July 13, 2022 Financial Work Session

HIGHLIGHTS: Request for a Financial Investigation (6:32); Enrollment and Transfer Students (6:36); Debt Payments (6:59); Referendum Vote (7:35); CFO Resigns after 3 Months (7:58); SBOA Audit Report (7:59); Deleted Information from Public Records (7:59 #5)

6:31 – The school board work session was called to order. Because it is a work session, there is no voting and no official minutes or recording. The agenda had just 2 items: (1) External Financial Review and (2) SBOA Audit Report. I was disappointed that they did not provide a streaming option for the community to watch the meeting. Austin was not able to attend and joined virtually. 

6:32 – Communication from the audience on agenda items (those who had signed up before the meeting began).

  • Troy Janes – WL Parent – Janes thanked the school board for allowing public comment at the work session. He noted that the agenda used the adjective “routine” to describe the audit report and said that in his professional opinion as a professor of accounting and as a CPA that the findings of the audit were not routine. He noted that the audit found that several million dollars of transactions related to construction projects were excluded from the financial statements and had not been available to taxpayers or the SBOA in their prior audits to review. He said that he told school administrators and the school board two years ago that failing to report these school transactions on the financial statement is a serious issue, but that they dismissed his concerns. The SBOA found that WLCSC did not have effective internal controls over cash and investments during the construction period since 2017, which means they didn’t have policies and procedures to ensure the cash was used and accounted for appropriately. The construction projects were supposed to cost $50 million but by the time they were completed the school board had authorized borrowing $95 million, with a $7 million bond issued in 2020 because WLCSC didn’t have enough cash to make payments on the debt. In essence, the corporation took a cash advance on their credit card so they could make their credit card payment. This maneuver will cost the school corporation hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra interest expense. He asked Greiner to open an investigation into the recent construction spending and accounts. He asked that it be conducted independently of the school board because of an important conflict of interest. The recent campaigns of several school board members (Schott, Marley, and Austin) were funded by the RDP PAC which was funded by parties involved in the construction projects. He finished by saying that he is not alleging that funds were used inappropriately but that there are enough red flags that we need to make sure. 

In an open letter to the board after the meeting, he wrote, “I realize that many of you trust Dr. Killion and Mr. Sloat and do not believe that they would have committed fraud, but many people have been taken advantage of by those they trust. With the lack of internal control and the off-financial-statement nature of those funds, we cannot know that those funds were handled appropriately. Consider why Dr. Killion was always insistent that the school corporation CFO have no financial experience? . . . For every red flag, there is a non-fraud explanation and a fraud explanation. The non-fraud explanation . . . is that Dr. Killion didn’t want anyone saying to him, for example, that he couldn’t keep transactions off the financial statements and keep wantonly spending on construction projects. The fraud explanation is that he was involved in some sort of asset misappropriation or kickback scheme with the contractors and didn’t want anyone savvy enough to catch on.  Can you say for sure which explanation fits here?” 

External Financial Review:

6:35 – Michael Reuter, the financial consultant hired by Greiner in April 2022, presented his review of the school district’s revenue and expenditures and outlined a future fiscal plan. Later in the meeting he explained that the goal of the presentation is to provide preliminary information to the board and that his final financial recommendations would be shared at the public hearing in the fall. He produced a lengthy report which he projected on the overhead and provided to school board members, but the school has not yet posted it for the public.

6:36 – Enrollment and transfer students: Reuter started by reviewing student enrollment data. He said that he recommended that the school district hire a demographer as a consultant to produce forecasts of future enrollment and noted that the school district has engaged with a demographer named Mr. McGivens. The school board did not discuss hiring a demographer in any recent school board meetings, so we may hear something about it at the August meeting. Reuter reviewed historical WL student enrollment data which shows an upward trend of consistent enrollment growth until the pandemic in 2020 with no enrollment increase since. State education funding is directly tied to enrollment. Reuter said that there has been a large increase in cash transfer students with 124 transfer students expected for the 2022-23 year as compared to 71 in 2021-22 and 64 in 2020-21. Greiner noted that this year’s transfer student number has increased slightly and may be higher than 124. Later in the meeting when school board members asked questions, Yin shared her concern that while accepting cash transfer students increases the education funding from the state, it may hurt property values for homeowners in our school district and reduce property tax revenue for the schools. I appreciate Yin’s point. How many transfer students to accept is a complicated issue. Rather than letting a classroom sit empty, it makes sense to accept transfer students to operate our schools at an efficient level. On the other hand, the higher property values in our school district reflect the demand for our schools. If the number of transfer students increases significantly it may cause a decrease in the premium buyers are willing to pay for homes in our district. For the past 15 years, the superintendent has had complete control over transfer student decisions with no clear set of policies to govern his choices. This produced a situation where families with transfer students had to be careful to stay in the superintendent’s good graces or face not getting their children into the district. I would rather see school leaders seriously consider and discuss how many transfer students to allow and then set clear transfer student policies for our school administrators to follow.

