October 7, 2024 Summary

KEY TAKEAWAYS: After very little progress reviewing policies, Austin decided to restart the policy committee. Because Mumford writes school board meeting summaries, Austin will not allow her to serve on the policy committee. The proposed bullying policy, which will be voted on at the November meeting, allows school administrators to wait two days, after learning of a potential bullying incident, before informing the parents of the children involved. During the regular meeting, the board approved a general obligation bond which will provide the school district with $3.2 million in new funds to complete various maintenance projects like redoing the tennis courts at WLES. The strategic planning process will begin in October with surveys for students, parents, and community members.

Agenda with links to board documents

TOPIC TIMESTAMPS (Youtube Recording Link)

• 0:49 Discussion of anti-bullying policy C200
• 2:02 Discussion on restarting the policy committee
• 10:02 If Mumford keeps writing summaries she cannot be on policy committee
• 1:01:11 WLIS student recognition and report
• 1:27:00 Transportation director report
• 1:40:56 Communication from the audience
• 2:06:42 Minutes tabled 5-2 vote
• 2:12:07 District priorities and strategic plan update
• 2:24:29 GO Bond hearing
• 2:37:12 Adoption of Project and Preliminary Resolutions
• 2:39:51 Adoption of 2025 Budget
• 2:43:03 Adoption of budget authority resolution 5-2 vote
• 2:50:44 Adoption of transfer and loan resolution 5-2 vote
• 2:53:10 Health insurance renewal and premiums
• 2:57:52 Finance update and question about legal counsel cost for potential censure meeting
• 3:03:18 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.

The board held a public work session at 5pm.

0:49 Austin told the other board members that just prior to the meeting she had sent them an updated version of policy C200 on bullying (original version, the revised version has not been publicly shared). She said that she understands that she did not give them time to review and so there would be no discussion at this meeting. She announced that she will ask the board to vote to approve the revised policy at the next meeting on November 11. One of the most important issues with this policy is that it allows the school district to take two additional days after having received a report of suspected bullying before notifying the parents. No child should have to go back to school without parents first being informed that a bullying investigation has begun involving their child. Administrators do not need to have concluded their investigation before telling a parent that their child may have been bullied at school. Children do not always tell their parents what they are dealing with at school. For the school to not tell parents for up to two days means that children are going back into that situation at school the next day and the day after that without having received support at home from the parents. This policy cuts parents out and does not allow them to help their child know how to handle and respond to what is potentially a very difficult situation. The policy needs to be revised to require that parents be notified by the end of the day of any potential bullying situation that involves their child. The 2023 December Meeting (27:16) included a presentation on bullying in our schools with a discussion of the current practices for parent notification.

2:02 Austin asked for discussion on restarting the policy committee (Austin shut down the policy committee when she became board president). Witt shared that prior to this year, the school board had a policy committee that would mark up each policy with suggestions. Then the original version along with all the proposed revisions was shared with the entire board in the board packet. During a period in which the board revised all policies, the policy committee met two mornings a month and completed the review in two years. Yin recommended using all board members to review the policies with focused subgroups. Depending on the policy topic, each subgroup would seek input from relevant stakeholders. For example, a special education policy should have input from special education school personnel, parents, and students. Yin said that with new board members joining the board in January, it is also important to allow them to provide input. Austin said that we could wait until March or April to have this discussion so that the new board members can be involved or we could put something in place for the next few months. Austin said we will approve policy C200 on bullying in November and then we could wait until we have new board members. She said that legal counsel (CCHA) told her that there is no urgency to approve any of the policies. Austin said, “There are a couple of things that we are out of compliance in terms of the policy with the new laws, but as long as the practice is compliant with the law then [CCHA] isn’t worried that it is a vulnerability.”

10:20 Austin suggested that any of the three board members with a term on the board through 2026 (Wang, Witt, and Mumford) could be on the restarted policy committee. Witt said that she will not serve on a committee with Mumford because she writes summaries of school board meetings. Austin asked Mumford if she had any response to that. Mumford said that she would like to serve on the policy committee, but she plans to continue to write summaries of school board meetings. She noted that when Austin and Witt were on the policy committee, they did not follow Indiana’s open door law. The public needs to be informed when and where the policy committee meets as well as which policies will be discussed. Community members should be allowed to attend and share input. Witt said that she has a different interpretation than Mumford about open door law, but that the issue is that Mumford is writing meeting summaries. Austin asked Wang if he would serve with Witt on the policy committee. Wang said he is willing to serve on the policy committee but if others are interested then he is happy to have them serve instead. Wang said that he is concerned with the amount of time that will be required to replace all our policies and asked if this is really necessary. Austin said that we can’t stop the process now because we have both Neola and CCHA policies in place. Austin explained that the concern is that Neola’s policies are not consistent with our law firm’s practice and our policies have not been kept up to date. She said, “Our legal counsel said we need to switch these because they don’t match what we do.” Greiner corrected Austin and said it isn’t that our policies are inconsistent with practice. Austin said it is about the difference in interpretation of Indiana code. Greiner said that this isn’t about an interpretation. The policies follow Indiana code and then the board decides what language should be used that relates to our district. Greiner said that the board’s original interest was to reduce the number of policies. At the November 2023 meeting (2:50:19), there was a rushed 4-3 vote to hire CCHA to rewrite all our school districts policies. The board president had originally said that it would just be a discussion and that the vote would happen in December 2023. At the time, this was so urgent that we could not wait to receive answers to our questions nor could we wait to get a quote from a competing provider (ISBA). Now there is apparently no urgency even though very little has been accomplished.

17:40 Austin said she supports waiting to start the policy committee until April 2025. Mumford said that there are policies that have been a high priority since the beginning of the year and that have still not been addressed. She said that she had again asked that they be included on the agenda, but that Austin would not include them. For example the board was told that policy H250 on school library materials would be one of the first brought to the school board (2023 December 1:43:18). Our current policy 2520 is incomplete and references a subsection of policy 9130 that does not exist. Mumford said that in addition to policy C200 on bullying, other priorities include: policies G450 and H200 on naming rights which have not yet had a first read, have not been shared with the public, and need to be decided on before the West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation (WLSEF) can raise funds. Mumford said that policy A125 on nepotism and conflict of interest needs to be a priority because our school district is the only one she is aware of that does not require employees and board members to disclose conflicts of interest. Mumford said that policy D175 on board staff communications is a priority because current policy 4112 inappropriately restricts staff from communicating with board members. Like the policies in other school districts, the newly proposed policy does not restrict staff communication other than requiring that official communication follow the chain of command.

Austin asked Mumford about creating an ad hoc policy committee that would meet to address those policies between now and December. Mumford said that she has worked on these policies, has already shared revisions, and would like to discuss them in the policy committee. Austin asked Witt and Wang if an ad hoc policy committee would look at these proposed policies. Witt said that even though this has not been done previously, she would be willing to share with the public when and where the policy committee will meet. Witt said she wants the policy committee to review the policies and add revisions before anything is shared with the community. Austin asked if there is a requirement for a length of time that notification needs to be given for a committee meeting. Greiner said it needs to be 72 hours. Wang asked if we should invite parents to attend the policy committee meetings. Witt said no. She said, “It is our job as board members to sit down with expertise and look at the content.” Witt said that everyone in the community will have an opportunity to review the marked up documents and that the community would have 60 days to comment on anything. Wang asked if the policy committee would include Wang, Witt, and Mumford. Witt said not Mumford. Austin agreed and said that she would only appoint Witt and Wang to the committee. This proposed ad hoc policy committee was discussed during the regular meeting as well (2:02:07). After fighting through most of 2023 to try to get the policy committee (Austin and Witt) to follow Indiana’s Open Door Law, it is great that they finally seem willing. Austin and Witt clearly do not like that I write these meeting summaries. The implicit offer to put me on the policy committee only if I will stop writing these summaries is just another attempt to keep the public in the dark about what is going on in our schools.

29:08 Austin announced that the work session was over. It is discouraging that everyone had to sit for 30 minutes waiting for the regular meeting to begin just because Austin decided that she did not want the board to discuss any of the proposed policies.

1:01:00 The regular board meeting began with Margaret Psarros (WLIS Principal) and Beth Stansbury (new WLIS Assistant Principal) who recognized 12 students who were recommended by their teachers. We have wonderful students and families in our school district! I appreciate the administration and teachers for recognizing them.

1:12:22 Psarros shared a slide presentation with some information about WLIS. The current enrollment is 535 students in 4th-6th grade with 4 essential skills students, 38 teachers, and 39 support staff. 24.1% students qualify for free/reduced lunch and 8.4% are in special education. 10 students have speech and language IEPs, 35 can access the resource room, and 4 are in the essential skills class. There will be a cultural night on January 24, 2025 to promote understanding and appreciation of diverse backgrounds. 

State testing data demonstrates that WLIS students are at or above proficiency in math and language arts. The ILEARN Math proficiency rate increased from 66.4% in 22-23 to 70.1% in 23-24 as compared to the state average of 42.3% in 23-24. ILEARN English Language Arts (ELA) proficiency rate increased from 58.2% in 22-23 to 63.6% in 23-24 as compared to the state average of 41.1% in 23-24. The WLIS goal is to increase ILEARN Math proficiency to at least 75% and increase ILEARN ELA proficiency to at least 69% of students by 2027. They are using a new literacy textbook series, ILEARN checkpoints, intervention supports, and differentiated instruction to work towards the goals. The teachers are working to align the curriculum with state standards according to the ILEARN checkpoints. Yin said the increase in proficiency on the state tests is impressive and asked what may have contributed to it. She asked if the summer jump start program played a role. Psarros said the summer jump start program was a 2-week program right before school started. She said that it helped but wasn’t enough, so the focus is on what they can do during the school year. 

1:27:01 Doug Caldwell, transportation director, shared a presentation. We have 16 yellow buses and 4 white mini buses. Each day we run 63 routes which equals 11,214 routes per year plus 520 trips outside of the regular routes. Last year to comply with McKinney-Vento requirements, school transportation was provided for 3 routes outside of our district, 2 in Tippecanoe County and 1 in Clinton County. In addition to the routes to the 3 schools in our district, we provide transportation for students to go to Durgan (LSC), Battle Ground (TSC), GLCA (TSC), Linwood (LSC), Grant’s House, North End Community, Alternative School (LSC), West Lafayette Wellness Center after school program, and job programs. We are currently looking to hire one more driver. He shared that it has been helpful to park the buses at the Happy Hollow school property and have the transportation department’s office space at the old central office building. Marley asked about the concern with safety when cars drive past buses that are stopped with their stop arm out. Caldwell said that this is a continuous problem. Our new bus has a stop arm that is completely illuminated which helps with visibility. That bus has had fewer stop arm violations. Some stops, like those on roads with four lanes of traffic have lots of stop arm violations. The city police have been helpful in reducing stop arm violations. 

1:40:56 Communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began):

• John Hannigan (community member) shared appreciation for the partnership with the city to redo the tennis courts and add pickleball lines. He requested that all the courts be lined for pickleball and that each court have pickleball lines on each side of the net. 
• Colin William (parent) shared concerns with including parent and student feedback in teacher evaluations. Evidence from student evaluations at universities suggests that student feedback can be biased against female and minority instructors. His experience has been that there are already plenty of channels in our school district for parents to share concerns or praise.
• Cheng-Kok Koh (parent) said that the board president did not follow the bylaws at the September meeting. The agenda was removed from the consent agenda to add an additional agenda item, but there was no vote to add this item. This is a violation of policy 0166. The unapproved agenda item was a vote to initiate policy 0167. There was significant confusion on what this motion entailed as it was stated in conflicting ways and never received a second. Austin pushed for a vote anyway. The current draft of the September meeting minutes inaccurately states that Wang seconded the motion. It appeared that Austin and some board members worked together before the meeting on this because Austin said that she had already contacted legal counsel about this before the meeting. Koh said this violates policy 0144.2 which prohibits board members from participating in irregular or secret meetings. Austin interrupted Koh and said that he is correct that she messed up the order of the meeting and she apologizes. Austin said that the reason she contacted legal counsel during the board meeting discussion is because she has a difficult schedule and wanted to send it before she forgot. She said that maybe this was inappropriate, but if the vote had not passed she could have told legal counsel it wasn’t necessary. Austin said it is hard doing everything she has to do while she runs the meeting. Koh asked to continue and said during that meeting, Witt alleged that Mumford’s school board meeting summaries are her “personal speculation” and that they are “unnecessary, mean spirited, and politically motivated without clear beneficial purpose to our students and schools.” Koh said that he has attended meetings and watched the live-streams and disagrees with this allegation. The summaries are objectively accurate. Koh said that the summaries keep him informed about the school district and make him aware of different and sometimes unpopular viewpoints. He believes the summaries are necessary and they promote transparency. Koh said that some community members who don’t like that Mumford writes these summaries is not a reason to censure her. He hopes that we don’t teach our students that if they don’t like opposing opinions then they should suppress them. The Saturday before the September meeting, Austin and Witt discussed their plan to vote for the censure policy. Austin chose to not add it to the agenda and hide it from the board.
• Lora Marie Williams (WLCSC alumni and parent) said that Mumford ran on the issue of increasing transparency which is why she was elected. There was a lot of confusion about the school district’s spending and a lack of information about the large debt. The community wanted more accountability and wanted to understand what was going on behind the scene. Williams said that we live in a community of diversity and we should strive for inclusion. Our community has a legitimate expectation that board members work together peacefully and inclusively. Williams said that censuring Mumford for something the community voted for her to do is like censuring the community. Williams said that many people are upset about this attempt to try to silence Mumford and that it is an abuse of power. Williams said that any board member can write a blog and that people would read them all and would appreciate them because the community wants to hear the board members’ opinions and wants to better understand the issues. She asked that the board not suppress information and instead be an open and inclusive board.
• Erin Moon-Walker (parent who transferred her students out of our school district) referenced the active shooter threat at the high school in the spring and how parents were upset that the school district didn’t notify them quickly enough. She asked why a bullying situation where a student threatened to assault another student would take our schools two additional days before informing the parents. Moon-Walker said that she previously shared about the assault on her child at school and already talked about how she was not informed. Rather than setting up a safety plan, the bullying escalated (2022 October 8:24). She asked how many children have to be injured before the board will reconsider the parent notification time frame. Moon-Walker said that the revised anti-bullying policy should align with mental health professionals’ duty to warn of an imminent threat. The school’s therapist and counselors are ethically required to inform parents immediately. However, this policy would allow school administrators 48 hours after having received a bullying report to notify the parents. That includes threats to trans children, children of color, disabled children, and other protected classes despite all the barriers their parents may face in their efforts to keep them safe. The recent school board discussion prioritized administrators’ convenience over children’s safety (September 13:06). The school district’s legal counsel, CCHA, wrote this proposed policy. Moon-Walker said that the board should not renew their contract with CCHA.

2:00:28 The board was asked to approve the consent agenda items:

• Agenda for the October 7, 2024 Regular Meeting
• Minutes of the September 16, 2024 Work Session
• Minutes of the September 16, 2024 Regular Meeting 
• Minutes of the October 1, 2024 Executive Meeting
• Field Trip: German Classes to Christkindlmarket and Goethe Institute in Chicago
• Eric Ulrich, District Safety Specialist and County Safety Commission Appointee
• Personnel Report
• Accounts Payable WLCSC, Accounts Payable WVEC, Accounts Payable Internal Adjustments

Witt motioned to move the agenda off the consent agenda and Marley seconded it. Mumford motioned to move the September regular meeting minutes off the consent agenda and Yin seconded it. The consent agenda was voted on without the items of the agenda or regular meeting minutes.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:02:07 Witt motioned to add to the agenda for the October 7, 2024 regular meeting an ad hoc committee consisting of Witt and Wang to discuss the 5 proposed policies referenced in the work session and Wang seconded it. Wang asked if they could include others on the committee like administrators, teachers, parents, and community members to allow for more input and perspective as they work on the policies. Austin asked Witt to share how they have handled the policy committee in the past. Witt said that the committee will only consist of Witt, Wang, Greiner, and Julian to compile recommendations to share with the board and then they will share it with the community via the school’s website. Community and teacher input will be allowed after they have been shared publicly. The policy committee meeting is scheduled for October 30, 2024, 8:00 – 9:30 AM at the new central office building on Benton Street. It is open to the public and anyone is allowed to attend. 

Voted 7 out of 7 to approve the revised agenda

2:06:42 Mumford motioned to table the minutes of the September 16, 2024 regular meeting because as a community member just pointed out, the minutes are not accurate. She noted that the original draft inaccurately reported vote counts for votes that did not happen in the meeting. Yin said that she appreciates that the minutes now have more detail than in the past. She said that she would like the September minutes to be revised to clarify that the censuring discussion and the vote that followed was confusing. Yin said that the motion was confusing and it was not clear what the board was being asked to vote on. Yin said that she talked to the election board and they said that they should have redacted the sensitive information before publicly sharing the documents. She noted that Mumford redacted the sensitive information herself. Witt made a point of order and said that this discussion should be about the minutes. Yin responded that she has been sharing what was excluded from the minutes. Wit said that she is making a point of order and that we need to vote. Austin said that suggested revisions can be shared with Julian and the vote can be postponed to November. Austin called for a vote on the motion to table. Wang said that he would first like to share some comments on this topic before the vote. Austin said that Witt made a point of order that requires an immediate vote and said that she would not allow Wang to speak on this topic. 

Austin is again misusing Robert’s Rules to silence board members that she does not want to allow to speak. A point of order is used by a board member to bring a procedural issue to the attention of the board president, essentially claiming that a rule is being violated and requesting that the meeting follow proper procedure. There is no immediate vote. The board president is supposed to figure out the proper procedure and then follow it. Apparently, that is not how it works for our school board. For example, I made a point of order at the September meeting (1:40:44) when Austin was not following board policy on public participation. Our policy requires that comments from the audience be about school programs, policies, or procedures and that these comments cannot be directed to individual board members, other than the board president. It is the board president’s responsibility to see that this policy is followed. There was no confusion or disagreement about the proper procedure, Austin just chose to ignore the rules.

Voted 5 out of 7 (Schott and Witt opposed) to table approval of the minutes

2:11:22 Austin asked for approval of the ad hoc policy committee. Wang motioned and Witt seconded it.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:12:07 Greiner shared an update on District Priorities and Strategic Planning. Surveys have been prepared and will be shared on October 21st with a deadline to complete them on October 28th. The surveys will go out to students in grades 2-12 with time to complete them at school. Parents can opt students out of taking the survey by contacting building administrators. Staff and parents will receive surveys via email and the community via social media. Greiner said that he looks forward to the strategic planning process to gather broader input and collaboration.

Greiner shared the district priorities from last year and highlighted what has been achieved. He is continuing to work on professional development opportunities for staff as well as consistency across the buildings of teams working on addressing student needs. The new pre-k pilot program has begun. The school’s website is updated to now better provide resources and information. There is a way for parents and the community to share good news. With funds from the proposed general obligation bond, he hopes to be able to address the Happy Hollow facility. The transportation department has been moved to the old central office building at Happy Hollow. Greiner continues to work to show appreciation to the community for passing the referendum in 2023. Our school district has aligned with the state guidelines to no longer charge for curricular materials. We hired a behavioral specialist teacher and an additional behavioral facilitator.

2:24:29 GO Bong Hearing and Resolution and Information from Baker Tilly. Kristin McClellan from Ice Miller explained that when a school corporation wants to spend more than a million dollars on a building, it has to have a public hearing to set the maximum parameters for the borrowing. Greiner said that the list of potential projects were determined by the 2022 Fanning Howey feasibility study. He noted that the city has confirmed through the redevelopment commission that they will provide $750,000 to support our tennis court project. Cronk said that we do not have sufficient funds in the operations budget to address our maintenance and equipment needs. She clarified that the item listed as Happy Hollow facility demolition is a partial demotion as there are still portions of the facility that are usable. 

Lindsay Simonetto from Baker Tilly shared the presentation that was previously shared at the September meeting and August work session. Current bond payments for this year are about $6 million and increase each year to about $7 million. General obligation bonds are issued in the name of the school corporation with a limit to the amount that can be issued. General obligation bonding ability is tied to the assessed value of property in the school district. The maximum amount of general obligation bonds that our school district can issue is $8.5 million. The proposal is for a $6.2 million general obligation bond which would be paid back over 6 years. There is an upfront cost of $200,000 in issuance fees, paid out of the borrowed amount, and projected interest costs of $724,000 over the 6 years. Soon after issuing the bonds, the school corporation would use the $2.8 million remaining in the 2017 construction account (the previous board restricted these funds to only be used for debt payment) to make a large one-time debt payment. This means that there would just be $3.2 million in new funds available. The impact to taxpayers depends on if they are homeowners or commercial as well as their address and tax caps. Issuing this debt should increase the debt service tax rate back to the historical 0.5375 rate. For details on the tax impact to homeowners, see the September meeting (3:12:33) as well as the Tippecanoe County Property Tax Database where you can look up the assessed value for any property in the county (search by owner name or by address).

2:37:12 The board was asked to approve each of the resolutions that were discussed during the hearing: Project Resolution, Preliminary Determination Resolution, Preliminary Bond Resolution, and Reimbursement Resolution. They were each voted on separately and each received unanimous support.

Voted 7 out of 7.

2:39:51 Cronk shared about the budget adoption process and asked for approval of the 2025 School Budget.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:41:09 Cronk asked for approval of the 2025 Referendum Fund Revenue Spending Plan.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:41:48 Cronk asked for approval of the 2025 Capital Expenditures Plan and Resolution.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:42:32 Cronk asked for approval of the 2025 School Bus Replacement Plan and Resolution.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:43:03 Cronk asked for approval of the Resolution of Budget Authority which grants authority to the Superintendent and/or CFO to make changes to the appropriations without needing board approval. Mumford said that like she did in 2023, she will vote against this resolution because it hands over the board’s authority to review and approve financial decisions (2023 October 2:19:40). Mumford said that we make better financial decisions as a school district when administrators are required to present their justification to the board and ask for approval. Witt said that the administration has always been forthcoming with information and they have proven their professionalism. Wang said that the board has authority over budget decisions and the board is accountable for the school corporation’s solvency. He is grateful for the administration and appreciates their work but said that the administration should be required to receive board approval to make changes to the budget appropriations. Yin asked why the administrators are requesting this. Cronk said one example is if there were cash flow issues at the end of the year then she could cut the appropriations so those funds would not be available to spend. Another example is that they are planning to reduce appropriations in the operations fund in order to fund the 2025 budget. Cronk said that she would inform the board. Witt said that Wang is questioning the legality of this resolution and asked if it is legal. Cronk said yes. Wang said that he didn’t say this resolution is illegal, but Indiana code says that the board is responsible for the budget and we should not relinquish our oversight duty. He said that this resolution is contrary to policy 6231 that states, “If, during the fiscal year, it appears to the Superintendent that actual revenues are less than estimated revenues, including the available equity upon which the appropriations from the fund were based, the Superintendent shall present to the Board recommended amendments to a Fund that will prevent expenditures from exceeding revenues.” 

Voted 5 out of 7 (Wang and Mumford opposed)

2:50:44 Cronk asked for approval of the Transfer and Loan Resolution, which allows the business office to transfer or make loans between funds as needed for cash flow purposes. They have done no transfers up to this point in 2024. If the GO bond is approved, they will transfer the 2017 construction funds to the debt service fund to make a large debt payment in 2025. Mumford said that she will also be voting against this resolution for the same reason as she gave for the prior resolution. She said that the board should not be so quick to give up its authority over financial decisions. She trusts our administrators, but there is value in requiring them to explain these financial moves to the board. Wang said he will vote no for the same reason because the board’s role is to oversee the finances. Witt said we should allow our administrators to do the job we hired them to do and not complicate things.

Voted 5 out of 7 (Wang and Mumford opposed)

2:53:10 Cronk asked for approval of the Health Insurance Renewal and provided a memo. Currently, the market trend is an 8% increase in medical claims and a 13% increase in pharmacy claims. We recommend only a 2% increase on premiums for the 2025 plan year, which for an employee on the single PPO plan will increase only $0.60 per pay and for the high deductible plan would only have an increase of just $0.44 per pay. There has been no increase in the Anthem dental premium since 2019 and Anthem called for a 12.5% increase, which for a single employee dental plan will be an increase of $1.60 per pay. The corporation shares in any premium increase and the total increased cost to the district in 2025 will be about $60,000. Cronk also noted that our clinic has reduced the cost of medical claims. 

Voted 7 out of 7

2:57:52 Cronk shared the Finance Update: August Financial Report – Funds, September Financial Report – Funds, Credit Card Statement, Claims Docket Object Breakdown. The internal adjustments claim document that was approved in the consent agenda was for an adjustment made to reimburse the corporation for expenses made during the past year that should have been paid from a grant. 

Wang asked if there will be a cost to the corporation for the meeting with legal counsel, Austin, and Mumford. Austin said that she is still working on scheduling this meeting. She said there has been no information about an additional charge. Austin said that CCHA prepared a draft of the censure resolution and said that Mumford is reviewing it. Mumford said that nothing has been sent to her. Austin said that she will email it to her. Yin asked if it is clear that CCHA will not charge anything extra for this meeting. Austin said that CCHA did not promise anything but did not mention anything to her about an additional charge. Witt said the agreement with CCHA is that if there is an additional fee for their services, they announce it in advance. Yin asked Austin to verify with CCHA that there is no extra cost. Witt said that the board voted for the meeting to take place no matter the cost. Wang said that the procedures around that vote should be studied because the motion did not receive a second and so it isn’t clear if the vote is valid. Witt said “point of order.” Yin asked to make a comment and Austin said that there was a point of order and it is time to move on. 

Again, that’s not how a point of order works. It is discouraging to watch how Austin has misused the power she has as school board president. She frequently ignores board policies and procedures and there is nothing that an individual board member can do when the majority of the board is totally unwilling to compromise.

3:03:18 Board Reports:

• Austin attended the Hoosier Women Forward Luncheon with Chris Campbell and the Indiana School Board Association (ISBA) conference in Indianapolis. She said she would like to have Greiner’s evaluations from each board member by October 21. Mumford asked for clarification about why Austin sent an email threatening to censure any board member who asks questions about the superintendent evaluation process. Mumford said that she understands that the evaluation is confidential, but asked why Austin will not allow questions about the process. Austin said that Mumford can ask a question about the process. Mumford asked when the timeline and steps in the evaluation process will be shared with the board. Austin said that she will collect the evaluations and then will meet with the board officers to decide how to proceed. Mumford said that last year there was a clear timeline with an executive session with the entire board. Austin said, “I honestly can’t predict my own availability and don’t know how long compiling the information will take. As soon as I know, I will give you plenty of warning that things have been completed.” Witt pointed out that this process needs to be completed before the end of December before new board members join the board and Austin said she intends to have it complete by the end of December but she does have other obligations. 
• Schott said that the WLSEF hosted 2 alumni reunions. Fall teacher grant applications are due October 25th. The Lehman Family Scholarship, established by Gary and Michelle Lehman, is a renewable scholarship for up to 4 years for undergraduate education. Summers Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling gave $6,375 for the backpack program, which helps 50 families in our schools. 
• Marley shared that the Redevelopment Commission met. Salisbury Corridor should be finished by the end of the year and Cason Family Park by May of 2025. The public safety portal is available to see the designs. They are putting solar panels at the Wellness Center and along the Sagamore Parkway trail.
• Yin shared that she attended the ISBA conference. She attended sessions on legislative issues, capital projects, university partnerships to provide free college courses to high school students, and how administrators can use AI to help with their tasks. The AI session presenter was school board candidate Beau Scott. She would like to see a discussion with Purdue about potentially partnering with them. 
• Witt shared that she attended the ISBA conference. Teacher discussion involved teacher contract days and open houses at the beginning of the year. 
• Wang shared that he attended the ISBA conference for a day and half. The parks and recreation hasn’t met since the last board meeting.  
• Mumford shared that the Public Schools Foundation of Tippecanoe County (PSFTC) has not met since our last board meeting. They had a successful cupcake run fundraiser on September 22nd with great support from many in our school district. Mumford asked Austin if she is legally allowed to continue to prevent Dr. Greiner from sharing information that she has requested. Austin said she doesn’t know what she is talking about. Mumford reminded Austin that she directed Greiner to not provide Mumford with the information she requested “until we get the issue of Dacia doxing constituents resolved.” Mumford said she also brought this up at the September meeting (1:53:38) and Austin is still restricting Mumford’s access to information. Austin said there will have to be a conversation about it and if the information can be kept confidential. Indiana law says that a school board member cannot be denied access to school information.

Location: Happy Hollow Building, LGI Room

Future Meetings (calendar link)

• Public Work Session – Monday, November 11th at  5:00pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room
• Public School Board Regular Meeting – Monday, November 11th at 6:00pm at Happy Hollow LGI Room

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.