October 30-November 3 from 8:00am-4:30pm at Tippecanoe County Office Building
November 2-3 from 12:00pm-6:00pm at Margerum City Hall of West Lafayette
November 4 from 9:00am-1:00pm at Margerum City Hall of West Lafayette
November 4 from 9:00am-1:00pm at Tippecanoe County Office Building
November 6 from 8:00am-12:00pm at Tippecanoe County Office Building
November 7 from 6:00am-6:00pm at West Lafayette Wellness Center
November 7 from 6:00am-6:00pm at Margerum City Hall of West Lafayette
November 7 from 6:00am-6:00pm at Faith West Community Center
KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: 76 percent of registered voters in our school district support the referendum. This is down from 96 percent in 2017. The consultant said that complacency is the biggest threat to the referendum passing in our school district. The state is removing funding for some AP exams, but our district will cover these costs. A parent shared that the JSHS failed to report a bullying incident to the state where her child was the victim. The process of hiring a new principal for the JSHS is beginning with a survey for JSHS parents, students, and staff (open until November 10th). The 2024 budget was passed along with resolutions giving school administrators the authority to change the budget at any time and in any way with no need for future authorization from the school board. This is the ultimate rubber stamp.
Agenda with links to board documents
TOPIC TIMESTAMPS link to Youtube:
7:57 Referendum phone survey results
58:59 Pushback on school board members asking questions
1:02:10 Students and teachers request funds for AP exams
1:13:18 Appreciation for reversing the decision to fire the robotics coaches
1:16:04 YES committee update
1:20:10 Inaccurate information on special education and bullying incidents
1:26:10 Minutes approved after removal of Austin’s commentary
1:44:36 Collective bargaining agreement passed; motion to collect data on extracurricular activities participation failed
2:12:17 Shriner, JSHS principal retirement; timeline and input sought for principal search
2:19:40 Budget for 2024 passed, motion to remove 2 unnecessary resolutions failed
2:31:57 WLCSC superintendent evaluation process
2:42:02 Public records request process
2:51:42 AP exam costs will be covered by the school district
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.
0:23 - Motion to move the presentation on the referendum survey to the beginning of the meeting, right after student recognitions.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:32 - WLIS principal Margaret Psarros and WLIS PE teachers Chris LaGuire and Chauncey Fry recognized the students who won the mile race. Each grade had a boy and girl champion. Three set new school records. We have some fast students!
7:57 - Dr. Don Lifto, consultant with marketing firm Morris Leatherman Co., shared results from a phone survey of 400 randomly sampled registered voters in our school district. 52% are homeowners, 22% are parents of current students, and 23% are over age 65. Half of the questions related to the school corporation’s performance and standing in the community. The other half asked about potential renewal of the referendum.
84% gave the school corporation an overall grade of A or B
64% gave the school corporation’s financial management a grade of A or B
76% support the referendum
After providing additional information about the referendum, support increases by just 2%.
Typically, there is less support from voters who have never had children in the schools. However, the survey shows an above average level of support (78%) from this group.
Typically, older voters are less likely to support a referendum. The survey shows 64% support from those age 65 and older.
Typically, voters with higher levels of education are more likely to support a referendum. However, the survey shows a below average level of support (69%) from voters with graduate degrees.
When voters were most recently asked to approve the referendum in 2017, it received 94% support.
The survey also asked people for their primary source of information about the schools:
34% friends and neighbors
23% Journal & Courier
15% school website
10% social media
5% communication with school staff and teachers
5% school information sent home with students
8% other
Yin asked if support for the referendum could be broken into voting districts within our school district so we could better know how to focus campaign efforts. Lifto said that the data he shared does not include voting districts. Yin asked if the voter registration information used to randomly select the participants includes the address. Lifto said that address is not included in his data analysis. Yin asked if participants who do not support the referendum were asked why they do not. Lifto said that respondents were not asked any follow-up questions. Yin asked for the survey participation refusal rate. Lifto said it is typically 10% which isn’t high because people usually are more willing to answer questions about their local schools. However, he did not share what the refusal rate was for this survey. Marley asked how accurate the survey is in correctly predicting the outcome of referendum votes. Lifto said that over the past 4 years, two-thirds of vote outcomes were within the margin of error for the survey (plus or minus 5%).