On the enrollment forecast issue, I think Reuter’s recommendation to hire a demographer to produce enrollment projections is wise. When I taught first grade and kindergarten at WLES, the administration seemed to be surprised each year that the number of students enrolled was far more than they had expected. Each year, a few days before school started, the administration would scramble to hire several teachers. I found it even more frustrating that all this last minute hiring occurred in an environment of increasing class size. Having a professional enrollment forecast (as opposed to previous superintendent, Dr. Killion’s incorrect prediction every year of large enrollment losses) would enable the schools to hire teachers months earlier, which results in better teachers who are better prepared to start the year. For an example of Killion’s poor enrollment predictions, see this 2019 J&C article which explains that the “legislative projections estimate West Lafayette schools increasing enrollment by about 40 students. . . Killion’s projections are the opposite, with schools losing 30-40 students.” That year, enrollment increased by about the number the state had forecast which left WL schools scrambling to hire several teachers just a few days before school started. One last point about enrollment is that our school district could be doing a much better job of engaging with those families in our district who recently decided to start homeschooling or send their kids to other community schools.

6:40 – Property Taxes: One of the largest sources of revenue for our school district is the property tax that is imposed on the value of land, homes, and businesses (assessed value) in our school district. TIF districts are excluded from property taxes for the debt service fund and the operations fund. TIF districts are included in referendum property tax. The assessed value in our school district increased more over the last year than is typical.This is good news for school finances as it will bring in higher property tax revenue in 2023 than expected a year ago. However, Reuter explained that taxpayers will make higher property tax payments starting with the spring 2023 payment and this may make them less happy about the upcoming referendum tax vote. He speculated that the state legislature may do something to try to reduce future property tax increases if property values keep increasing at above normal rates.

6:59 – Debt Payments: Reuter presented the repayment schedule for the recent construction debt and noted that the payments have been structured to increase each year as the assessed value increases. The school corporation won’t see any decrease in debt payments until 2038. Reuter shared his assessment that the school corporation is “pretty well leveraged on debt payments for the next 15 years.” Essentially, the school corporation has exhausted its ability to borrow. I really appreciated Reuter’s presentation. It’s exactly what I’ve been saying for the past two years about debt payments.

7:02 – Education Fund: The education fund is used to pay teacher salaries and benefits. The money comes from the state and is directly proportional to the number of students enrolled in our schools. Using a measure of state earned income, Reuter is predicting larger than typical increases in per-student state education funding. He noted that the per-student basic funding amount in 2021-2022 was $5,995, a 5.1 percent increase over the $5,703 amount for 2020-2021. He noted that a 5.1 percent increase is the largest Indiana has experienced in a long time. However, with inflation at 9.1 percent, teacher pay will likely continue to lose ground in real terms. In addition to this foundation amount of per-student funding, the state also provides additional per-student funds that depend on the “complexity index” for the school district, a measure of the fraction of students from low-income households. Our school district has one of the lowest complexity index scores in the state (similar to Zionsville and Carmel) and so receives about $800 less per student than the state average. Reuter explained that our school district spends 100% of the state-provided education funding to pay salaries and then also uses some referendum tax revenue to pay salaries.

7:12 – Debt Service Fund: In 2023, the school corporation will make debt payments of $6.15 million. This is about $800,000 more than the projected tax revenue to the debt service fund for the year. The WL Foundation raised funds to help pay for the construction and has committed $1.6 million to make future bond payments, but Reuter recommended that the school corporation not use the foundation money now. Instead, Reuter recommended that the school corporation use the $3.5 million remaining from the recent borrowing to make the debt payments. Austin asked Reuter to verify that our school corporation can make its debt payments while noting that some people in the community have said that the school corporation doesn’t have enough money to make the debt payments. Reuter confirmed that there is enough money remaining in the proceeds account ($3.5 million) to make up the shortfall in the debt service fund for several years and then when that runs out they can use the money from the foundation ($1.6 million). I think it is irresponsible that the school board borrowed so much money for the recent construction that they didn’t have enough cash to make the debt payments and then decided to borrow even more in order to make the payments. The way the school board did all this borrowing also leaves me feeling very frustrated. In a series of town halls in 2015 and 2016, school leaders presented plans for $50 million in construction with alumni donations covering a portion of that cost. But then the school board approved borrowing $95 million, which for a district our size is a lot of debt. In a 2020 ranking of debt per student, our school district came in second highest in the state.

