June 12, 2023 Summary

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

It is wonderful that the school board packet is now posted before each school board meeting. Kara Kenney from WRTV news did a story on this policy change that was broadcast soon after this meeting. The documents in the meeting packet are all posted on the school website, but they can be difficult to find. Each month, I add links to the agenda to make it easier to find the relevant documents. At this meeting, we discussed asking voters to renew the referendum funding at the November 2023 election, passed a targeted pay increase for staff, and Greiner presented information about a potential preschool at Happy Hollow.

WRTV Indianapolis: School board member aims to boost transparency after filing her own complaint

Agenda with links to board documents

TOPIC TIMESTAMPS: (I am listing the YouTube livestream timestamp)

• 2:10 Approval of agenda and minutes
• 4:18 Referendum renewal question to the voters in the November 2023 election
• 8:45 Changes to the referendum question
• 17:00 Contracts for referendum consultants
• 28:58 Holding a public work session to discuss referendum topics
• 47:00 Reappointment of community member to library board
• 1:00:22 Personnel report
• 1:01:15 Targeted staff pay increases
• 1:05:22 Waiver of protected taxes
• 1:10:12 HVAC repairs at Jr/Sr HS and WLES
• 1:12:01 Renewal of Happy Hollow leases
• 1:13:55 Accounts payable
• 1:15:58 July 10th regular board meeting start time 5:30pm instead of 6:30pm
• 1:17:24 School board meeting calendar for 2023-2024 and discussion about work sessions
• 1:43:21 Discussion about a major revision to school policies
• 1:49:15 Recommendation to post a transcript of each board meeting
• 2:08:22 Community member interrupted argument between board members
• 2:11:36 Board training facilitator discussion
• 2:17:23 Discussion about allowing all public comments at the beginning of meetings
• 2:29:14 Witt comments on public records requests
• 2:30:36 Witt asks the school lawyer to confirm that her comments are not discriminatory
• 2:32:00 Information on potential preschool at Happy Hollow and future of Happy Hollow
• 2:49:22 Board reports

The following is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions.

2:10 – Approval of the Agenda for the June 12, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Board of School Trustees.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:37 – Approval of the Minutes of the May 22, 2023 Executive Session of the Board of School Trustees.

Voted 7 out of 7

3:07 – Approval of the Minutes of the May 22, 2023 Work Session of the Board of School Trustees.

Voted 7 out of 7

3:37 – Approval of the Minutes of the May 8, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Board of School Trustees.

Voted 7 out of 7

4:05 – No community members signed up to speak on current agenda items.

4:18 – Greiner proposed placing the operating referendum renewal on the November 2023 ballot. To get the question on the ballot the school district needs to follow the proposed Referendum Timeline.

Later in the meeting, Wang noted that the current referendum goes through 2024 and asked why we are asking voters to renew the referendum in 2023. Jane Herndon, IceMiller Legal Counsel, said that she recommends renewing the referendum one year early because it will help with future budgeting and also if the referendum doesn’t pass in November 2023 there is an option to try again in November 2024.

5:10 – Jane Herndon shared that due to state statute the board has to formally request the auditor to calculate the tax rate by passing the Renewal of Referendum Resolution. The request specifies leaving the tax rate unchanged from the 2017 referendum at $0.37 per $100 of assessed value. The tax rate and wording of the question for the November ballot will be up for a vote at the July school board meeting. 

Voted 7 out of 7

8:45 – Herndon said that she included the proposed referendum question on the last page of the Referendum Timeline. She will send it to the state to the department of local government finance for their preliminary approval so that any concerns can be shared before final approval at the July school board meeting. The school board determines the parts of the question in red and state statute requires the words in black:

“Shall West Lafayette Community School Corporation continue to impose increased property taxes paid to the school corporation by homeowners and businesses for eight (8) years immediately following the holding of the referendum for the purpose of retaining and attracting teachers and staff and funding academic programming and operating expenditures with the renewal of the current maximum referendum property tax rate of $0.37? The property tax increase requested in this referendum was originally approved by the voters in 2017 and if extended will increase the average property tax paid to the school corporation per year on a residence within the school corporation by ___% and if extended will increase the average property tax paid to the school corporation per year on a business property within the school corporation by ___%.”

Each year in August the school board decides the referendum tax rate and can set any rate up to the max of $0.37 per 100 of assessed value. Austin asked about changing the year listed in the question from 2017 to 2010, the year the first referendum was approved as this would show a longer history of support. Herndon said that she could try it, but noted that the state has never approved a question that lists multiple years. Herndon said that hopefully most voters will have knowledge of the referendum renewal on the ballot before they enter the polling booth in November. The question should be accurate, but will not be able to tell the full story. Wang asked for clarification about the purposes listed in the proposed question as compared to those listed in 2017:

2017: for the purpose of funding academic and educationally related programs, to manage class size and to retain teachers

2023: for the purpose of retaining and attracting teachers and staff and funding academic programming and operating expenditures 

Herndon said that the questions were similar. She said that in the July school board meeting the administration will bring a draft of the referendum revenue spending plan which will include a spending estimate for each of those categories. The revenue spending plan will be revised each year to show how the referendum money will be spent the following year. It is also sent to the state each year and they post it on the state’s department of local government finance website. The school district will also be audited on this. The school corporation has not provided these reports in the past because it was not required by the state, but the law has now changed and will require these reports if the 2023 referendum passes. 

My view is that the stated purpose of the referendum in 2023 changed to reflect how 2017 referendum dollars were actually spent (primarily operating expenditures) and to remove the claim that referendum dollars would be spent to keep class sizes low. As I showed in my post on Class Size, the number of students per class has increased substantially. Before the 2010 referendum, there was an average of just 19 children per class in the elementary school. Now the stated goal is to keep class sizes at 25 or below. I also wrote a post about our district’s struggles to Retain Teachers and highlighted the school board’s terrible 2019 decision to approve a reduction in force process at the elementary and intermediate schools. My view is that the school board failed to use past referendum funding as specified in the question approved by the voters.

17:00 – Cronk asked for approval of the contracts for IceMiller as legal counsel, Baker Tilly as financial counsel, and Dehler as the public relations firm (also see Dehler’s Contract Addendum). IceMiller and Baker Tilly provided these services for the school district in the past. Mumford asked how much the school district paid the prior PR consultant (Steve Klink) in 2010 and 2017 for comparison. The schools paid Klink $42,500 in 2010 and $55,000 in 2017. Dehler’s contract is for $39,000. Wang verified that this is a fixed amount with no additional payments. Cronk said it is a one-time payment, unless we choose to ask for more than is listed in the contract and that would require additional approval. The school board packet that was posted the morning of the meeting did not include Dehler’s contract. Mumford said that she understood that Dehler wanted his contract to remain confidential but asked if, as a school corporation, we could tell him that we would keep his contract confidential. Cronk said he has proprietary processes that are listed in his contract and said that we promised not to share it before the meeting, but that once the contract is approved it becomes a public document and would need to be shared if requested. She noted that Dehler understood this, but did not want the contract shared on the school’s website. Greiner said that we have to be cautious when someone asks us to keep information confidential because failing to do so will result in future struggles to get proposals submitted. Witt said that if a public records request were made for the contract that the school corporation would redact the proprietary information and then would fulfill the request. She said it is like a special chocolate chip cookie recipe and that Dehler does not want their knowledge and process shared. Witt said that there have been vendors who would not have worked with the school district if they thought we wouldn’t keep their contract confidential. Marley added that Dehler has represented 40 school corporations including Zionsville, who had a failed referendum that later was successful, as well as a dozen municipalities and said that this is a very serious business. My view is that quotes and proposals can be kept confidential, but when a contract is being approved it should be shared with the community as part of the posted board packet. Soon after the school board meeting, the school district posted Dehler’s contract and contract addendum with no redactions. 

Each contract was voted on separately and each was approved

Voted 7 out of 7

28:58 – Mumford made a motion to hold the scheduled June work session and to focus it on a discussion of topics related to the referendum. Witt said that Mumford should have asked ahead of time. Mumford said that she previously requested that a discussion of referendum topics be added to the May work session agenda, but this request was denied by Witt. Mumford said that the only topic at the last work session was a presentation by Larry DeBoer and that the school board did not get to discuss anything. Witt said there will be a lot of information gathered and shared with the community to prepare for the referendum and asked Mumford to explain the objective of holding a work session to discuss items that will be shared with the community. Mumford said she would like to have a discussion with school board members on topics like class size, which was listed as one of the purposes of the 2017 referendum, and our district’s transfer student policy. Witt questioned her, “You would like to have a work session in public to discuss policies that are already public?” Mumford said she would like the school board to discuss these referendum-relevant policies to see if we want to change them and noted that community members are concerned about these issues. Witt said, “These patrons in our community who have contacted you with concerns, have you directed them in any way to speak with the leadership of our school corporation?” Mumford replied that these are questions that she has herself and that she has heard from community members over several years. Witt said, “You are just wanting to talk about your personal concerns. You haven’t had community members contact you? I’m not understanding.” Mumford said it is both her personal concerns as well as community concerns. Witt said that community members who contact board members should be directed to the superintendent to answer those questions and then asked Greiner, “Have you received questions or concerns from our community about the referendum dollars?” Greiner said, “I have not to date.” Witt said to Greiner, “So you have not received any questions from anyone in our community about the way that we are managing the finances of the school corporation.” Greiner said, “I have not.” Witt said, “I would suggest to any member of the board, and Mrs. Mumford seems to have a specifically large number of these communications, that it might best serve our school corporation if you would direct those individuals to speak with our superintendent of schools because that is his job that we hired him to do. But I am open to taking a vote now to determine if we need to add another work session in June to discuss your concerns but I am not sure that is the most fruitful resolution to those concerns if those individuals have not yet spoken to our superintendent but if you want to make a motion to hold a work session in June we can make that motion.” Mumford responded that the questions from community members she brought up as examples are among those posted on the school district’s homepage under “community questions” and are not new. For years there have been questions about the construction spending, how the referendum dollars were spent (why none of it went to preventing the increase in class size?), and why there are so many more transfer students in our schools now than in the past. During the 2022 election, Witt and Greiner posted a community questions page to the school website that addresses these questions that were asked by community members. This is why I was so surprised that they both claimed that they have not been asked these questions in the past.

Mumford motioned to hold the June work session and Yin seconded it. Austin spoke directly to Mumford and said, “The way the process is meant to work is that if you have concerns you speak with either Mrs. Cronk or Dr. Greiner. It is not necessary for the seven of us to discuss as a group in public.” She continued, “Frankly, it feels to me like a campaign move that you are trying to roll into the referendum and sour grapes from prior to this time period and this administration that would maybe best serve the community if you let them go.” Mumford said that she wants to hear discussion from school board members on these topics, for example, what the current transfer student policy is, what the community would like it to be, and what it will be moving forward. Austin replied, “For what purpose?” Mumford said she would like a discussion to hear school board and community input on these topics. Austin repeated: “To what purpose?” Mumford replied, “to decide together the best way to move forward.” Mumford said that she has not been part of any school board discussion about the transfer student policy and she would like a discussion as a school board to decide if the current policy is in the best interest of our school district. Austin said that the way that Mumford should do this is to recommend a policy change to the policy committee (Witt, Austin, and Greiner). Witt said, “We would recognize that Dr. Greiner is our education professional and he would be best suited to advise us on how to manage our census growth and our tuition policy and that is his particular expertise.” She went on to say, “The transfer student policy is not something we do to pick students but it is an economic decision, a financial decision.” 

Yin said it would be helpful to have a work session so that all voices can be heard including board members, administration, and consultants. Yin said there may be some people in our community that don’t support the referendum and as seven board members we can come together to brainstorm and discuss community questions and concerns. Yin said that she feels like we are hiring the consultant and then stepping back with no contributions besides at the end to knock on doors. Greiner said that he is not suggesting the board have or don’t have a work session in June, but wanted to make sure everyone was aware that Dehler PR will work through a process of getting community input. Witt said, “The number one role of the school board for any referendum renewal is to work together and be unified in the effort towards it. There is no other higher mission for the seven of us is to work together and come together for the benefit of our students and focus on the renewal of our referendum. We are going to do that honestly and as transparently as we can. That does not mean we can’t disagree on things Dr. Yin, but it does mean that we need to be working together as best we can to proceed, share common information, and be united in our communications with our community.” Yin asked, “what would be the negative impact of having this work session?” Witt said, “The question is whether it is necessary and helpful. Many of us have received Mrs. Mumford’s questions in emails and many of them, as Mrs. Austin stated, appear to be very much tied to political pursuits in the past. There is concern about potentially needing to discuss that in a work session and what the benefit is to our students. I will hold a work session anytime, but I want a clear mission and purpose.” Wang said that he will share later in the meeting, during the discussion of the school board calendar, that he would like regular work sessions scheduled, not just listed “as needed.” He said that holding regular work sessions would allow discussions without the immediate pressure of a vote. 

Motion to schedule a June work session to discuss referendum topics failed

Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)

Witt’s claim that the most important thing is for the seven of us to “work together and be unified” doesn’t square with her refusal to discuss these issues. I’m baffled by the 4 PAC members’ decision to vote against holding a work session to discuss referendum issues as a board. They still appear to see the school board as simply a rubber stamp for whatever the administration asks for. I want a school board that discusses important issues, seeks community input, and sets policies that give high-level strategic direction to our school administrators. Soon after the meeting, the school board leadership (Witt, Marley, and Austin) changed their mind and scheduled a special work session to discuss referendum issues for July 5 at 5:30 pm. It would have been better to have just held our scheduled work session in June rather than have to schedule a special meeting the day after the 4th of July, but I’m glad that they were willing to admit that discussing referendum issues is better than just telling the 3 non-PAC members to “be unified” and stop asking questions.

47:00 – Greiner asked for approval of the West Lafayette Public Library Board of Directors Re-Appointment of Anastasia Krutulis recommended by the library board director, Nick Schenkel. Witt shared that the WLCSC has two appointments to the library board. Wang asked for some background about these appointments. Greiner said the letter from Schenkel shares the background information. Wang said he was interested in learning about the library board of directors. How many serve on the board? How many are appointed by WLCSC and why do we appoint them? Witt said that at some point the library board restructured and asked the school board to appoint 2 members. It has always been community members and never school board members. She said, “This is very much a formality in our meeting.” Mumford asked for clarification of who is responsible for making this appointment and said that her understanding is that this is the board president’s decision. Witt said that this is not a board member committee assignment, and the school board is just approving the recommendations of the library board director. Mumford shared that the Tippecanoe library board has 2 appointments from the Lafayette School Board and that both are board members and 1 appointment from the TSC school board and they appointed a teacher. Mumford shared that if the school has been given appointments to the library board then we should appoint people who are affiliated with the schools. She stated her view that community members that are not affiliated with the schools should be appointed by the mayor or city council. Witt said that qualified and engaged community members serve on the library board and this best serves our community. Greiner suggested that Schenkel be invited to speak to the board, but Witt said that Schenkel has recently retired so wouldn’t be the one to come. Witt said this has to be voted on now so that the West Lafayette Library can continue their business. Yin asked if Krutulis could be invited to come and share at a school board meeting more about her position since we have appointed her to represent our school district. Witt said they could request it and added, “I don’t know any other language to use, but that this is a formality; we approve this and we trust the library director.” 

Greiner said it was the same in his previous school district as well as in Cronks. He apologized that he didn’t have additional information and said that he wasn’t aware there would be questions. Mumford made a motion to table the reappointment. She said that this is not about the individual, but that she wants the school board to appoint someone affiliated with the schools. Mumford said that she reviewed minutes from other school districts and found that it is usually the school board president who makes appointments which is why she didn’t ask the superintendent. Wang seconded the motion to table. Wang agreed that the appointee should be someone affiliated with the schools. He doesn’t know Krutulis and would like more information before voting on the appointment to the library board. Schott said that he knows Schenkel and trusts his recommendation and doesn’t think we need to know the person being appointed. Marley said that Krutulis was closely involved in the library construction project that cost about 15 million and said that she is leading the search for the new library director. He said, “If we slow this process down, it might slow the library which isn’t a good idea.” Marley said he has known Schenkel for 20 years and has a lot of respect for him and his recommendation. 

Motion to table the reappointment failed

Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed) The letter from Schenkel says that the appointment does not start until September 1, so there was definitely time to table it for a month

Motion to reappoint Krutulis approved

Voted 5 out of 7 (Mumford opposed and Wang abstained) My vote against the reappointment had nothing to do with this individual. My view is that appointments should be a school board leadership decision and that they should appoint someone affiliated with the schools: a board member, a teacher, or a staff member

59:35 – Greiner asked for approval of two overnight field trips: Track and Field and Dance Team.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:00:22 – Greiner asked for approval of the Personnel Report

Voted 7 out of 7

1:01:15 – Cronk asked for approval of the Classified Staff Recommendations. She did an analysis of classified position rates with schools in our region and county as well as across the state in an effort to be competitive. The recommendation includes raising the rates of all classified staff who are below the minimum rate beginning July 1, 2023. All classified staff who receive a rating of effective or higher will be eligible for the overall classified wage recommendation later this year. The recommendation also includes providing insurance benefits to bus drivers who will be considered full time for 5 ½ hour routes because they often drive extra routes which puts them in the full time range.  Also food service workers who work at least 6 hours a day will be offered insurance benefits. The employee manuals are also being updated with time clock language. Wang commented about the minimum bus driver rate increase to $25 which is close to the state average maximum pay rate. Cronk said this would make us one of the highest in the area which should help since it is one of the hardest positions to fill. Wang also mentioned the paraprofessionals with an increase from $12 to $15 and said that this will be wonderful for the special education department. Wang asked about the cost. Cronk said that the annual cost would be $121,000 to bring up the wages below these new minimums. She doesn’t know the cost of providing the insurance benefits as they don’t know who will sign up but could bring that information after the open enrollment period.  I continue to be impressed with Cronk and all of her work to get our school finances in order. 

Voted 7 out of 7

1:05:22 – Cronk asked for approval of Waiver of Protected Taxes Resolution. The school’s property tax circuit breaker losses (reduction in property taxes because of the Indiana tax caps) are normally applied only to the operations fund. This resolution would allow the loss to be allocated in operations and debt service. This waiver was a part of the budget planning for 2023. Wang asked about the start and end dates for the local TIF districts which also reduce the school’s property tax revenue. Marley said they are for 30 years with 15 to 20 years left in some of them. He said that the TIF districts are collectively worth $900 million dollars in assessed value and increase about 10% each year. The Redevelopment Commission collects about $22 million in taxes each year from the TIF districts. The referendum collects revenue from the TIF districts, but without the referendum the schools would get nothing from the TIF districts. Marley said that if the TIF districts were to expire, it would bring another million dollars in annual revenue to the school district. Wang asked to verify that this resolution effectively moves money from the debt service fund to the operations fund. Cronk said yes and noted that the borrowed money from the construction bonds has been used to supplement the debt service fund in making debt payments. This resolution does not change the total amount of tax revenue the school corporation receives, it just shifts the amount going into each fund. Approving this resolution allows the circuit breaker losses to be spread out across funds and therefore allows referendum spending to be more spread out as well, rather than concentrated primarily on operations expenses.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:10:12 – Cronk asked for approval of the HVAC Air Controller Recommendation for Jr/Sr HS and WLES. The lowest bid was later withdrawn because it wasn’t complete. The recommendation is Havel Brothers for $515,000. The Jr/Sr HS cost will be paid from the 2019 bond and the WLES cost will be paid from the operations fund. Yin verified this would be done over the summer and Cronk said yes.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:12:01 – Cronk asked for approval of the renewal of Happy Hollow Lease Agreements for GLASS and The PATIN Project. There have been no changes since last year. Wang asked if GLASS uses the three classrooms for special education. Cronk said yes. Yin asked if at some point we could have a discussion about the rooms available to rent and make a plan for the building. Cronk said this would be discussed later in the meeting.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:13:55 – Cronk asked for approval of Accounts Payable for WLCSC and Accounts Payable for WVEC. She also shared the Credit Card Statement, Claims Docket Breakdown, and Financial Report Funds. This summer, the business office is working on the budget for 2024 and information gathering for collective bargaining. 

Voted 7 out of 7

1:15:58 – Witt asked for approval to change the July 10, 2023 board meeting to start at 5:30pm to make things better for the Central Office’s summer work schedule. Normally the July meeting is canceled but in preparation of the referendum in November we have to have the July meeting to approve the referendum ballot question. 

Voted 7 out of 7

1:17:24 – Witt asked for approval of the 2023-2024 Meeting Calendar. This proposal leaves the school board meetings on the 2nd Monday of the month but includes changing the start time to 6:00pm due to the length of the meetings and 5:30pm during the summer. Wang motioned to change the calendar to remove “if needed” from the work session so they would be held as scheduled and only canceled if unnecessary. Mumford seconded the motion and shared her view that this would also decrease the length of regular school board meetings. She noted that several items on the agenda are “information only” and that those could be presented in work sessions. Mumford said that she has researched school boards in other school districts and found that it is common to have work sessions where discussions of issues are scheduled. Yin asked about possibly scheduling these work sessions for the week before regular school board meetings instead of the week after. She also shared that June 19th is a national holiday and it is currently listed on the 2023-2024 school board meeting calendar as an “if needed” work session. Witt thanked her for noticing the holiday conflict and said this should be addressed. Schott asked how it would be determined if a work session is needed. Marley said he would like to hear from staff about their thoughts on holding work sessions and the additional work needed to prepare. Witt said normally our school board does not hold many work sessions and instead does everything in the regular school board meeting. She said that holding a second night of meetings is a concern. Yin shared the option of a work session before the regular school board meeting. Witt said some school districts do this but it would make for a long night. Witt said the meetings are long because they are inefficient and shouldn’t be the reason for scheduling a second meeting. Witt, Marley, and Schott have each served on the school board for more than a decade and are used to meetings with little to no discussion. I want school board meetings to feature questions and discussions. Work sessions are open to the public and are where board members are supposed to discuss issues, ask questions, and decide what additional information is needed before the next regular school board meeting where voting takes place. The 4 PAC members rarely ask questions during school board meetings, but now that we have 3 non-PAC members who regularly ask questions, school board meetings are much longer. Holding regular work sessions (like other school districts) would provide an opportunity for questions and discussion and would help the regular school board meetings run more efficiently.

Motion to have regularly scheduled work sessions failed

Voted 2 out of 7 (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed; Yin abstained)

Motion to move school board meeting start times to 6pm instead of 6:30pm passed

Voted 7 out of 7

Yin motioned to move work sessions to 5pm on the same night as regular school board meetings which she said would save the school district money. Wang seconded it. Greiner said combining them may be an option. Austin asked about possibly having it on Thursdays after the packet has been shared to allow for discussion and questions but not add a lot of additional preparation time for the central office. Cronk said in her previous district they had work sessions the week before a regular board meeting and information was shared during that meeting. Witt recommended that we approve the calendar as posted but asked the administrators to share their recommendations on the timing of work sessions and discuss it at the July school board meeting. Yin said she would withdraw her motion so the administrators would have time to put together a recommendation of when work sessions would be preferred for them. I want to hold regular work sessions so there is a place to discuss school issues. I appreciated the range of options and look forward to hearing what central office recommends.

2023-2024 School Board Calendar approved

Voted 7 out of 7 

1:43:21 – Witt shared that she requested a price quote from our legal counsel to maintain our school board bylaws and policies. Currently we contract with Neola for these services. She recommended that we review what they provide and said that she will add this to the November agenda following the referendum election with a vote in December. The work of updating policies and policy structure would then begin in January 2024. Witt said that it is a time-intensive process to change the policy structure and would require subsequent votes at school board meetings. The policy committee (Witt, Austin, and Greiner) crafts revisions to school policies without allowing public access to their meetings, in violation of Indiana’s open door law. I view this as a major issue. I am going through the school policies to identify those that restrict access to public documents and those that inappropriately delegate board responsibilities to administrators. In addition to Witt and Austin who currently serve on the policy committee, Schott and Doug Masson used to serve on the policy committee and many of these problematic policies were adopted on their watch. I don’t know which vendor is best or what the complaint is with Neola, but systematically reviewing each policy is a high priority for me.

1:49:15 – Witt proposed posting a transcript of what was said in the school board meeting after each meeting. The meeting packet contained transcripts of the past two regular school board meetings that were auto-generated from the livestream (April YouTube Transcript and May YouTube Transcript). Witt said that our current meeting minutes meet legal requirements, but that during the May school board meeting, we voted to add comments requested by Wang (6:42). Witt said that Cronk reached out to other school districts and found that some school districts use the audio recording of the board meeting to produce a transcript. Other school districts use the recording to put highlights into the minutes. No district she contacted pays to transcribe the meeting. Witt recommended that we continue providing the livestream and the audio recording. She motioned to add the unedited transcript to the board packet shared with the community. Marley seconded it. Wang said that April’s transcript was 447 pages long and that he didn’t think posting it was helpful. Instead, he would like to add details to the meeting minutes and said that by sharing more in the minutes the community will be better informed. Yin asked about the extra effort to download the transcripts from YouTube and Witt said that it is quick. Yin said that it doesn’t hurt to post the transcripts, but would still like a summary of the main points of discussion included in the minutes as well as references to the YouTube livestream timestamp for the agenda items. I liked Yin’s suggestion to use the YouTube livestream timestamps, so I’m going to use those in my summaries from now on.

Witt said that she has concerns with adding commentary to board meeting minutes. Witt projected a document to the screen that she had not previously provided to the other school board members and was not posted online in advance of the meeting. Witt had selected excerpts from Mumford’s prior summaries to compare to the YouTube transcript as well as the meeting minutes to point out discrepancies. She picked two uncomfortable exchanges in the May 2023 meeting. In her first example (at 7:28) Wang asks Roth if “student mental issues” are considered in the discipline process used in our schools and then in response Witt said that the board should receive training in using appropriate language when speaking about students with developmental disabilities. Mumford wrote in her summary that Wang is a non-native English speaker and should be given the benefit of the doubt and treated with more respect. Witt claimed that she did nothing wrong in the way she treated Wang. Witt’s second example from Mumford’s summary of the May 2023 meeting was at (8:22) when Witt asked Yin about attending a GLASS meeting. Yin replied that she wasn’t aware that there had been a GLASS meeting that month. Witt asked Roberta Julian to send a calendar of GLASS meetings to Yin and reminded all members that if they cannot attend to let her know so that someone else can attend. Immediately after that uncomfortable exchange, Marley said that he had not been able to attend the previous Redevelopment Committee meeting and Witt did not make any comment about him missing this meeting. In Mumford’s summary, she wrote that she doesn’t like the way Witt speaks to Yin and Wang during public meetings. Witt claimed that she had done nothing wrong in the way she spoke to Yin.

When Witt finished going through her presentation of complaints about Mumford’s summaries, Yin asked why Witt was again bringing up in a public setting that she had missed a GLASS meeting. Yin said that after the May school board meeting she spoke with Greiner and found that they had forgotten to add her to the google calendar where GLASS meetings are posted and that she did not know that there was a meeting. Witt said that the point of her presentation was not to draw attention to Yin missing the meeting, instead Witt wanted to draw attention to how Mumford’s summaries distort what she says in meetings. Yin pushed back hard and said that she felt mistreated by Witt at the May meeting and that what Mumford wrote was accurate. Witt said that her point is that when you add commentary to the meeting minutes, you are adding someone’s opinion. Witt said, “the commentary that Mrs. Mumford presented is that I was somehow unfair to you. . . this is not me picking on you . . . if we allow commentary in the minutes they will no longer be factual.” Yin replied, “the fact was that Mr. Marley didn’t go to his meeting and I didn’t go to my meeting, and without knowing the reasons for both, you start to tell me that if I cannot go to a meeting then I should ask others.” Witt responded that it has been shared that if a member cannot attend a community meeting then they should get a sub. Yin said that if she had known there was a meeting she would have gotten a sub, but she didn’t know and then she was publicly blamed for not attending. Witt argued that her point was not about blaming Yin. 

2:08:22 – A community member stood up from the audience and asked them to stop arguing and to sort out these differences outside of the school board meeting. Yin and Witt both said they agreed with the community member. Yin said that she found Witt’s entire presentation to be inappropriate. Austin said that the purpose of Witt’s presentation was about the issue of adding commentary to the official minutes because that would be adding opinions. She said she would like a policy in place that prevents adding commentary to board minutes, but said the board can discuss this more in November. It was embarrassing to have a community member have to ask Witt and Yin to stop their debate, but I am grateful that he did. I understand why this was such a sensitive topic for Yin because last year Witt publicly accused Yin of not completing her school board assignments at the April 2022 (8:04) meeting. From Yin’s reaction to Witt’s accusation at that meeting last year it was obviously very hurtful to Yin and you can see and hear it in the exchange (youtube link 1:41-1:47). After that meeting, Yin posted a response online where she said that Witt’s accusations were baseless. Having served with Yin the past 6 months, I have found Yin to be very hard working and conscientious. Returning to this meeting, I think Witt’s decision to spend 20 minutes of a public meeting on a presentation criticizing me, Wang, and Yin was unprofessional. The non-PAC members have each requested that we add more detail to the meeting minutes instead of just stating “discussion ensued.” I don’t want to add commentary to the minutes. My request is to add basic details about what is discussed during the meeting. The West Lafayette City Council meeting minutes are a good example of how to provide detail without providing commentary. I’ve never claimed that the type of commentary I provide in my meeting summaries belongs in meeting minutes. But never writing anything more than “discussion ensued” is a way of keeping the public in the dark. Indiana law requires recording “the general substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided.” The phrase “discussion ensued” does not capture the general substance of anything. As secretary, this is Austin’s responsibility.

Motion voted on of adding the transcript to the board packet

Voted 4 out of 7 (Mumford and Wang opposed; Austin abstained)

I do not have an issue with the transcript being added to the board packet, but I do not feel it is helpful to the community and would like to see the general substance of discussions included in the official board minutes.

2:11:36 – Witt said that they reached out to Michael Adamson, a retired ISBA leader, about providing board training. Adamson said he is not seeking consultant work but would provide board training at $450 for a 2-3 hour session plus mileage. Witt asked if the board was interested in receiving training by Adamson. Mumford said that she exchanged emails with Adamson in 2020 and also attended one of his training sessions. She said that she does not think that he would be a good fit for our community. One of the questions she had asked was about publicly posting the school board packet because at the time WLCSC’s policy was that the school board packet was considered confidential both before and after school board meeting. He expressed his opinion that school boards should not share information with the public because “the information could be misleading for community members that have not been following the [administrative] commentary, giving them a totally unrealistic perception of an issue”. Mumford also asked him about encouraging members of the public to give feedback and speak at board meetings. He was opposed to this as well and answered that “board members are elected to represent the public’s best interests [and this] is true even when the public may not really know what is in their best interest.” Mumford said that she is opposed to hiring Adamson because he prefers keeping the community in the dark. Witt asked when those communications happened and Mumford said it was in 2020 and that she is happy to share the emails. Yin asked if they got quotes from the current ISBA director or ISBA lawyer. Witt said that those could be requested, but will probably be more expensive. Austin said she took a lot of Adamson’s training when she was a new board member and thought he was reasonable and didn’t seem to want to keep the public out of schools. Marley said that he was pleased with Adamson’s trainings as well, but is fine with looking at other options. Greiner shared that his view is that the whole board should be united in choosing a person so that they can come together with an open mind about working towards being a unified governing body. At the May meeting (8:08) it was decided that quotes would be requested from Adamson, the CCHA law firm, and current ISBA leaders. I am not sure why they chose to only get a quote from Adamson. 

2:17:23 – Wang discussed public comments in our meetings. He shared that the state now requires school boards to allow public comments before voting. He appreciates that we allow public comment at the beginning and end of our meetings and would like to see the agenda changed to allow all types of communication from the audience at the beginning of the meeting rather than just communication on “current agenda items.” He said that allowing all to speak will help encourage a more welcoming environment. He would also like to move the communication from the audience to take place at the very beginning of the meeting, before any votes including those on the agenda and minutes. Witt said WLCSC policy states that approving minutes has to be the first thing done. She said that if Wang is recommending a change to the order of the agenda then it would first need to go to the policy committee (Witt, Austin, and Greiner). Austin said that her concern with moving all comments to the beginning of the meeting is that, anticipating a long meeting, it may limit the amount of time the community is allowed to speak, but if people have flexibility to speak about non-agenda items at the end, they could speak longer. Austin said that she wants to leave it the way it is. Wang asked about time limits on communication from the audience. Witt shared that 3 minutes is the limit but that this has not been enforced. Mumford said that she would prefer to allow all public comments at the beginning, not just those related to the agenda. If community members would like to be on public record sharing a comment, it is a courtesy to them to allow them to speak at the beginning without having to attend the entire meeting before they can speak. Marley said he was okay with letting people talk on agenda and non agenda items. Schott said the community should be allowed to talk at the first, middle, and end. He then said, “Let’s just move on.” Witt laughed and Marley said, “We are pretty flexible.” Witt said she is happy to send this recommendation to the policy committee. I thought this was a great suggestion from Wang. It sounds like there is support from Schott, Marley, and Yin. Austin seemed opposed. I researched other school districts’ agendas. Some, including TSC, have public comments at the very beginning of the meeting, before voting on the minutes or any other agenda items.

2:29:14 – Witt said that a patron, Angie Janes, filed 2 public records requests last year and filed another request last month, this one asking for emails between Witt, Greiner, and the previous superintendent, Rocky Killion. She said that the school district has to pay our legal counsel to process these public records requests. I have never heard our school board publicly name an individual making a public records request. It felt to me like they were trying to shame, which is inappropriate. Angie Janes ran for school board in 2020 and 2022 and was not elected, however, her campaigns brought attention to the school corporation’s overspending on construction and additional borrowing to make debt payments. She also exposed the high payments to the school’s previous legal council (10 times higher than payments to our current legal council) and the need for a CFO with finance/accounting experience.

Witt then said that she provided all board members with training information about using appropriate language when speaking about students with developmental disabilities. This was another reminder of Witt’s public rebuke of Wang at the May meeting (7:28).

2:30:36 – Witt said, “I have received a communication from a citizen who after reviewing Mrs. Mumford’s commentary over the May 8th meeting was concerned that Mrs. Mumford made implications that my actions were somehow racially motivated or discriminatory. As you are aware, it has been my practice while on the board; I forwarded this patron’s communication along with the meeting details to legal counsel for a review, out of abundance of caution.” Witt emphasized that, “counsel found no cause for concern with my words or actions.” She then read the school district’s nondiscrimination policy 1422 and concluded, “on a personal note, Mr. Wang and Dr. Yin, please let me be clear that I value your input. This is the reason that I ask for it just as I value the input of all members of the board.” Witt’s claim that she values Wang and Yin’s input may have been more convincing if she hadn’t just spent 20 minutes on a surprise presentation criticizing them and then arguing with Yin by telling her that she was wrong to be offended by what Witt said to her.

2:32:00 – Greiner shared exciting news about a potential preschool partnership. He said that the board is still interested in possibly putting a preschool at Happy Hollow. Dialogue was initiated with the WL City development director, Erin Easter, and Redevelopment Commission (RDC) president, Larry Oates. School administrators (Greiner, Roth, and Cronk) as well as board members (Mumford and Marley) have attended those meetings. TSC superintendent, Scott Hanback, and TSC assistant superintendent have also attended. Greiner said that he is also potentially interested in partnering with Purdue. The RDC will issue a request for proposals for a study to determine community childcare needs and preferred locations. It will be shared at the June 21 RDC meeting. Our school administration is also interested in starting 1 or 2 preschool classrooms as a pilot. This is early and it has not been determined if these preschool classrooms will be at WLES or at WLIS. Yin said that Happy Hollow would have extra space even if it were opened as a preschool and wondered if there could be more discussion about this at a future work session. Yin asked that we seek community input and allow community questions about the future of Happy Hollow. Greiner shared that a building service review will determine how the building could be used and the cost. Greiner said that after this information is collected that he will recommend at the board retreat in August that the administration collect data and seek community input on Happy Hollow.

2:37:52 – Greiner said that he asked legal counsel if the administrative assistant to the superintendent, Roberta Julian, needs to be approved by the school board at the January organizational meeting to also be the executive secretary to the school board and assigned to take minutes. Legal counsel said that most districts do not approve this annually, but said that the Carmel Clay district does. Wang said that we should give Roberta Julian the title of executive secretary to the board. Witt said she already holds this title and the only question is if we need to appoint her to that role every year during the organizational meeting. Wang asked if the school website could be updated to include this title.

Board Committee Reports:

2:49:22 – Schott said that the West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation had the 1968 class 55th year reunion. Before commencement on May 26, the WL Education Foundation hosted a reception for scholarship receipts and donors. 24 students received 34 scholarships totalling $37,000.

2:50:37 – Yin said that she met with Roth to discuss the welcome back plan for each school and plans to provide a resource packet with information on curriculum, enrichment activities, and other opportunities. For the Park Board, June 18 is the Wellness Center’s community day. The Park and Recreation Facebook page has a lot of helpful information and she encouraged everyone to join it.

2:52:25 – Marley shared that Nick Schenkel, retiring library board director, was honored at the RDC meeting. RDC is preparing to do a master plan of downtown WL to determine where infrastructure will go in the Levy. The study will cost about $100,000. They are also doing an independent study of the Public Safety Building. Yeager Road construction should be finished this fall. Grant Street construction should be finished before school starts.

2:54:46 – Wang said that he attended a full day session of the ISBA school law seminar. They discussed supreme court cases, education regulations, updates regarding Title IX, and Public Access Counselor case reviews.

2:57:41 – Mumford shared that the Public Schools Foundation of Tippecanoe County is preparing for the cupcake run and grants for this fall. 

2:57:53 – Austin said that she attended the teacher discussion meeting and they discussed open house plans for the fall and received feedback on the teacher evaluation processes. 

2:58:47 – Randy Studt had signed up for communication from the audience on non-agenda items but said no thanks.

2:58:28 – Meeting is adjourned

Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room

Future Meetings (calendar link)

• Regular School Board Meeting – Monday, July 10 at 5:30pm (NOTE: time change) 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.

Before the meeting began, we honored WLCSC retirees:

• Kim Lancaster – WLES reading interventionist and teacher. She was hired in 1992. She was very knowledgeable and her students were always well-prepared. She was a great colleague who was willing to provide support in numerous ways to others.
• Lane Custer – WLIS PE teacher and coach. He was hired in 1979. He taught and coached at all the schools including Morton School and Burtsfield. He coached boys and girls track, assistant varsity football and 8th grade basketball. He appreciated teaching 4th-6th grade and then seeing them mature and grow by the time he coached them in high school track and football.
• Mary Dixon Gibbs-Westbrook – WLES teacher. She began teaching in New Mexico as a special education teacher. She was hired at WLCSC in 2007 as a Title 1 teacher and taught special education, first and second grade. Differentiation and individualized instruction were hallmarks of instruction for her. While she was on leave these past few years to take care of her mother, she has continued to volunteer an incredible amount of time in the school.
• Michelle Brooks – WLIS and Jr/Sr HS orchestra teacher. She has been at WLCSC teaching orchestra for 37 years. Her first year of teaching had 76 students in orchestra and has grown to over 400 students in the program each year. She has taught over 2500 students. She loves seeing the progress of students throughout the 9 years that they participate in the program from 4th-12th grade. They start off with “Mary had a Little Lamb” and “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” and progress to challenging pieces by Dvorak and Tchaikovsky. 
• Konnie Laws – Central Office. She worked as Payroll Accountant, Deputy Treasurer, Treasurer and CFO from 2004-2010. She returned in 2017 as Payroll and Benefits Specialist. She has worked to automate and streamline business office functions related to human resources, payroll, and benefits.
• Linda Wiegand – WLIS Secretary from 1988 to 2023. She started at Burtsfield with Bob Foerster, principal. She worked at Happy Hollow with Foerster, Sally Miller, and Margaret  Psarros. She has finished at WLIS. She started when her son was in first grade. He is now 41 years old and has three girls of his own.

My family has been blessed by the positive influence of all those retiring. At least one of my children has had all four of the retiring teachers and we couldn’t be more grateful for their sacrifice and service in teaching our children. I wish each of them the very best. They will be missed!