July 10, 2023 Summary

Posted byDacia MumfordPosted inSchool Board Meeting Summary, School Board Meetings

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

The school board unanimously passed the referendum resolution to put the question on the November 2023 ballot. The community has approved the referendum twice before, in 2010 and 2017. The tax rate of $0.37 per $100 of assessed value would stay the same. This school board meeting was shorter and more productive than previous meetings because we held a work session before the meeting to discuss issues and ask questions.

Agenda with links to board documents

TOPIC TIMESTAMPS: WLCSC – Regular Board Meeting July 10, 2023

  • 1:55 Stricter approach to Robert’s Rules of Order
  • 5:03 Approval of agenda and minutes
  • 7:40 Communication from the audience on topics of supporting the referendum, class size, new school board member support, and concerns about support for students with special needs
  • 37:25 Approval of Teacher Appreciation Grants
  • 40:25 Personnel Report and DEI position
  • 45:01 Approval of the Referendum Question on the November 2023 ballot 
  • 50:23 Motion to include class size in the purpose of the referendum ballot question
  • 1:20:50 Motions to remove limitations on communication from the audience
  • 1:49:09 Communication from the audience on non-agenda items

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.

1:55 – Witt read a statement announcing that she has decided that she will now be stricter in following Robert’s Rules of Order. She said that the majority of the board can impose a time limit on board discussions and that in her role as president she will determine if board members will be allowed to share more than one comment on an agenda item. She also shared that she will impose a strict 3-minute time limit on community members speaking, with Austin keeping the time, and warned that any individual causing a disruption would be asked to leave the meeting. The time limit did impact community member comments, though it was obvious that the group of previous school board members and union leaders who spoke at the meeting had been told in advance. Witt did not attempt to limit board member discussion in this meeting.

5:03 – Approval of the Agenda for the July 10, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Board of School Trustees.

Voted 6 out of 6 (Yin was absent*)

6:39 – Approval of the Minutes of the June 12, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Board of School Trustees.

Voted 6 out of 6*

7:11 – Approval of the Minutes of the July 5, 2023 Work Session of the Board of School Trustees

Voted 6 out of 6*

7:40 – Communication from the audience on current agenda items (those who had signed up before the meeting began) 

  • Doug Masson, previous appointed school board member, spoke on the need to pass the referendum.
  • Marydell Forbes, former union leader and JSHS English teacher, spoke on the interactions of the school board members with each other. She said that a focus on class size is short sighted because if the referendum doesn’t pass, class size will be huge.
  • Alan Karpick, former school board member, spoke on the need to pass the referendum.
  • Gale Charlotte, former school board member, spoke on the need to pass the referendum.
  • Lisa Mills, former union leader and JSHS English teacher, spoke in favor of the current policy of providing equal teacher appreciation grants to all employees.
  • Don Collar, alumni parent, spoke in favor of the referendum and the need to pass it in 2023.
  • Rachel Sandburg, union leader and JSHS English teacher, spoke in favor of the referendum. She expressed her concern that imposing limits on transfer students would lead to her children being prevented from attending our schools. The children of teachers are not considered transfer students. Just like students who live in the district, they are included in the average daily member (ADM) which the state uses to provide funding. In contrast, students allowed to transfer into our district from TSC are not included in our ADM; transfer student funding comes from TSC. I have not heard anyone express any opposition to the children of teachers attending our schools.
  • Lora Marie Williams, parent, spoke in support of the newly elected school board members and asked that other school board members work more peacefully with the new school board members. 
  • Angie Janes, former school board candidate, shared that her family is moving out of our school district. She said that her daughter with special needs did not receive the accommodations at school that she needed and is now attending an online charter school. I’m sad that the Janes are moving out of our district. She did a lot of good in our schools in her time volunteering on the parent council as well as bringing to light our school district’s financial concerns. I’ve heard from several other families, like the Janes, who pulled their kids out of our schools or moved to a neighboring school district. Providing appropriate services to students with special needs should be a higher priority in our school district.