7:21 – Operations Fund: What used to be a collection of separate funds for buses, utilities, building improvements, and maintenance were combined into the operations fund in 2019. Reuter noted that these costs have increased significantly over the past few years which he sees as a challenge. Increases in the price of gasoline, electricity, and natural gas are out of the school corporation’s control. In addition, there are facilities issues and he recommends a feasibility study to forecast the capital expenses and maintenance needs over the next 10 years. This will help the school board decide what to prioritize. Just like with the debt service fund, revenue to the operations fund comes from local property taxes. He recommended that the school corporation keep a large cash balance in this fund equal to 50% of the typical annual spending and noted that the school corporation had a balance of about 37% at the end of the last fiscal year. The reason for a goal of having a large cash balance in this account is that property tax payments are sometimes delayed or provide less than expected and schools need to have the ability to continue to pay operations expenses. Reuter noted that the operations fund has received several large transfers from the referendum fund ($2.4 million in 2020 and $2.8 million in 2021) in order to keep the fund balanced.

7:33 – Rainy Day Fund: At the end of 2021, the Rainy Day fund had a $1.389 million cash balance and Reuter recommended leaving that balance there for an emergency. He noted that the school corporation is planning on making a couple of payments out of this fund, paying $100,000 in post-employment benefits to a retired employee in 2022 and $75,000 in 2023. Ohlhaut explained to school board members that there is a memo about these benefit payments. I don’t think anything about these post-employment benefits have been shared publicly. 

7:35 – Referendum Fund: There has been rapid growth in annual revenue in the referendum fund because of the growth in the TIF districts. Reuter said that the referendum fund makes TIF districts not as bad as they used to be. In districts with a voter-approved referendum tax (like ours), new state legislation will require school corporations to show how they are spending referendum dollars. The school corporation will have to change the way it does things to comply with this new requirement. In 2021, the school corporation transferred $5 million from the referendum fund to other funds ($2.8 million to operations and most of the rest to the education fund). Instead of doing these transfers in future years, the school corporation will need to charge expenses directly to the referendum fund. This will allow for better transparency so the public can see how referendum funds are spent. The current referendum will expire in 2025. The last chance for our community to vote to approve a new referendum will be in November 2024 but Reuter recommended bringing this to a vote before November 2024 because that is a presidential election and referendums are not ideal to have on the ballot at the same time. Reuter also noted that the state legislature changed the wording for the referendum question that will appear on the ballot:

“Shall the school corporation increase property taxes paid to the school corporation by homeowners and businesses for _____ years immediately following the holding of the referendum for the purpose of funding ______? If this public question is approved by the voters, the average property tax paid to the school corporation per year on a residence would increase by ______% . . .”

Reuter explained that the new wording makes it sound like the property tax rate will go up, even if it is just staying the same, and so the school corporation will have some work to do to explain this to voters. He suggested that the large increase in people’s spring 2023 property tax bills won’t help. Witt asked Reuter to verify that the legislative change in referendum spending is really just a reporting change and that they do not need to change the way they are spending to support the education of students. Reuter agreed and said that the new legislation just requires the school corporation to show how they are spending referendum money in a more transparent way. We last voted on the referendum in 2016. In that year the question on the ballot was: 

For the seven (7) calendar years immediately following the holding of the referendum, shall the West Lafayette Community School Corporation continue to impose a property tax rate that does not exceed $0.37 on each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation and that is in addition to all other property tax levies imposed by the school corporation for the purpose of funding academic and educationally related programs, to manage class size and to retain teachers? . . .

I did the underlining to show what the school leaders said they would do with the referendum money. The language they used makes it sound like they are going to hire more teachers and pay them better. Instead, class sizes increased and the school board voted to fire first-year teachers. Rather than better compensating and supporting teachers, more than half of the referendum money spent last year went to the operations fund to pay for building improvements, maintenance, buses, and utilities. Forcing the school corporation to show specifically how it spends referendum dollars is a great improvement. In the next referendum vote, they also need to be more honest than they were in 2016 about how they plan to spend the money.

