August 12, 2024 Summary

KEY TAKEAWAYS: A proposal for the schools to take on additional debt will be discussed at a work session on August 26. There was a 4-3 vote denying public access to the financial records associated with the recent construction spending. A proposed policy about recording meetings was tabled to allow community input on the revisions. Revisions to broaden the protections in the proposed anti-bullying policy were discussed. In a 4-3 vote the board decided not to hear appeals related to suspensions or expulsions. There was a lengthy discussion of perceived inconsistencies in the process used for recent hires. Aggregate data on teacher and administrator evaluations were shared.

Agenda with links to board documents

TOPIC TIMESTAMPS (Youtube Recording Link)

• 1:02 Discussion of policy G350 audio, video, and digital recordings
• 31:25 Discussion of policy C375 on appeals to the board for suspensions and expulsions
• 42:10 Discussion of policy C200 anti-bullying
• 1:07:08 Communication from the audience
• 1:18:30 Consent agenda
• 1:20:51 Approval of teacher appreciation grant and discussion of the policy
• 1:38:14 Approval of personnel report and discussion of hiring procedures
• 2:01:35 Vote to table policy G350
• 2:02:38 A 4-3 vote to approve policy C375 and not allow the board to hear appeals
• 2:13:04 Phone system upgrade
• 2:15:10 Presentation on teacher and administrator evaluations
• 2:31:29 Approval of replacing the track at the athletic complex
• 2:33:18 A 3-4 vote denying the motion to share public financial documents
• 2:37:00 Superintendent report on transfer tuition legislation not affecting WLCSC

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.

The board held a public work session from 5-6pm.

1:02 The work session began with a discussion on proposed revisions to policy G350 on recordings (original version, 2nd set of proposed revisions). Austin announced proposed changes to the original version of the policy: removing the administration’s right to deny recording a meeting, asking parents to provide 24 hours of notice that they plan to record a meeting rather than the original 3 days, and removing the last sentence: “Visitors who violate this policy may be removed from Corporation property and may be subject to a trespassing violation if they return to Corporation property.” Though a written version was not yet provided to the board, Austin said that she would like the board to vote on these revisions during the regular meeting. The original version of this policy had a first reading at the 2024 May meeting (38:58). At that meeting I spoke against the restriction on audio recording meetings and against threatening parents with a trespassing violation. Other board members spoke in favor of the restriction on audio recording. At the 2024 June meeting (1:35:16), Austin tried to bring the original version of the policy for a vote without having posted my proposed revisions. Austin eventually relented and said she would bring it forward later. A vote on G350 appeared on the agenda for the August meeting (it had not been listed on any of the previous meeting agendas) and this prompted a great deal of community feedback against the recording restriction and against the trespassing punishment. 

Witt asked Greiner what the special education leadership thinks about these proposed revisions. Greiner said that a description of the revisions was shared just a few hours before the meeting and he has not yet received feedback from administrators. Wang asked that the board post the revised version of the policy and vote on it at the next meeting to give the community one month to provide feedback. Austin said this isn’t necessary because the community has already given their feedback and there is no need for more. 

Mumford noted that our policy (policy 0131.1 and policy 0131.2) is to wait a month for a second reading anytime there is a substantial revision and asked Jessica Billingsley (legal counsel) if there is an accepted definition of when revisions are substantial. Billingsley said that there is no legal requirement to give notice to the community when policy revisions are made and that the board determines how to govern themselves on this process. The school board has often not followed this process when revising policies (2023 April 6:34 and 2022 March 7:09). Mumford recommended that the G350 policy be tabled and brought back for a vote next month after an opportunity to receive feedback from staff on the proposed revisions. 

Mumford asked what happens when a parent does not give advance notice. Billingsley said that staff have two options: (1) proceed with the meeting and either record the meeting if recording equipment is available or not record if equipment is not available or (2) share that recording equipment is not available and reschedule the meeting for a later date. Greiner said he will not require staff to be video recorded and will suggest using zoom with just audio for meetings that are video recorded. Wang asked how the request for advanced notice is handled for a last minute meeting. Austin said that if no advanced notice was given but that everyone in the meeting is fine with it, then there isn’t an issue. Wang noted that the request for advanced notice is optional and suggested that the policy be reworded to portray that message. Austin said, “The way I figure it is that the people who’ve written these, including Jessie, are professional lawyers and this is their job and so I’m not going to nitpick their language.” Wang suggested using the word “encourage” when requesting advanced notice. Mumford recommended adding the phrase “when possible.” Billingsley said that language could be added to explain that: “notice not provided 24 hours ahead of time may result in staff requesting the meeting be rescheduled when recording equipment can be acquired.” Austin continues to push that the board accept whatever the lawyers recommend for our policies. At the 2024 April meeting (9:18), Austin recommended that the board vote to approve all proposed policies as written by the law firm simultaneously and then possibly go back later to revise specific policies.

Mumford asked what can be put in place to inform parents of the desire to receive advance notice before the meeting. She shared an example from another school district where when case conferences are scheduled they inform parents that they are allowed to record the meeting and ask if the parent is planning to record. Greiner said that this is happening. Mumford said that multiple parents have said that they were unaware of this policy. Witt said that the patron who emailed the board shared their own unique perspective, but others have a different perspective. Greiner said he would talk to his team about informing parents when scheduling case conferences and said that if there was no advanced notice about recording then in a friendly and collaborative way the staff would ask to reschedule the meeting. Mumford asked if informing parents should be in the policy. Greiner said he does not want that to be put in the policy but he does think we should be family friendly and that staff should remind parents ahead of the meeting about wanting advanced notice for recording. 

Mumford said that when she was a teacher in our district that she never thought about how to handle a situation where a parent asked to record a meeting. She asked how staff would be informed about their options. Greiner said that an administrator or para at the meeting would know how to handle it. Mumford noted that this would work for IEP meetings, but what about meetings between just the teacher and a parent? Greiner said that after the policy passes then administrators would share with teachers how they can respond. Roth said they can put this in the new hire training (Vector Solutions).

Witt asked Greiner to send the revisions to the Special Education Department before showing it to the board. She said this is how the policy committee handled it in the past because it provides insight from the experts before the rest of the board is allowed to see it. (The policy was tabled during the regular meeting at 2:01:35). The policy committee was Austin and Witt. After being confronted with their repeated violations of Indiana’s Open Door Law at the 2023 November 2023 meeting (1:42:40), Austin disbanded the policy committee. My view is that the public should be informed as policies are being revised and everyone should be able to provide input before the final vote is taken. This approach leads to much better policies.

31:25 There was a discussion of the two provided versions of Policy C375 Suspension and Expulsion of Students. The First Proposal does not allow families to appeal to the school board and the Second Proposal allows families to appeal to the board. Yin noted that the second proposal allows the board to hear appeals of suspensions and not just expulsions. Austin asked who recommended the revisions in the second proposal. Mumford said that she recommended that language and said that there is a difference between how expulsions and suspensions are handled. The law requires that the board vote to allow or not allow expulsion appeals but is silent on suspension appeals. Our current policy 5610 states that the board will not listen to appeals for expulsion or suspension. Billingsley said that expulsion is depriving a student of their education so both state and federal law requires a more precise procedure to ensure that the right to education is not being withheld unless there has been due diligence. Suspension for less than 10 days only requires a meeting with the administrator who is making the decision. 

Austin asked those who have served on the board for more than 10 years if they have ever heard an appeal to a suspension or expulsion decision. Witt and Marley both said they have never heard an appeal. Mumford said that she has been on the board for less than 2 years and that the board did receive a request from a parent who wanted to appeal a decision to the board, but was told that our policy does not allow the board to hear appeals. Witt said that what best serves the needs of students is a solution that is closest to the student and that means the administration should make the decision. She said if a situation gets so severe that it needs to move beyond the administration, it should go straight to the courts. Austin said she would bring this policy to a vote at the regular board meeting. She said that her recommendation is to approve the first proposal because that is what our lawyer is recommending. I don’t think the law firm ever recommended one or the other, they just noted that the law requires that the board make this decision. The 4-3 vote to approve the first proposal happened during the regular meeting at 2:02:38. 

40:57 Austin asked if anyone had any input on any of the other policies that have had a first reading but still need discussion. She said we could work in any order on the rest of them. Mumford noted that she had previously requested that the board prioritize several specific policies. Austin asked where Mumford would like to start. Mumford recommended proposed policy C200 on bullying. It is frustrating that Austin won’t let the community or even the board know which policies she plans to discuss in the work session. It is hard to be fully prepared when we don’t know what will be discussed.

42:10 Mumford said that she had previously recommended several revisions to C200 which are posted. Witt said she has concerns with the language Mumford is recommending be added to the definition of bullying: “or severe, one-time incidents with the potential to be repeated.” Witt said these words are subjective and questioned how to define an incident as severe and how to know if an incident has the potential to be repeated. Billingsley responded that this language in Mumford’s recommended revision comes directly from the Indiana Department of Education’s (IDOE) guidance to schools, but was not included in the original version of C200 because it is not required by Indiana law. Austin asked Billingsley if she is recommending not including this revision to eliminate additional liability. Billingsley said that this additional language does not increase potential liability for the school corporation, it just increases the potential for the schools to not be in compliance with their own policy. Witt said that this means that adding this language would increase the risk of the school corporation being negligent. Billingsley said that it does not increase the risk of negligence. Witt said she is concerned with inserting words that are vague because our community has already demonstrated confusion about what “constitutes bullying versus being a jerk.” Mumford asked if Billingsley could provide background behind this guidance from the IDOE. Billingsley said she doesn’t know why the IDOE recommends using this language. Mumford said that it appears to her that the IDOE’s broader definition of bullying seems to be an attempt to better support students and noted that the board received an email from a community member who recommended this language. Mumford said that she does not have a lot of experience with this and would like to hear from other teachers and parents. Austin responded: “it is important to remember that one person with a lot of opinions isn’t necessarily the whole community and we shouldn’t give too much weight to a handful of opinions when we’re dealing with legal liability. It is our job to protect the school district from that liability.” Austin asked Billinsgley to review Mumford’s suggested revisions and then provide her recommendation to the board. I disagree with Austin that our only job is to protect the school corporation from liability. We should balance the need to protect the school corporation with the need to better protect our students. 

1:00:45 The work session ended and the regular meeting began with State Representative Chris Campbell presenting a posthumous award to Karen Springer, a prior school board member who passed away in May 2023. Her daughter received the plaque. In addition to serving on the school board, Springer also served on the Parks and Recreation Board, with the music boosters, Global Fest, Read to Succeed, and worked with students at the disability resource center at Purdue.

1:07:08 Communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began):

• Don Coller (community member) complained that his wife thought that the school board meeting summaries written by Mumford were the official school board minutes. He said that other board members have urged Mumford to stop writing these summaries, but she hasn’t and the summaries are causing “confusion and chaos.” Coller said that the summaries clearly state that Mumford’s personal thoughts and opinions are in italics. However, at the end of the June summary, Mumford listed the school board candidates for the November election and did not put that part in italics. He said that Mumford wrote that Yin “has done a great job as a board member asking questions and keeping the community informed” and that Austin “has done a poor job as a school board member and an even worse job as board president” without putting these comments in italics. Coller said that he did not think that it was appropriate for Mumford to have written that George Lyle was involved with the PAC because this PAC was very controversial in prior elections. He concluded by saying that he does not think that the board should be involved in student expulsions and that the board should get out of the way of the administrators and let them do their jobs. Coller is correct that I should have put my description of the school board candidates in italics. I edited my June meeting summary and the school board candidate list is now in italics. I apologize for not having thought to do that initially. I don’t know Coller; he has never attempted to communicate with me. He did speak at one school board meeting last year (2023 March 6:46) to urge board members to use a private online discussion board for pre-meeting discussions, something that Witt was pushing us to do (and is prohibited by Indiana’s Open Door Law). I recall at the time thinking that this was a strange issue for a community member to speak about. I looked him up and Coller is Austin’s neighbor which is perhaps why he was allowed to speak for 5 minutes rather than stopped at the 3 minute time limit for comments.

I think it is reasonable for Coller to question my view that Austin has done a poor job representing the community. For evidence, I compiled a list of Austin’s public statements where she advocates for restricting public access to information and rubber stamping whatever the administration proposes. I put together a similar list documenting that Austin has done an even worse job as a board officer.