37:25 – Greiner recommended approval of the teacher appreciation grant (TAG). Policy 3220.01 follows state TAG requirements and has to be approved by the school board each year in order to receive the funds from the state. Mumford asked that the policy committee consider revising this policy to focus the TAG money on providing teacher bonuses that are based on evaluations and motioned to table approval until the next meeting to give the policy committee time to consider revisions. She expressed her view that staff and administrators should receive incentives and bonuses for their hard work, but said that directly linking their bonuses to the TAG money has been a source of frustration for some teachers. Mumford said that she has reviewed the policies for several other Indiana districts and has not found any with a similar policy where every teacher and every staff member receives the same bonus irrespective of their evaluation. Her motion to table failed. No other comments were made. 

The state gives school districts the teacher appreciation grant with the requirement that the funds be used to award a bonus to teachers who receive a rating of highly effective or effective. The state requires that teachers with a rating of highly effective receive a 25% larger bonus than teachers who receive a rating of effective. Our district awards the TAG funds as required and then uses district funds to equalize the bonus for all teachers so that all receive the highly effective amount and also provide an equal bonus to all staff members. That way the evaluations don’t matter. School board approval for the TAG policy was not needed until September. I do not agree with the current school district policy, but I do want our teachers to receive teacher appreciation grants and so voted in favor. 

Voted 6 out of 6*

40:25 – Greiner recommended the approval of the personnel report. Mumford asked how the now vacant DEI coordinator position would be filled. Greiner said that he will seek community input through a survey and use a representative committee, but hasn’t decided who exactly will be on the committee. I have heard a lot of positive feedback from students and staff about Mrs. Falk’s work. I am grateful that Greiner plans to seek community input in filling this position.

Voted 6 out of 6*

41:59 – Greiner recommended the approval of the Designee Paperwork. This allows the new GLASS director to sign for grants.

Voted 6 out of 6*

42:43 – Roth recommended the approval of Permission to Apply for and Accept Annually Awarded Federal Grants as this has to be approved each year.

Voted 6 out of 6*

43:40 – Cronk recommended the approval of Accounts Payable WLCSC, Accounts Payable WVEC, Finance Report – Funds, Credit Card Statement, and Claims Docket Breakdown.

Voted 6 out of 6*

45:01 – Witt asked for approval Referendum: Adopt Resolution Memo, Referendum Minutes and Resolution and Auditor’s Certificate which will approve the question that will go on the ballot in November 2023. The recommended question says:

“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 46.2% 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 41.8%.”

Lindsay Simonetteo from Baker Tilly said that the county auditor provided the percentages, which are the increase in the property tax received by the school corporation, not the increase in the total property tax paid by property owners. Marley asked about the option of sharing more information with the community since the question is both confusing and misleading. Jane Herndon from Baker Tilly said that this can and should be done. Most of the wording of the question is required by the state. 

50:32 – Mumford motioned to add “reduce class size” to the referendum question. Wang seconded the motion. Mumford said that the Revenue Spending Plan refers to class size, but that this is not what voters will see. She noted that class size was included on the 2017 ballot question and said that she believes that reducing class size is a priority for our community because class size matters to parents and to teachers. Mumford said that she would like to see class size listed as a priority on the ballot question. She noted that class size has been trending up. Austin said that she disagrees with Mumford’s interpretation of the facts about class size. Greiner said that the administration created a comparison chart (see below) showing class size in 2017 and 2022 for grades K – 6 and this chart does show that class size has been trending up. He said that the class size information was collected from registered students on Skyward at the end of the school year and noted that there was an overall increase of 1.75 students per class over that time period. Greiner said that it is important to look at the specific situation in each grade in addition to the overall trend. He said that administrators and union leaders work together at the end of the year to monitor class size and determine if a teacher needs to be added to a grade. Greiner noted that we have added interventionists at WLES and WLIS. He concluded by saying that he would seek parent input on class size through a future survey.  

Schott asked Herndon if adding “reduce class sizes” backs us in a corner and is too broad of a statement. Herndon said that the phrase “manage class size” is what was used in the 2017 referendum and said that “manage” is better than “reduce” because saying reduce class size can cause difficulties as every parent will expect a reduced class size for their child. Wang said that when he talked with community members about the referendum, class size was one of the top 2 questions. His view is that reasonable class sizes are good for students to receive personal attention and good for teachers as it allows them to give feedback and have more one-on-one discussions. Wang said that he thinks class sizes matter and that adding something in regards to class size to the question will get us more yes votes. Austin said the board previously reviewed the question and asked all their questions in the executive session on May 22. The wording of the question was also shared at the June school board meeting and the board voted to proceed. She said that amending the question now would mean extra work for the central office staff and said that she wants the board to vote no on the motion to add class size to the question. Austin shared inaccurate information. The executive session was a presentation on the need for referendum funding with no discussion. The work session in May was also a presentation rather than a discussion. I asked to add an agenda item to discuss referendum topics and was denied. I first asked in April for a work session to discuss referendum issues and the board leadership did not schedule it until July 5. I recommended adding class size to the ballot question during the July 5 work session and Herndon produced 2 versions of the ballot question so there would be no delay in moving the referendum forward if class size were added.

Voted 2 out of 6* (Austin, Marley, Schott, and Witt opposed)

After the majority of the board voted against adding class size to the referendum question, we returned to approving the question. Wang said that updated legislation, which was not required for the 2017 referendum, requires school districts to have a spending plan. Cronk shared that they have put together a revenue spending plan for the 2023 referendum and noted that it can be adjusted and will need to be reapproved each year at the same time the budget is passed. Cronk explained that previously, money could be transferred from the referendum fund to the education fund and the operations fund. With the 2023 referendum, it will be required to spend directly from the referendum fund. 

Yin was out of town and participated in the meeting via zoom, but was not allowed to vote. She asked to share a few comments about the referendum. She said that she thinks class size is important for high quality education and would have liked to have seen “manage class size” included in the referendum question, but said that she appreciates the community support for the previous two referendums and completely supports the upcoming referendum.

Voted 6 out of 6* 

Like Yin, I also would have liked to have seen class size included in the question presented to the voters, but I also completely support extending the referendum for 8 more years and will vote Yes to the question in the November election. It is clear that our schools need the money. Without the referendum funding, our students and teachers would be left much worse off. I know that many are frustrated with the school board’s past spending decisions; I am too. I will continue to push for improved financial transparency and an accounting of how past money was spent. 

1:13:40 – Witt asked for approval of the Work Session and Meeting calendar. During the June school board meeting, the meeting calendar was approved with a follow-up requested at the July meeting on work sessions (1:17:24). The administration recommendation is for work sessions to be held at 7:00 am on the Friday before a regular school board meeting if needed. Wang shared a concern that this is early for community members to join the meeting. Witt said the work sessions will be livestreamed and recorded. Mumford asked why they selected 7:00 am and said that it may be particularly difficult for teachers and parents to attend. Greiner said that the Friday before the regular school board meeting allows for questions and discussion in preparation for the regular school board meeting and said that 7:00 to 8:00 am seems like a good time. He shared that Jeff Dehler, consultant for referendum public relations, recommended not having work sessions unless absolutely necessary. Mumford asked when it will be determined if a work session is needed? Greiner said it will be the board’s decision if they need one or not. Witt said that if a board member wants a work session then a message should be sent to her and that the board officers would decide. 

Voted 6 out of 6*

I would like to hold a work session every month. Having a work session before this meeting made a huge difference by allowing board members to ask questions and discuss the topics in advance of the regular meeting. This makes the regular meetings not so long. Holding a work session before the regular meeting also allows community members to be informed before the board is asked to vote. Many school districts have work sessions every month to prepare for the regular meeting.

1:20:50 – Wang made two motions related to public comments at school board meetings. He first motioned to remove the limitation on speaking only about current agenda items at the beginning of the meeting. Mumford seconded the motion. Wang shared that new legislation passed last year on public comments and the Indiana Public Access Counselor’s related opinion both say that public comments should not be limited and he said that he would like to see the limitation removed from the agenda. Wang said that this change would make the meetings more open and welcoming to the community. Marley asked our legal counsel representative, Jessica Billingsley, to verify that the current agenda is legally compliant. Billingsley said to be compliant we have to allow public comment before a final vote and if a comment isn’t about an agenda item then it wouldn’t have to be at the beginning, but she pointed out that agendas can be amended and so Wang’s concern about limiting community comments to only agenda items could be an issue. Mumford said she would like to see this change as a courtesy to community members. If a community member wants to make a public statement, it doesn’t matter to board members if it is at the beginning or the end, but it is respectful of the community member’s time to allow them to speak at the beginning. Mumford said that at the work session last week, a community member waited 3 hours to share a comment at the end of the meeting. Schott said he would like to hear Wang’s second motion since it relates to public comments before voting. 

Wang motioned to move the communication from the audience from item 4 of the agenda to the beginning before item 2 (routine business). Wang said that this change is necessary because of the legislation passed last year that says the public has to be allowed to comment before voting. Witt shared that our policy 0168.1 says that the minutes have to be approved as the first thing in the meetings. Austin said “there’s a good reason why that has to be done in that order. If you don’t have an agenda then you don’t have a map for where the meeting’s supposed to go. If you haven’t agreed upon what happened in the previous meeting then you can’t go on and call business unfinished or not. Robert’s Rules of Order were set up so that meetings would run in a certain sequence and there’s reasons why they run in the sequence they do. As much as I would love to make everything as easy as possible for our community I think we need to have that respect for the fact that they’re set up this way for a reason. I would say the earliest we should be doing communication from the audience would be before unfinished business but not before approving the agenda or the minutes.” Billingsley, legal counsel, said CCHA’s guidance is to have public comments before any voting, which means before approving the agenda and minutes. Mumford shared that she reviewed other school districts’ policies and found that they all have the same wording about approving the minutes as the first order of business and yet most of them allow public comments before any official business. As an example, Mumford shared that TSC begins their meetings with special recognitions and public comments before approving the agenda and minutes. Austin made a motion to move this to the policy committee so that she can review the policies with Witt and Greiner and make a recommendation to the board. Marley seconded it. Witt told Wang that she would prefer sending this to the committee rather than voting on his motions now. She said if he decides to ask the board to vote on it and it doesn’t pass then he can’t bring it up again. Wang said he would withdraw his motions. This same conversation happened last month and Witt said that she would take it to the policy committee (2:17:23). It’s clear that she didn’t follow through. Austin gave a lot of pushback until legal counsel said that their recommendation is the same as Wang’s.

1:38:16 – Witt said that she had information to share with the board. She said that Wang pointed out that her presentation at the June meeting did not correctly quote Wang. She said that she had only referred to the YouTube transcript which did not accurately capture what Wang had said (1:49:15). She said that the livestream is more accurate than the youtube transcript.

1:40:00 – Greiner said the central office is focused on the referendum. Following the July work session, they have received questions from staff and community members. Greiner said they plan to answer these questions and are also working with Dehler, the public relations consultant, on sharing the information on the referendum website component. 

1:40:39 – Board Committee Reports

  • Parks and Recreation – Witt attended since Yin was out of town. The after-school program registration filled in 2 days. The city is working to hire a bus driver to drive those routes. The Cason Family Park was approved. Marley shared that it will be huge with trails and a lake for kayaking and paddle boats. It should take 21 months. 
  • West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation – Schott said that class reunions for 1978 and 1983 are this month. Homecoming will be September 15th and this year will be the 100th anniversary of the football program.
  • Redevelopment Commission – Marley said that Yeager, Lindberg, and Grant street will be finished in time for school to begin. 
  • Wang shared that he finished Indiana School Board Association’s (ISBA) new board member training. He also attended their budget and finance seminar.
  • Austin thanked Yin for joining the meeting via zoom even with all the streaming difficulties.

1:49:09 – Communication from the audience on non-agenda items (those who had signed up before the meeting began). 

  • Gale Charlotte, former school board member, spoke at both the beginning and at the end of the meeting. She shared a list of suggestions to the board members and criticized Mumford’s summaries and website.
  • Daniel Janes, WLCSC alumni, shared that his education at WLCSC taught him about the importance of free speech and criticized those who are trying to shut down Mumford’s summaries. 

1:58:11 – Meeting is adjourned

Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room

Future Meetings (calendar link)

  • Regular School Board Meeting – Monday, August 14 at 6pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room (enter from North side/pool side of building)

*Yin joined via zoom but couldn’t vote per Indiana code and po0164.5 because the agenda included voting on the referendum resolution.

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.

Leave a comment