7:58 – Ohlhaut resigns as CFO: The school board announced that Mr. Ohlhaut has resigned as school corporation CFO after having been appointed to the position 3 months ago. He is leaving the district to become a school principal in the South Dearborn district. I think he will be a wonderful principal. Ohlhaut was an outstanding French teacher at the Jr/Sr HS and was well liked by students and parents. In late 2020, his teaching load was reduced so he could work part time as assistant to the interim CFO with a plan to hire him to replace Sloat as CFO once he completed a training program from the Indiana School Business Officers Association. Ohlhaut was appointed as CFO on April 1, 2022 and in May 2022 was recognized for having completed 99 hours of school finance training. 

The CFO position was posted on June 30. It is interesting to compare the qualifications for this year’s CFO search as compared to those used to hire Ohlhaut:

2022 CFO Qualifications2020 CFO Qualifications
B.S. in Accounting or Related Field; CPA preferred; Certification from Indiana Association of School Business Officials preferredCertification from the Indiana Association of School Business Officials
Experience with SSI/FMS, or other accounting softwareExperience as a public school educator
5 years of experience in accounting including receivables, payables, bank reconciliations, fund accounting, etcExperience in school budgeting and finance
School administrator’s license preferredSchool administrator’s license
Position posted for external candidatesInternal candidates only
Job qualification as described in the posting on Frontline Job qualifications as described by Board President Alan Karpick in response to my December 2020 question 3

The last time our school corporation had an experienced CPA with an accounting degree as CFO was in 2015. At the time when the new construction plan was being presented to the community, the school district CFO, Tim Clary, resigned and signed a non-disclosure agreement preventing him from talking about school district finances. He had only been in the position for 6 months. Here is the employment history for the WLCSC treasurer/CFO position:

  • Dawn Williams 1983 – 1/31/08
  • Konnie Laws (interim) 2/1/08 – 2/17/10
  • Michael Turner 2/18/10 – 6/30/10
  • Ross Sloat 7/1/10 – 6/30/15
  • Tim Clary 7/1/15 – 12/31/15
  • Ross Sloat (interim) 1/1/16 – 3/31/22
  • Steve Ohlhaut 4/1/22 – 6/30/22
  • Konnie Laws (interim) 7/1/22 – present

Over the last 14 years, our school district has only had a total of 11 months with a CFO with a degree in accounting or similar. I’m so pleased that Greiner is trying to address this glaring deficiency. It will be a big improvement for the school corporation to have a CFO who knows what they are doing.

Indiana State Board of Accounts Audit Report:

7:59 – Ohlhaut presented findings from the audit report. The SBOA provided two standard documents for school districts: (1) the Financial Statement Audit Report that describes the findings related to the school corporation’s budget and (2) the Federal Compliance Audit Report which describes the school corporation’s compliance with the rules for receiving federal education funds. In an unusual move, the SBOA also posted (3) a Supplemental Compliance Report that summarizes the most important issues identified in the other two documents:

  1. Deficiencies in the Financial Internal Control System: The SBOA found that the school corporation had not properly designed or implemented internal controls to ensure that all school funds were properly recorded and reconciled. In addition, the school corporation had not separated incompatible accounting activities to different people. Without the separation of activities, it is difficult to detect fraud. The lack of effective internal controls also prevented the school corporation from detecting and correcting accounting errors. The SBOA concluded that material misstatements and irregularities in the school corporation’s financial statement likely remained undetected and stated that additional noncompliance may exist. The SBOA also found that the school corporation incorrectly certified that its employees completed training on internal control standards but then was unable to produce any documentation of this training. Ohlhaut explained that the business office employees recently started an online training program through SafeSchools which will provide training in proper internal controls. This lack of internal controls for school finances is not a new issue for our district. In 2020, the SBOA focused their audit on federal grants and found that the school corporation did not have a proper system of internal control in place to prevent, or detect and correct, errors related to federal awards, and noted that some of the errors in the 2020 audit had also been identified in the 2018 audit and were not corrected.
  1. Failure to Report Cash Received from the Sale of School Corporation Land: The SBOA reported that in July 2017, the school corporation received proceeds from the sale of land with the restriction that it be used only for construction costs. The proceeds from the sale were deposited in a separate trust bank account in the name of the school corporation; however, the proceeds were not recorded on the school corporation’s financial ledgers when it was received, nor was it reported on the financial statement. Additionally, the funds in the construction bank account were not included in the school corporation’s monthly bank reconcilements. This prevented auditors from seeing how these funds were spent. The SBOA reported that at the end of the 2020-2021 fiscal year, this account had a balance of $3,725,541. Ohlhaut explained that the prior administration incorrectly believed that the money the school corporation received from the building corporation could be treated as an asset of the building corporation rather than as an asset of the school corporation and therefore could be excluded from the school’s financial reporting. He noted that all spending from this account was approved by the school board. No one is disputing the fact that the school corporation had a multi-million dollar account kept off the books for the past 5 years. The audit report also makes it clear that the school corporation did not have its financial procedures set up in a way to prevent fraud. As Ohlhaut correctly points out, the only oversight over this money was that the school board voted to approve all spending out of this account. The public has no way to see how these funds were spent. I think we need an outside investigation into how the construction money was spent. Without this assurance, people will continue to assume that school leaders misused the money and that will make it so much harder to get the next referendum passed.
  1. Failure to Report the Clearing Fund in Financial Reports: The school corporation did not report its clearing fund in its financial statements. The audit showed that the clearing fund receipts were understated by $12,921,815 and disbursements were understated by $13,094,720 for 2019-2020. The SBOA complained that failing to include this fund made the school corporation’s financial statements inaccurate and incomplete. Ohlhaut explained that they didn’t realize that the clearing fund was supposed to be listed on the school corporation’s financial statement because a similar report required by the Indiana Department of Education (Form 9) doesn’t require reporting the clearing fund. This $172,905 difference between receipts and disbursements in the clearing fund is relatively small when compared to the other errors identified in the audit. 
  1. Individually Immaterial Misstatement of $2.6 million in Spending: The SBOA found what they considered to be “individually immaterial errors” in several other funds that resulted in an aggregate misstatement of $1,153,230 in spending for 2019-2020; and $1,462,589 in spending for 2020-2021. The SBOA proposed adjustments to the financial statement to correct these and other errors and the adjustments were applied to the revised financial statement. Ohlhaut explained that the school corporation switched accounting software and that some transactions, including transfers between accounts, were reported differently in the two software systems which led to these errors. For a school district of our size, these are large dollar value errors. I think these are the types of errors that occur when we don’t have anyone trained in accounting.  
  1. Overpayments to a School Corporation Retired Employee: The audit identified payments to a retired school employee who had been hired as a consultant in early 2020. The SBOA asked to see the contract. The school corporation did not have a written contract, but instead produced the minutes from the February 3, 2020 school board meeting which specified work not to exceed eight days per month at a daily rate of $300 per day. During the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 audit period, the contracted employee was paid for 17 months, and overpayments occurred in 8 of those months. Ohlhaut explained that the terms for this consultant only appeared in the board meeting minutes and that the business office staff did not monitor compliance with the terms. He said that in the future, the school district will have signed agreements for all contractors and that the business office would keep a copy in order to ensure compliance with the contract terms. Note that the version of the February 3, 2020 school board meeting minutes that is posted to the school corporation website says nothing about hiring a retired school employee. I think the school board deleted it from their minutes before making the document public, but kept the original for internal use. I recently emailed the school board to ask why they had deleted information related to a different consultant from the public version of their March 2019 meeting minutes. Witt responded, “No one currently employed in the Central Office was involved in the drafting or editing of the minutes of the school board meetings at that time, so we are unable to provide an explanation for the lack of detail in the subheading for Administrative Recommendations in these publicly-posted minutes.” Witt, Karpick, Marley, Springer, and Schott were all on the school board when these minutes with deleted information were approved in 2019 and 2020. My view is that deleting public information from school board meeting minutes before posting them is dishonest and very alarming. It also appears to have been a common practice for our school board.