• Erin Moon-Walker (parent of students who transferred out of our school district) shared appreciation to the board for considering her emails about proposed policy G350 on recording meetings and for the positive revisions that it appears the board plans to make. She shared concerns about the discussion in the May meeting (38:58) where Greiner, Witt, and Billingsley expressed the underlying sentiments that if a parent requests to record an IEP meeting that means they don’t trust the district, their request to record puts their child’s interests at risk, and that parents will be criminally charged if they don’t follow the policy. If trust is what is wanted, then the school should not hire a law firm that litigates cases against disabled children to draft a policy more restrictive than state law and the district’s current practices. You can’t prioritize corporate liability over caregiver and child needs. You don’t give the law firm a seat at the table for the official discussion while you relegate caregivers to emails or a 3-minute comment. She commented that Austin is disorganized and shared that she had to email Austin several times to find out when this policy would be discussed. She said that the community should be concerned that the board is rushing this policy overhaul and making statements that minimize the need for input.
• Tiffany Lyle (parent) shared appreciation for the pre-K pilot program that her child attends. Her child is very happy with the program. She is also happy with the clear communication by the principal and assistant principal on the details of the logistics of the program.  

1:18:30 The board was asked to approve the consent agenda items:

• Agenda for the August 12, 2024 Regular Meeting 
• Minutes of the July 15, 2024 Regular Meeting 
• Teacher Appreciation Grant (TAG) Memo and Policy
• Permission to Apply for and Accept Annually Awarded Federal & State Grants
• Investment Resolution Memo and Resolution
• Personnel Report
• Accounts Payable WLCSC, Accounts Payable WVEC

Mumford motioned to remove the Teacher Appreciate Grant and Permission to Apply for and Accept Annually Award Grants from the consent agenda. Wang seconded it. Wang motioned to remove the personnel report from the consent agenda. Yin seconded it. The consent agenda was voted on without those three items.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:20:51 Teacher Appreciation Grant (TAG) Memo and Policy – Mumford shared that when this was approved the previous year she had motioned to have the policy reviewed and this was denied (2023 July 37:25). She asked Greiner to share current practice in regard to the teacher grant distribution. Greiner said the policy states that the funds from the state cover the stipend to highly effective and effective teachers with the highly effective teachers receiving 25% more than the effective teachers. The school district takes money from the education fund to pay effective teachers as well as administrators, directors, and support staff with ratings of highly effective or effective the same amount that the highly effective teachers received from the state funds. Mumford said that she doesn’t know of any other school district that does this. She recommended separating the teacher bonuses from the staff bonuses as is typical in other districts. Greiner said that his previous school district did not pay equal stipends to teachers and staff, but he supports the policy. Teachers and community members have shared with him that the uniformity in these bonuses is the greatest thing that the previous superintendent and school board did because it focuses on unity. Greiner said that he has not heard any negative feedback about this practice and that he heard that when the previous superintendent and school board did this that it was a huge morale booster because everyone is important and it doesn’t matter if you are effective or highly effective. Mumford said that she was a teacher in our district and she did not hear that view from other teachers. After this policy was enacted, several other teachers told me that they didn’t feel valued and that their extra efforts did not matter to administrators.

Yin shared that this seems to be counterintuitive and doesn’t reward those who work extremely hard. She asked about those who rate as needing improvement and Greiner said they do not receive the stipend. Witt asked Cronk to verify that the amount of money for the stipend is relatively low. Greiner said it ranges from $300 to $500 and can change annually. I think it is incorrect to assume that a $300 to $500 bonus doesn’t matter.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:33:32 Mumford asked Roth to explain more about Permission to Apply for and Accept Annually Awarded Federal & State Grants and asked if this is a new request. Roth said this was done last year (2023 July 42:43). Mumford apologized for having forgotten. Roth said that the board has to approve annually to accept grants before they can apply for them because the funds will come with stipulations. 

Voted 7 out of 7

1:38:14 Personnel Report – Wang shared concerns about the school’s recruiting practice. He said that we don’t have hiring guidelines or a hiring manual. He said that our district has had limited candidate pools and rushed hiring decisions which has led to perceptions of lack of transparency and accountability. He asked that we put together a hiring manual so that there are the same expectations for everyone and to help us do better at attracting and retaining the best candidates. Schott asked what this had to do with the personnel report. Wang said the personnel report lists the recent hires, resignations, termination, and job changes and for each there is a process. Schott argued that we are not being asked to approve a process, we are being asked to approve the report. Wang said that if we don’t have a good process, it affects who is hired. Witt said the board’s role is to only recruit and hire the superintendent. She said that the board should be focused on student outcomes and not about hiring. She went on to say that the school board should not be involved in how Greiner leads his administrative team and that “having lunch with him is not in the scope of the board.” I am not sure why Witt is opposed to a board member having lunch with the superintendent and I don’t know what she was referencing.

Greiner expressed his frustration about the complaints he has received about his hiring procedures. He said that our district does not have ineffective hiring practices. When he brings hiring recommendations to the board he said that they have come from staff, community, parents, and students recommendations. In addition, there is support for those individuals hired. He asked Austin to read a message that he sent to the board: 

“Regarding the process for hiring administrators at the central office level, we follow a very similar process each time we hire a certificated principal or director position.  

1. Consistent job description developed including specific information about the position, requirements and salary and benefits. 
2. Consistent minimum expectations of experience and license as preferred qualities.
3. Consistent posting across sites statewide and/or nationwide. 
4. Consistent application process through Frontline hiring software.
5. Consistent inclusion of applicable stakeholder input to inform decisions.  
6. Consistent inclusion of teachers on the committee in addition to other administrators
7. Consistent inclusion of parents/family members affected by the position to gain their unique perspective.
8. Consistent minimum two-step process with a focus on candidate knowledge and experience in the first interview and candidate fit and in-depth skills demonstration through performance tasks on the second interview.

Greiner said that questions keep being asked about the hiring process and that he wants the board and the community to know that he cares. Wang asked if they could put these procedures in a manual that is shared with everyone in the district so that the hiring process is clear. Austin responded: “we just read them on youtube, so I think it is out there.” Marley told Wang: “we have described our role very specifically, yet you keep crossing the same line over and over.” Yin said that she also would like more information shared about the hiring process because there have been many hires during her time on the board where there were inconsistencies. She would like a policy that explicitly describes the procedures to make hiring practices more consistent. Yin said that it is still not clear in which situations board members are allowed to serve on hiring committees. Austin answered, “none, and that comes from the school board association (ISBA). The board leadership (Schott, Marley, and Austin) decided together that the board should no longer be involved in hiring decisions and we will not be as long as I’m sitting in this seat.” She went on to say, “I’m going to keep us in our role which is to hire the superintendent and supervise him, set policy, and approve expenditures. We are not going to stray from those boundaries, until I have faith that the people I’m working with are trustworthy in those positions. Then maybe we’ll start with more committees like we used to have. But right now I just don’t feel like we’re doing a good job at the minimum amount of school boarding we’re doing.” Wang asked to speak in response, but Austin would not allow him to make another comment and called for a vote. I thought that Wang shared his concerns about inconsistent hiring practices appropriately, without calling attention to any specific position or person.

Mumford asked how many positions we have for assistant athletic supervisors this year compared to last year? Greiner said that there are 3 positions, but last year they only filled 2.66 of the 3. Mumford asked about Jane Schott’s assistant athletic director position that was not filled after she resigned. Greiner said that Shane Fry, football coach, has 2 periods available and that he will fulfill those responsibilities at no additional cost to the district. Chad Rodgers, JSHS principal, said that Fry is paid as a full-time teacher, but has a lighter teaching load than typical and helps out with athletics.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:01:35 Austin said that during the work session it was decided that more time is needed to consult with staff on proposed policy G350 on audio, video, and digital recording and so the vote will take place next month. Mumford motioned to table it and Wang seconded it. I have not seen any updates since the revisions that were posted a few hours before the meeting. Additional revisions were requested during the work session. The updated version should be posted to give everyone the opportunity to provide feedback. Otherwise, it won’t be ready for a vote in September.

This was the first time that Austin listed on the agenda which policies would be voted on at the meeting. I have been asking her, publicly and privately, to do this for months and after lots of excuses it is great that she finally changed her mind. 

Voted 7 out of 7

2:02:38 Policy C375 on suspension and expulsion of students has two versions: the first proposal does not allow the board to hear appeals and the second proposal allows the board to hear appeals. Mumford asked those in favor of the first proposal if they would share why they don’t want to allow families to appeal to the board. Witt said that this was already shared in the work session and doesn’t think it is an effective use of time to say it again. Mumford said that it is normal to ask a board member to state their position in the regular meeting for public record. Witt said she was not willing to share. Marley said that he doesn’t want families to be able to appeal because we should allow the administrators to do their jobs and the board should not get involved. He said we don’t have the evidence nor are in a position to make a ruling on a recommendation that’s brought forward by our administrators. If we listen to an appeal and overrule them, then we’ve undermined the confidence of our administrators. Marley said that other school district’s boards do not hear appeals. Mumford responded that some school boards (like Zionsville and LSC) do hear appeals and other school boards do not hear appeals (like TSC and Carmel Clay). Mumford expressed her view that the board should hear appeals and said that this is not about undermining administrators, it is allowing our community members to be heard by those who they voted to represent them without them having to pay to take it to the county court. Austin asked Greiner how many expulsion hearings he participated in as a superintendent over the past 13 years. He said just 3 or 4 prior to his time at West Lafayette. He said that there have been a couple of hearings during his time at West Lafayette and that he is not aware of either being appealed to the county court. Wang said that he wants the school board to be able to hear appeals because it costs both families and the school district to go to the county court. Austin responded, “do you know who else gets elected – judges.”

Austin called for a vote on the first proposal that does not allow the board to hear appeals.

Voted 4 out of 7 (Yin, Wang, and Mumford opposed)

Austin didn’t explain at this meeting why she was opposed to hearing appeals, but she did explain her thinking at the June work session (1:18): Austin said that she would prefer not to know personal information about her neighbors’ children being suspended. She agreed with Witt that appeals would unnecessarily delay the process and said that there are already 11 scheduled school board meetings each year and that having to find a time when all can meet to hear an appeal and then give notice would be difficult. Austin said: “Another concern that I have is the conflict of interest, because if we as the board find that our employees did not follow due process the next logical step for the family would be to sue. We’re being asked to decide between something that is very much not in our best interest as a body versus something that is very much in our best interest as a body. So our objectivity in that situation is easily open to challenge.” 

2:13:04 Cronk asked for approval of the phone system upgrade (CDH Hardware Quote, Summit 360 Quote, Wintek Hardware Quote, Wintek Licensing and Service Quote). Witt asked if they will be able to complete this out of school session times. Cronk said she has been through this before and they do a good job at doing that. 

Voted 7 out of 7

2:15:10 Greiner shared presentations on teacher evaluations and administrator evaluations. Indiana law requires that the teacher evaluation tools and results are shared publicly each year. The evaluation requirements were determined by union leaders together with administrators. The evaluation is based on 4 factors with weights: effective instruction (30%), instructional leadership (25%), student assessment/feedback (25%), and professionalism (20%). There are a minimum of 2 observations by the evaluator before completing the evaluation. Teachers are rated into one of 4 categories: highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or ineffective (see the table below which includes the data presented in the previous two years as well). 

	Total Teachers	Highly Effective	Effective	Needs Improvement	Ineffective
WLES 2023-2024	49	49	0	0	0
WLES 2022-2023	51	48	1	0	0
WLES 2021-2022	48	46	1	0	1
WLIS 2023-2024	37	33	4	0	0
WLIS 2022-2023	37	29	6	0	1
WLIS 2021-2022	35	30	5	0	0
JSHS 2023-2024	73	64	8	1	0
JSHS 2022-2023	73	60	13	0	0
JSHS 2021-2022	72	61	11	0	0
Total for WL 2023-2024	159	146	12	1	0
Total for WL 2022-2023	161	137	20	0	1
Total for WL 2021-2022	155	137	17	0	1

Yin asked Greiner how the student assessment/feedback is evaluated. Greiner said it is about how the teacher provides feedback to the student to help them grow. Yin shared that she thinks that the JSHS should solicit feedback from students and parents. Greiner said that for the evaluation of a teacher, student feedback is not solicited and they are not interested in doing this. Greiner said that some teachers may seek student feedback for themselves. Yin said she would also like to see this with administrators where feedback is solicited from the teachers. Greiner said that similar to the teachers, soliciting feedback for the administrators is not a part of the evaluation. However, he shared that some administrators choose to solicit feedback and use that information for themselves. He said he isn’t aware if this is done in this school district. 

Greiner said that the administrative evaluation is a locally developed evaluation. Administrators are rated into one of 4 categories: highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or ineffective. The evaluation is based on 6 standards from the IDOE: human capital, instructional leadership, leading indicators of student learning, professional behavior, building relationships, and culture of achievement. The score is determined from the administrator self-evaluation and supervisor evaluation. 

	Total Administrators	Highly Effective	Effective	Needs Improvement	Ineffective
2023-2024	9	5	4	0	0

This is the first year that administrator evaluation scores have been publicly reported in our school district.

2:31:28 Cronk asked for the Athletics Complex Running Track Replacement (Memo) and Proposal. The track needs to be resurfaced and will be done this fall.

Voted 7 out of 7 

2:33:18 Cronk shared the finance update (June Financial Report – Funds, July Financial Report – Funds, Credit Card Statement, and Claims Docket Object Breakdown). 

Mumford noted that a work session to consider issuing a new bond has been scheduled and motioned that the administration share publicly the transaction history for each of the construction accounts prior to that meeting. Wang seconded it. Austin asked if this information is already available to board members. Mumford said it is not and reminded Austin that she has asked for these financial records multiple times since being elected. Each request has been denied by the board president. Austin asked Cronk if this information is even available. Cronk said yes, she would need to go back and pull the statements from the construction accounts. Austin called for a vote on Mumford’s request for construction account statements.

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

How was the recent $95 million in borrowing spent? The financial documents have never been publicly released. Before being asked to approve more borrowing, the administration needs to show how the prior money was spent. Our current administrators have always responded to me that they would be happy to provide this information if the majority of the board allows them to do so. These financial records are public information and I do not think that the majority of the board has the authority to prevent them from being released. Since my requests as a board member have not been successful, I submitted a formal public records request for the construction account statements.

For those interested in knowing what is being proposed to borrow more, I share my understanding of how we ended up with so much debt and how the district proposes to put more funds towards debt service in this document.

2:37:00 Greiner shared the superintendent report. He said there was a positive start to the school year and shared appreciation to the staff, students, and families for their part in making the start smooth and exciting. He shared about a recent piece of legislation, HB30, which does not allow schools to charge transfer tuition. He explained that this does not affect our funding or the agreement we have with TSC because we charge TSC and do not directly charge families transfer tuition. TSC charges families the difference between the cost of educating a student at WLCSC compared to TSC. The agreement with TSC is that we accept students that live in the TSC boundaries and are approved by their superintendent. Our principals approve the applications based on space in our buildings or classrooms, as well as attendance and behavior records. Greiner noted that our enrollment numbers are down this year in kindergarten. Greiner reported that the central office staff have moved next to WLES into 3061 Benton Street. Board meetings will take place at that location once the space is ready, either in October or November. Strategic planning with consultant Adam Jones began with the central office team in July. They discussed the survey that will be sent out to all stakeholders. Wang asked about enrollment with the pilot pre-K program. Greiner said we currently have 12 students with a maximum capacity of 18.

2:44:34  Board Reports:

• Austin said that she has been working with State Representative Campbell about the diploma requirements changes. Campbell hosted an event over the weekend on the topic. The board of education was meeting on Wednesday to discuss what changes need to be made to the proposed requirements. The final decision has to be made by the state by December. Yin shared that she has sent feedback to the state but wondered about sending something from the school board as a whole which would have more influence. Austin said she would discuss it and decide on options. 
• Schott shared that West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation’s president, Doug Masson (a former school board member), has resigned. Brad Cohen (previously vice president) is the new president and Patrick Jones (previously a foundation board member) is now the vice president with Mary Beth Whitman continuing as secretary and Sue Lasater continuing as treasurer. 
• Marley shared that the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) met. Solar lights for the Sagamore Parkway trail were approved. 
• Yin shared that she attended ISBA training and they discussed authentic community engagement. 
• Witt said there was no board teacher discussion over the summer. She will be serving as the region 4 representative for ISBA. She is also participating in the ISBA book club. 
• Wang said he attended ISBA training and they discussed board policies and how to manage large projects. 
• Mumford shared that the Public Schools Foundation of Tippecanoe County (PSFTC) met. The fundraiser cupcake run is September 22nd and registration is open. She gave a shout out to WLES for being 2nd place of all the area schools for number of registrants with WLIS tied for 3rd. The fall grant deadline for teachers is September 25th. 

3:02:15 Austin shared about the upcoming board meetings in September. Mumford reminded her of the scheduled work session for August 26th to discuss the proposal to issue a new general obligation bond. 

Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room

Future Meetings (calendar link)

• Public Work Session on GO Bond – Monday, August 26th at 5:00pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room
• Public Work Session – *Monday, September 16th at 5:00pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room 
• Public School Board Regular Meeting – *Monday, September 16th at 6:00pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room

*DATE CHANGE: 3rd Monday of September instead of typical 2nd MondayThis 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.