57:02 - Schott asked Lifto if he had any advice on what to do to not lose the referendum vote. Lifto said that his advice comes down to one word that begins with the letter C. Schott guessed “contention” and Witt guessed “conflict.” Lifto said no, the word is “complacency.” He explained that in odd-year elections, typically less than 40% of parents turn out to vote. Given the positive results of the survey, it is important that voters not get the impression that they do not need to vote. Our school district has a long history of being complacent. Rather than learning from what other districts are doing and taking advantage of the resources Purdue offers, our school district is too often unwilling to deviate from the way things have always been done.
Lifto also provided results from the open-ended questions asking respondents to say what they think are the school district’s greatest strength and greatest challenge. The top ten most mentioned items (excluding nothing/don’t know responses) were:
Greatest Strength
Teachers
High achievement
Academics
Community involvement
High standards
Preparing students for the future
Parent involvement
Extracurriculars
Communication
Diversity
Greatest Challenge
Funding
Teacher shortage
Lack of discipline
Poor spending
High taxes
Poor leadership
Large class sizes
Lack of support programs
Poor communication
Poverty
58:59 - Communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began):
Becky Creech (parent and science teacher at JSHS) shared her concern about the questions that school board members ask administrators and said that school board members should instead be focused on the referendum and state legislation. She asserted that asking the school administrators questions demonstrates a lack of trust in the professionals. She wants central office administrators to be in the schools and not in their offices answering questions. I agree with Creech that school administrators should not be spending so much time in their offices responding to questions by email. It would be so much better for them to answer questions in public meetings. When first hired, Greiner held a series of public Q&A meetings each month that were well attended by parents. Rather than receiving a large number of individual emails, parents discussed school issues with Greiner in a public setting. Another way to more efficiently answer questions is holding monthly work sessions with the school board. Most other school districts hold work sessions each month to allow school board members to publicly ask questions of school administrators. Our school board’s officers (Witt, Marley, and Austin) have stated their opposition to holding public work sessions and that they prefer using email. However, I’m happy to see the start of a culture shift now that we have 3 non-PAC school board members. Part of this is helping others understand that asking questions does not mean a lack of trust, but a desire to understand and respond to student, teacher, parent, and community members’ needs. This reminds me of what Marley said to the non-PAC members at the October 3, 2023 collective bargaining public hearing: “When you guys have questions, and I understand there are questions, think about what the end game is. . . They [the administrators] are running the school and we'll never run it on our best day, not qualified, not in position; it is not our job. Let them do it. Let them do it. That's it. That's why we're the number one school corporation in the state of Indiana. Period. Period. One of the best in the country” (timestamp 39:55). Marley’s statement is an example of a rubber stamp mindset. That is not my view. School board members have a responsibility to ask school administrators questions in public meetings. This leads to better decisions which benefit our students.
1:02:10 - Students and teachers ask for help from school district to cover increased AP exam costs:
Graham Whitcomb (parent, science teacher at JSHS and union co-president) shared his appreciation of the collaborative effort during negotiations for the collective bargaining. He said the focus should be on passing the referendum in November and not on transfer policies or budgets. He asked for help with the YES committee on spreading the word. He also shared his concern about the recent change from the IDOE increasing AP exam fees.
Andi Hipsher (parent, science teacher at JSHS, and union secretary) shared her concern with the increased AP exam fees announced on September 15th. This is going to discourage students from taking AP exams and cause financial burdens.
Jerry Gu (senior at JSHS) shared his concern with the increase in AP exam fees. Previously students who qualify for free and reduced lunches did not have a fee for taking the exams but now they will be charged if they take more than 3 exams.
Ashley Yang (junior at JSHS) shared her concern with the increase in AP exam fees. They are appealing this increase to the state legislatures but nothing will be changed before fee deadlines on November 1st so they are asking for help from the school district. It was great hearing directly from our students, but I was disappointed that these teachers and students had to appeal all the way to the school board to be heard on this issue. Later in the meeting, I asked the administrators to respond to this AP exam request (see 2:51:42).
1:13:18 - Appreciation for reversing the decision to fire the robotics coaches
Lixia Cheng (parent of students involved in WL Robotics) shared appreciation for Brad Thompson and the other robotic coaches. She thanked Greiner and Roth for listening to parents and for reversing the high school administration’s decision to fire several WL Robotics coaches. Right after the announcement that all the coaches would return, the students got right to work on their preseason. Two weeks prior to the school board meeting, the JSHS administration team fired the robotics director and several mentors. This came as a shock to the coaches, parents, and the more than 150 participating students because it is a very successful program (qualified for the world championship last year and was the Galileo division winner) and there were never any claims of anything inappropriate. A few days later there was a meeting where over 100 parents, alumni, and community members attended or participated via zoom to discuss how to move forward. The next day, the superintendent decided to reverse the firing decision. There is a pattern in our school district of decisions reached with no community involvement and then backing down in response to community outcry. A more inclusive leadership style would help. Engaging with students and parents are at the top of my list for the new JSHS principal.
1:16:04 - YES committee update
Tanya Finkbiner (parent and co-chair of the Yes Committee) spoke about the purpose of the Yes Committee in encouraging people to vote yes for the referendum. The Yes Committee members consist of Alan Karpick, Cathy Cavanaugh, Natalie Lucas, and George Lyle. She said that their efforts may look different from what was done in previous years, but said that effort is still strong and consistent. Donations have funded the marketing and any additional funds leftover after the referendum will be donated to the West Lafayette Public Schools Foundation. She asked everyone to vote yes and encouraged friends and neighbors to also vote yes. Passing the referendum is essential for our schools. I am grateful for those who are working to get out the vote. I’m volunteering as well.
1:20:10 - Inaccurate information about special education and bullying incidents
Erin Moon-Walker (parent) said that she is concerned with misinformation coming from our school district. Her first example was a presentation about our special education program at the August school board meeting (14:51). The presentation said that our school district’s special education program received the highest rating by the IU Center on Education and Lifelong Learning (second to last slide). Moon-Walker said that she contacted this IU center and they told her that our district had been identified in 2019 as non-compliant for demonstrating disproportionality in identifying African American children as learning disabled. The review said that our policies and documentation were changed and now align with state law. This was not a recognition of our special education services or outcomes; it was an acknowledgment that we had recently fixed a major issue with our program. Her second example was that our JSHS reported zero incidents of bullying last year to the Indiana Department of Education (2022-2023 report). This is incorrect because her daughter was physically bullied at school last year and she publicly commented on that bullying at the school board meeting a year ago (October 10, 2022, 8:24). Concerns about special education and bullying have been shared with the school board at several meetings over the past few years. This charge that the JSHS is misreporting bullying incidents is serious. I would like to see the administrators publicly respond to the information that Moon-Walker shared.
1:22:35 - Approval of the Agenda. Greiner shared that the personnel report had been updated with Shriner, HS principal, retiring at the end of the school year. Yin made a motion to add an agenda item to discuss our school district policies related to the hiring, evaluation, and termination of coaches. Mumford seconded it. No questions were asked.
Voted 3 out of 7 for the motion (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
The firing and rehiring of the robotics coaches raised a lot of questions about our procedures. For the PAC members to vote to not allow a discussion of these school policies is a misuse of power. Most other school districts allow an item to be added to the agenda if at least 2 school board members want to discuss it (for example TSC’s policy). Our recently-revised policy requires support from 4 members to add an agenda item.
Voted 5 out of 7 for approval of the agenda (Wang and Yin opposed)
1:26:10 - Approval of the Minutes of the September 11, 2023 meeting. Wang motioned to correct the wording in the minutes in Section III. B: “A motion was made by Mr. Wang to ‘document the general substance of possible amendment of Policy 0166 proposed by member Mumford at the August 14, 2023 Board Meeting on the August 14, 2023 Board Minutes per Mrs. Mumford’s interpretation of IC 5-14-1.5-4 (b) (3).’” Wang explained that he had made this request for correcting the minutes before the meeting, but that Austin had rejected his request. Austin said that she added the phrase “Mrs. Mumford’s interpretation of” to Wang’s motion because Mumford “is not a lawyer nor a legislator herself.” Mumford said that the reference to the Indiana Code in Wang’s motion is about including information in the minutes and has nothing to do with her nor her proposed amendment of Policy 0166. Wang said that the wording of his motion in the minutes should be the exact wording of his motion and not include commentary added by Austin. Wang said that anyone can verify the wording of his motion from the livestream (19:10). Witt asked if any member had checked the transcription. Mumford said she listened to the livestream and that Wang’s motion did not include the phrase “Mrs. Mumford’s interpretation.” Witt said she believes that minutes are to share specific transactions that happened in the meeting and noted that this debate is about the wording of a motion that was not approved. She said her recommendation is a word for word transcription of what was said in the meeting. Austin then made a motion to remove this whole section from the minutes since it was voted down. Witt said that we would vote on the motion by Wang to remove the words Austin added to the minutes. Mumford, Wang, and Yin raised their hands in approval. Marley asked Witt to pause the vote to ask for clarification. Marley said that Mumford’s name is listed in the remarks Wang had made in his motion. Mumford explained that Wang is asking that the wording of the motion in the minutes be his exact words. His reference to Indiana code was his own interpretation and has nothing to do with Mumford. Witt asked to continue to vote on Wang’s motion to remove Austin’s addition to the minutes. Marley said he would vote yes. Schott said he is abstaining because he is confused and this is a waste of time.
Voted 4 out of 6 to remove Austin’s commentary from the minutes (Austin and Witt opposed; Schott abstained)
There was no second on Austin’s motion to remove the entire section from the minutes.
Voted 7 out of 7 to approve the updated minutes
It is alarming that Austin (school board secretary) continues to try to remove motions and votes from the official meeting minutes. Austin’s attempt to insert her commentary into the minutes did waste everyone’s time as Schott said. It is discouraging that so much time is wasted discussing the minutes, but they are frequently inaccurate and/or lacking any description of certain portions of the meeting. This is important because the minutes are the only legal record of the meeting; there is no requirement that school districts preserve livestream or audio recordings.
1:35:27 - Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2023 Work Session. Wang made a motion to include information in the minutes about the general substance of the 2024 budget and fiscal plans. Mumford seconded it. Austin asked why Wang isn’t satisfied that the presentation is available on the school’s website and suggested that he was just trying to make things difficult for Mrs. Julian (assistant to the superintendent who helps Austin prepare the minutes). Wang said instead of requiring people to listen to the entire livestream to know what took place, he would like the minutes to include a short summary so that the community can be informed. Marley asked for verification that budget documents are shared with the public. Cronk said that budget documents are on the state’s Gateway website. Marley said that the information is available to the public and so work session minutes just need basic documentation. Wang said that a 30+ million dollar budget is serious and more information should be shared. Yin said she would like to see something brief shared in the work session minutes. Austin said that no votes are taken at work sessions and so nothing needs to be recorded. Yin asked what is common at other school districts. Greiner said his previous district did not provide a description of what was discussed in work session minutes. The Indiana Public Access Counselor has already said that our district’s use of the phrase “discussion ensued” in school board meeting minutes instead of recording the general substance of the discussion is not in compliance with state law. However, I don’t know if this applies to school board work sessions as well. I’ll reach out to find out if this also applies to work sessions.
Voted 1 out of 5 to add information about the budget to the work session minutes (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed, Mumford and Yin abstained)
Voted 7 out of 7 to approve the work session minutes
1:43:49 - Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2023 Tentative Agreement (Collective Bargaining) Meeting of the Board of School Trustees.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:44:36 - Greiner recommended the approval of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. He said that the process was quick and collaborative. Marley and Wang served as the board representatives on this committee. Yin motioned to collect information for the Extra-Curricular Activities (ECA) on participation and workload. She said she is fine with this collective bargaining agreement but would like to have the ECA information for the future. This information would help students and families to be aware of the extracurricular activity options and also would help board members have information on ECAs as they are asked to approve compensation in the future. She said that the recent issue with the firing and rehiring of the robotics director, she was made aware of the high workload and high student participation in robotics with minimum compensation to the director. The board is asked to vote on ECA compensation but it is not clear what each position entails (the ECA compensation is listed as exhibit B in the collective bargaining agreement).
Witt said that this motion is not in alignment with board member ethics. She quoted Policy 0144.2:
“A School Board member should maintain desirable relations with the Superintendent of Schools and his/her staff by:
B. giving the Superintendent full administrative authority for properly discharging his/her professional duties, and also by holding him/her responsible for acceptable results
C. acting only upon the recommendation of the Superintendent in matters of employment or dismissal of school personnel
E. referring all complaints to the proper administrative office and by discussing them only at a regular meeting after failure of administrative solution
A School Board member should meet his/her responsibilities to his/her community by:
F. refusing to discuss personnel matters or any other confidential business of the Board in his/her home, on the street, or in his/her office”
Witt said that one of Yin’s purposes in asking for the data to be collected is in regards to how the superintendent manages personnel in regards to hiring and negotiations. Yin said that she is asked to approve ECA compensation and it is difficult to do this with no other information. Witt said the process is that negotiations for teachers and ECAs is through collective bargaining and that her motion to collect information modifies that process. She said it would not be an ethics issue if Yin’s motion was amended so that the purpose is to collect data to increase awareness of the activity offerings. Yin responded that she thought her motion was narrow in asking for information on ECA to be collected for the benefit of the community and the board. Mumford suggested that Yin not specify a purpose and simply request the information be collected. Witt agreed that this would be fine. Wang and Schott both asked for clarification that this data collection is only about future extracurricular activities participation.
Voted 3 out of 7 to collect data on extracurricular activities participation (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
I think it is embarrassing that our school district doesn’t know how many students are participating in the various extracurricular activities offered in our schools. It appears that none of the PAC members intended to vote to collect this information, so I am not sure why Witt spent so much time claiming that it would be fine to request this information but that she thinks that Yin’s reason for requesting the information is unethical.
Voted 7 out of 7 to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement
2:01:50 - Greiner asked for approval of the Field Trip: Social Studies Dept. to Washington DC.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:12:17 - Greiner asked for approval of the Personnel Report. The report includes the retirement of JSHS principal, Ron Shriner, at the end of the school year. Mumford asked for more information on the search and hiring committee for the new principal. Greiner said it would be similar to what was done with the search for the WLES principal last summer. Mumford asked to serve on the committee and Witt said she would decide which school board members will serve on the search committee. Mumford asked for an update on the DEI position and Roth said that they will seek input from the staff and then will seek input from the community. Yin asked if she could serve on the DEI search committee and Witt thanked her for the offer. Our JSHS is one of the best schools in the state and, if advertised well, should attract a large number of external candidates. I have been disappointed with the leadership culture at the JSHS. Changes are too often made without any real effort to seek input from parents and students (e.g. club schedule, curriculum committees, open and closed lunch, school start and end times). I hope the new principal will put in the effort to involve community members. Soon after the school board meeting, Greiner emailed JSHS families the principal search timeline. It puts the first-round interviews in December right at the end of the semester, one of the busiest times for school administrators. Holding first-round interviews in January would probably be better for external candidates. Greiner also shared a survey for JSHS parents, students, and staff (open until November 10th).
Voted 7 out of 7
2:14:35 - Cronk asked for approval for the JSHS Elevator Purchase. The old elevators at the JSHS have reached the end of their life and need to be updated. They would like to replace one this year and then the other next year. They received three quotes (DC Elevator, Murphy Elevator, and TK Elevator) and TK elevator provided the lowest quote. Wang verified that this expense was not included in the capital spending plan that the school board reviewed last month. Cronk said that the elevator replacement was not planned, but there were issues this summer and it was determined that they needed to be replaced.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:16:11 - Cronk asked for approval of the Health Insurance Renewal and Premiums. The insurance committee met with our consultant through Brown & Brown (formerly RE Sutton), Diane Titchenell.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:19:40 - Cronk asked for approval of the 2024 Budget Adoption. This was discussed at the work session on September 20, 2023. The required budget adoption forms include Ordinance or Resolution for Appropriations and Tax Rates, Bus Replacement Plan, Resolution to Adopt Bus Replacement Plan, and Resolution to Adopt Capital Projects Plan. The capital projects plan is not final and can be amended. She also bundled two additional resolutions with the budget resolutions: Resolution of Budget Authority, which grants authority to the Superintendent and/or CFO to make any necessary reductions of current or ensuing appropriations, and the Transfer and Loan Resolution, which allows the business office to transfer or make loans between funds as needed. Mumford motioned to vote on the 2024 budget adoption items separately from these additional resolutions. Wang seconded it. There was no discussion and the motion failed. The PAC members didn’t explain why they opposed voting on the budget separately from these additional resolutions. In past years, they were not voted on as a package. The PAC members' votes to give broad transfer and loan authority to administrators is concerning. They continue to demonstrate through their votes that they view their role as little more than a rubber stamp. I think this is how our school district ended up with so much debt that we had to get an additional loan in order to make our debt payments.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)
Mumford shared that she has no issues with the 2024 budget, but would not vote to approve this package because of the tacked-on resolutions that relinquish the school board’s authority over the budget. Mumford said that it is appropriate for the administration to bring recommended transfers and other budget changes to the school board, instead of giving them authority to do whatever they want. Wang asked why we are using fund code 0022 for the referendum on Form 4 when we have previously used code 0160. Cronk said that this was a great question and that the DLGF codes are different from the codes used by the state board of accounts. Wang asked for an example where Cronk would use the transfer and loan resolution authority she is asking for. Cronk said a possible example would be to fund a project that wasn’t appropriated in the rainy day fund by transferring money from the rainy day fund to the operations fund and then paying for the project from operations. She said an example of using the loan authority would be if at the end of June the property tax revenue does not arrive on time she could take a loan from another fund to continue spending and then put the money back afterwards. Wang asked for an example where Cronk would use the authority given in the resolution of budget authority. Cronk said she would use this to reduce the appropriations necessary to fund the 2024 operations budget. Wang said he also has concerns about the blanket approval given in these two resolutions and Cronk said that she will still let the board know about these budget changes even though the board will not need to approve them. Why is the school board approving a budget that the administrators can change at any time, for any reason, no approval needed? Administrators are responsible for how the money is spent, but the school board is supposed to be responsible for setting the budget. Approving these additional resolutions is the ultimate rubber stamp.
Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)
2:29:19 - 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. Mumford asked about purchases and reimbursements listed on page 2 and 3 of the accounts payable. Cronk said that these purchases were incorrectly paid out of one fund and then corrected and assigned to the correct fund. Mumford asked for an update on the STEM grant from the state. Roth said that they still have one more year to spend the money. Mumford said that the JSHS parent council had been asked to pay for calculators for some classrooms and Roth said this expense could be paid from the STEM grant.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:31:57 - Witt said that the superintendent evaluation process happens annually and noted that Greiner’s three-year contract was automatically extended on July 1, 2023 for an additional year and is renewed automatically in this way each year. Witt said that the board works together to evaluate the superintendent and keeps the evaluation confidential. She said that we would use the same evaluation model as was used last year and that was recommended by ISBA (Indiana School Board Association). She said that if any board member wants to change anything in the model then it should be sent to Witt by October 20. The board officers will put all school board members’ evaluations together into one document with an average score for each area. An executive session will be scheduled with the seven board members to discuss the evaluation and goals. A final evaluation document will be put together and then only the board officers (Witt, Austin, and Marley) will meet with Greiner to discuss the evaluation. Mumford said that she attended the recent ISBA session on evaluating superintendents and that all three superintendents that presented said that the entire board should attend the final executive session with the superintendent to discuss the evaluation. She asked why we exclude school board members? Witt said that it is the tradition and that Greiner is happy with this process. Greiner said that it is an acceptable process. At the end of the meeting, during board reports, Yin shared that she had read our policy 1240 and it doesn’t say that only the school board officers discuss the evaluation with Greiner. Witt said that this is the procedure we will follow and it allows them to meet with the superintendent without a formal meeting since only 3 board members meet with him. I’m surprised that Greiner prefers an evaluation process where he hears only from the board officers and from none of the non-PAC members. I’m also surprised that the schedule is set so that the superintendent’s contract is automatically extended just before his evaluation rather than just after his evaluation.
2:37:50 - Witt said she had some board training information to share on personnel issues in regards to individual and corporation liability related to public expressions of board members and their opinions in regards to personnel matters. She again referenced Policy 0144.2: “acting only upon the recommendation of the Superintendent in matters of employment or dismissal of school personnel” as well as “referring all complaints to the proper administrative office and by discussing them only at a regular meeting after failure of administrative solution.” She then read a statement from our legal counsel, Jessica Billingsley from Church Church HIttle and Antrim: “From a legal standpoint, board members should generally refrain from participating in personnel matters until brought to their attention by administration. The board is the ultimate hiring and firing authority of the school corporation and as such any actions taken by the board collectively or by individual members will likely be attributed to the school corporation for liability purposes. The board's involvement in a personnel matter at any time prior to the ultimate determination diverges from the standard process to address personnel matters… The board will have to serve as an ultimate arbiter if a certified staff member challenges the cancellation of their contract. If a board member has been involved with a matter previously that board member will likely need to recuse themselves to maintain the integrity of the process, the due process.” Witt may have been referring to the robotics coaches, but it wasn’t clear. At the public robotics meeting, Austin said she was speaking on behalf of the board regarding the coaches being fired, but it was also clear that what she was saying had not been shared with the rest of the school board. I never received any recommendation from the superintendent or any indication that school procedures were correctly followed when the JSHS administrators fired the robotics coaches.
Board Reports
2:41:15 - Witt said that she attended the teacher discussion meeting. They discussed class sizes, changes to classroom furniture for efficiency with limited space, support staff and substitute updates, technology issues, updated legislation, and student mental health needs. She also reported that she attended part of the ISBA fall conference.
2:42:02 - Witt said that there are no outstanding public records requests. Mumford asked Witt to explain the process that is followed when community members submit public records requests. Witt said that when Roberta Julian, administrative assistant to the superintendent, receives a request, she notifies Greiner and Witt. Then Julian processes the request. If it is complex, she forwards it to legal counsel. She noted that public records requests are public information. At the June 12 board meeting (2:29:14) Witt announced that Angie Janes had requested email exchanges between Witt or Greiner and the previous superintendent. Janes posted on Facebook Open Forum that there have been more than 2,000 emails exchanged between the previous superintendent and Witt or Greiner but only one email was provided to her. At the September 11 board meeting (57:27) Witt announced that Zachary Baiel had submitted a public records request for a list of previous public records requests. There are two very alarming details about Witt’s behavior. First, it seems clear from the dates of the requests that immediately after Angie Janes submits a request, Witt shares this with Lauren Bruce, a former West Lafayette resident who is a very active online supporter of the PAC members. Lauren Bruce submitted a public record requests the day after two of Angie Janes requests (see the Janes request dated 10/13/22 on page 18 and then the Bruce request dated 10/14/22 on page 19, then see the Janes request dated 5/8/23 on page 21 and the Bruce request dated 5/9/23 on page 11). Second, Lauren Bruce submitted a request the day after Angie Janes, but Witt only publicly announced the Angie Janes request and not the Lauren Bruce request. One could argue that the Lauren Bruce request was less complicated and not ongoing by the next meeting. However, when Zachary Baiel makes a very similar request soon after, his request is publicly announced.
2:44:04 - Schott shared that the West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation tailgate had over 125 alumni attend. They will host the class of 1964 and 1965 on October 21st and tour the JSHS and the James Guy room. Teacher grant applications are due to building principals on October 20 and to WLSEF on October 27. They are celebrating the news of Dr. Moungi Bawendi, class of 1978, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
2:45:20 - Yin said that the curriculum committee has not met. She shared that Parks and Recreation had a 5k and that Lincoln Park is being renovated.
2:49:32 - Marley said that he was not able to attend the RDC meeting. Greiner said that he attended the RDC with Roth and Cronk. They attended to support the early childhood education study. APA Consulting will survey families during the month of February. Erin Easter will attend the November school board meeting to explain the process and timeline. I served on the early childhood discussion committee with Marley as we worked with the city in this discussion. I was willing to attend the RDC meeting but the board officers have decided to only allow themselves to attend as substitutes when a school board member is unable to attend a committee meeting.
2:50:56 - Wang shared that the collective bargaining was smooth and productive.
2:51:29 - Mumford shared that the Public Schools Foundation cupcake run was a success and they are currently reviewing fall grant applications.
2:51:42 - Mumford asked how the administrators plan to address the concerns about AP exam fees that were shared by teachers and students at the beginning of the meeting. The deadline for the fees is November 1, so this needs to be addressed immediately. She asked that either the foundation or the school district cover these costs. Cronk said that the AP exam fee costs will be covered by the school district or by the foundation and that she will be responsible for following through. Mumford asked when students would be informed about this decision. Cronk said in the next few days. Witt said that the typical process for a request like this would go to the teacher discussion meeting. She isn’t sure why this hadn’t been on the agenda. This is a win for our students. Again, it is not clear why the administrators waited to take action on this until after the issue was brought to the school board, but I’m happy with the result.
2:55:34 - Austin said that she attended several ISBA meetings: a zoom meeting on library policies and the new laws on book challenges, a zoom meeting delegate preparation, and the fall conference. She also attended the GLASS board meeting and they are wanting to fill 15 positions.
2:57:16 - Greiner said that he is presenting facts about the referendum to parent groups and staff. There is a fact sheet that will be mailed out and an e-newsletter was previously sent. There will be a public meeting on October 18 at 5:30pm at WLIS with Dr. Larry DeBoer. Greiner said that he plans to hold a virtual zoom meeting to share information.
Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room
Future Meetings (calendar link)
Regular School Board Meeting - Monday, November 13 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.