8:08 – Yin asked for clarification on the issue of internal controls. Ohlhaut responded that internal controls means you have processes in place that provide checks and balances and that there are more than one set of eyes on each of the different financial tasks. He said that in this audit the SBOA said that various issues happened due to lack of internal controls. Yin asked how they will address this moving forward. Ohlhaut said it will depend on the specific task and how the organizational chart will be set up. Yin asked if there are existing protocols for these internal controls. Ohlhaut said that there are best practices that the next CFO will be able to adopt. He noted that smaller school districts have fewer people in the business office and so have a greater challenge in following these best practices. Ohlhaut suggested that small districts need to be creative in how they do it. Not having proper internal controls over taxpayer money is a serious issue because it could allow school corporation employees to misappropriate school funds without detection. Rather than following the best practices, it seems that our school corporation has been using “creative” accounting procedures for years. The SBOA has complained about a lack of internal controls in every audit of our school corporation going back to at least the 2009 fiscal year. We should not accept millions of dollars in accounting errors as a routine audit finding. It is way past time to get our school district’s financial house in order. 

8:11 – Witt asked Ohlhuat to verify that the audit findings were not unusual and that nothing in them indicates fraud. Reuter responded instead and said that if the auditors had found fraud then the state police would have come in and they didn’t. He noted that when a school district uses a holding corporation, it can make the accounting confusing. He said that the school corporation “should have kept that money from 2017 on the books.” Austin asked Reuter to explain “how shell corporations work and why they are utilized by school corporations.” Reuter said that using a holding corporation is allowed and that this is how school corporations get around the debt limit set by the state government. Many school districts, counties, cities, and towns use holding corporations to issue bonds. Auditors only catch about 10% of the fraud cases that are eventually detected according to Purdue Professor Jonathan Black. In a 2021 talk, he explained that if the fraud is intentional, external auditors are not well equipped to detect it. Most fraud is detected by internal whistleblowers. So, claiming that there was no fraud because the state auditors did not find any is not reassuring. As to the point of using a holding corporation to get around state debt limits, the school corporation would not have needed to use these workarounds if it had taken the construction projects to the community for a vote. I feel confident that the $50 million in construction spending proposed in 2015 and 2016 would have easily passed in a community vote. 

8:16 – Springer said she has been through twelve audits in the past and said that there are always findings. She said that what is important is that they are corrected and in the past they have been corrected. She said that the current findings are in the process of being corrected. In his statement to the board at the beginning of the meeting, Janes said that he told school administrators and school board members two years ago about their error in keeping this account off the books and that his concerns were dismissed. The SBOA audit report is now forcing their hand. I see this as a pattern, the school board dismisses community members’ concerns until we make them public or take them to authorities and then this forces the school board to fix the problem. Springer’s point about always correcting past errors is incorrect. You only have to go back to the most recent audit in 2020 to find specific examples of audit findings from the prior audit that the school corporation did not address. More generally, the school corporation has been written up for not having a proper system of internal controls in every audit going back at least 14 years. They still haven’t fixed that issue.

8:17 – Yin asked Ohlhaut for clarification about the accounting errors saying “this doesn’t mean we lost money, it was just off the record, is that right?” Witt responded, “It is i’s and t’s. It is i-dotting and t-crossing. It was how it was recorded and reported so, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the numbers were not hidden but were reported on our AP reports and meetings. We voted on them. They were quite public but they were not in the correct report overall.” Yin then asked Ohlhaut about the future action plan to correct the errors. Ohlhaut said with respect to the 2017 construction fund that the balances and receipts should have been on WLCSC financial statements. The money was allocated for construction but was labeled as building corporation funds and should not have been. Witt is wrong about these numbers being public. The public still has no access to this account’s full history. The accounts payable (AP) reports were only shared with the community after I forced the school board’s hand by sending them month after month of public records requests and then posting the reports to my website. They finally started “voluntarily” posting them to the school website in September 2021. The accounts payable reports I posted to the documents page of my website go back to January 2019, but, other than showing some miscellaneous charges that don’t seem to have anything to do with construction, they don’t have enough detail to answer why $50 million in construction projects ended up requiring the school board to borrow $95 million.

8:19 – Meeting is adjourned

Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room

Streaming: None provided

Attendance: 6 of 7 School Board Members in person (Yue Yin, Bradley Marley, Thomas Schott, Alan Karpick, Karen Springer, Rachel Witt, Amy Austin attended via phone); Shawn Greiner, Superintendent; Stephen Ohlhaut, prior CFO; Anna Roth, New Assistant Superintendent; Michael Reuter, financial consultant

Audience: 6 community members and new WLES Principal, Sara Delaney

Future Meetings (calendar link)

  • Regular School Board Meeting – Monday, August 8th at 6:30pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room 

These are not official minutes from the school board meetings. I am a parent of WLCSC students and my thoughts are given in italics. Previous agendas, minutes, and audio recordings can be found at the WLCSC website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: