May 12, 2025 Summary

Key Takeaways: The first half of the work session focused on clarifying what must be included in the official minutes, leading to a majority vote during the regular meeting to record all votes along with board member names, ensuring greater transparency for the community. The board approved a MOU with the police department that maintains an SRO in every school building and supports efforts to assign consistent officers to each location. The board approved a 50-cent increase in lunch prices for the 2025–2026 school year due to reduced reimbursements and rising food and labor costs, while breakfast prices will remain the same. The policy revision process, originally initiated in November 2023, has now resumed.

Agenda with links to board documents

Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording

0:00 – Work session discussion on meeting minutes
35:47 – Policy committee process for revising and adopting policies
1:01:16 – Food Service Highlights
1:10:14 – Approval to record all votes with board members names in meeting minutes
1:23:18 – WLCSC and WLPD SRO MOU
1:27:01 – Food Service Bid Recommendations
1:27:52 – Meal Price Recommendation
1:32:44 – Copier Lease and Buyout
1:37:09 – Ad Hoc Policy Committee Report
1:43:43 – First Reading of Policy A125 – Nepotism, Conflict of Interest, Gifts and Use of Corporation Resources; Policy C475 – School Sponsored Publications and Productions; Policy H200 – Relations with Special Interest Groups; Policy H250 – School Library Material Removal Request Procedure
1:53:13 – Superintendent Report
1:58:21 – CFO Report
2:01:17 – 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.

0:00 – The board held a work session before the regular meeting to discuss meeting minutes. No community members signed up to speak. Austin opened the discussion, asking whether all votes, including procedural and nondispositive ones, should be recorded, or if only final votes should be included. She expressed a preference for streamlined minutes but acknowledged ambiguity in determining which votes are dispositive. Lyle described a new template he created to make it clearer which votes are final board actions, while allowing readers to see votes leading up to those decisions. The template assumes motions are seconded unless otherwise noted. Yin expressed appreciation for the clarity and helpfulness of the template.

Witt opposed including all votes in the minutes, citing the availability of livestreamed video which provides the full context. She referenced differing legal opinions and stressed the importance of board unity after a majority vote is taken.

Mumford said that Indiana law requires the minutes to record all votes taken during school board meetings. She questioned why there was still debate on this matter, again referencing Indiana code. She cited the guidance received from two lawyers, one of whom stated that not recording all votes was “low risk, but carries risk,” and the other who clearly stated that Indiana statute requires all votes to be recorded. Mumford highlighted a key point made by the Indiana School Board Association: “The board speaks only through its minutes so it’s important to record all votes it takes and to summarize all discussion it has. The minutes are the only way to know what the board decided and discussed for current and future time.” She concluded by saying that all decisions, including failed or amended motions, should be part of the public record so that the community can clearly see the process and how board members voted.

Purpura said that including every amendment makes the minutes less clear. He emphasized that even though Robert’s Rules are not Indiana law, they call for only final actions to be documented and suggested that excessive detail clutters the minutes. He also argued that the board should follow the advice of their retained legal counsel, who said that streamlining the minutes was “low risk,” rather than following the advice of the Indiana School Board Association (ISBA) attorney. Witt said that the ISBA attorney’s opinion may not fully account for West Lafayette’s existing practices, including providing timestamped livestreams.

Wang emphasized that the Indiana Open Door Law requires all votes be recorded. He quoted the specific legal code and argued that transparency requires full documentation of every motion and result.

After board members had no other discussion, Austin stated that there would be a vote on how to structure meeting minutes in the regular meeting (at 1:10:14) and that board members could briefly share their opinions at that time.

The board remains divided on this issue. While there have been many arguments over the past few years about what to include in school board minutes, this was the first time the board held a work session to allow everyone to share their perspective.

This discussion about having accurate meeting minutes is important because on several occasions over the past few years the board leadership presented inaccurate meeting minutes and refused to correct the misrepresentations. For example, at the February 2023 meeting (6:31), Austin produced meeting minutes that recorded her having received 7 votes for her board leadership position rather than the 4 votes that she actually received. When asked to correct the misinformation, she argued that it would be better for the written record to show that the board was unanimous.

35:47 – Witt described a six-step process for revising and adopting new policies that the policy committee (herself, Wang, and Purpura) will follow. This includes referral by the board president, review by legal and central office, detailed examination and edits by the policy committee, presentation at a board meeting, public and board review between meetings, and a final vote on a clean version with any differing opinions addressed through individual votes.

Purpura suggested improving the second reading process by displaying the policy text on screen during meetings, allowing the board to review and edit language together in the same document. Witt agreed, noting she had just discussed the same idea with Austin earlier. Wang suggested adding a third reading and using work sessions for discussion with the final vote in a regular meeting. He also proposed clarifying how to phase out older policies to avoid conflicts. Witt added that this is also another part of the process that there will be a separate vote to eliminate or replace existing policies if the new policy is approved.

Mumford questioned how the board would address older, conflicting policies that were not formally rescinded when new ones were adopted. Purpura acknowledged the confusion and said that the board could pass a single motion to retroactively eliminate those outdated policies based on the approval of the new ones.

Mumford noted the incomplete and inconsistent mapping of new to old policies provided by legal council (CCHA) and asked if CCHA is responsible for creating an accurate mapping. Witt responded that the crossover document was outside the scope of CCHA’s proposal and was offered as a courtesy to assist the board, acknowledging it was not intended to be complete. She said that a full cleanup would occur after all new policies were adopted. Witt explained that for the fee our district paid to CCHA they provide continual support for policy changes due to new legislation. Purpura added that CCHA provides ongoing support, including reviewing and giving feedback on board modifications. Wang expressed concern that the $16,000 paid to CCHA for around 100 policies seemed overpriced, especially given that their current support is primarily through email, which is different than originally promised. He noted that similar services are typically available for about $50 per policy and pointed out that ongoing support for legislative changes from CCHA is a separate fee and not part of the $16,000. Austin said she would like to see the list of inconsistencies. Mumford offered to share the inconsistencies she identified.

56:00 – The work session was adjourned.

1:01:16 – The regular board meeting began with a Food Service Highlights presentation by Courtney FitzSimons, the food service director and dietician for WLCSC. She outlined the program’s accomplishments, challenges, and updates, emphasizing student engagement and meal customization. She shared photos of popular offerings such as the customizable sub and salad bar, Smartmouth personal pizzas, and the weekly Fiesta Bar with soft tacos, nachos, and taco bowls. She emphasized the department’s effort to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption and noted participation in the K12 Indiana co-op to improve purchasing power.

She outlined financial challenges following the phase-out of COVID-era funding, noting losses of $150,000 across two years due to decreased federal reimbursements and discontinued supply chain assistance. She presented current pricing, shared concerns about declining entitlement dollars, and noted the discontinuation of the DoD fresh and brownbox commodities programs.

FitzSimons also discussed local partnerships with vendors such as Sushi Boss, EverBowl, Java House, and Indiana dairies, as well as a recent collaboration with Domino’s to provide school-compliant pizza to WLES and WLIS. She highlighted several achievements, including passing the USDA administrative review, holding student taste tests, and receiving a grant to purchase a breakfast cart located in the commons at the junior/senior high school to boost participation.

Yin asked why younger students have fewer meal options compared to high schoolers. FitzSimons explained that lunch periods are shorter at the elementary and intermediate schools, limiting the ability to offer multiple options. Yin also asked about the community feedback survey on food service, to which FitzSimons replied that responses so far have been mostly positive

1:09:21 – No communication from the audience

1:09:29 – Consent Agenda

Voted 7 out of 7

1:10:14 – Procedures for Meeting Minutes: Mumford and Wang reiterated their support for including all votes in the official minutes to ensure full transparency and compliance with Indiana’s Open Door Law. Mumford emphasized that recording every vote eliminates legal risk and provides the community with a complete picture of how decisions are made. Purpura and Witt argued that only final votes should be recorded, as intermediate steps are part of the process and not formal board actions. Purpura said that documenting every vote might reduce clarity.

Lyle reminded the board that the newly developed minutes template was designed to accommodate both preferences by clearly marking final votes while still listing intermediate ones. Yin supported recording all votes along with each board member’s name to reflect accountability.

Purpura made a motion to limit the minutes to only include final motions with timestamps for any amendments.

Voted 3 out of 7 to only include final votes (Lyle, Mumford, Wang, and Yin opposed)

Wang made a motion to adopt Lyle’s template, which records all votes, including intermediate ones. Yin moved to amend the motion to include the names of board members and how they voted on every motion.

Voted 4 out of 7 to include names of board members (Austin, Lyle, and Witt opposed)

Voted 5 out of 7 to include all votes and board members names (Witt opposed and Lyle abstained)

This was a great outcome. Having accurate minutes that document all the motions and votes will provide a complete official record for the community. What stood out in this meeting was that all the board members expressed their own distinct perspectives. Through open discussion and multiple votes, the board reached a decision. This is the way it is supposed to work.

1:22:27 – Minutes of the April 14, 2025 Regular Meeting: Mumford made a motion to postpone the approval of the meeting minutes until the June meeting to allow time for revisions reflecting the newly approved format, which includes recording all votes and listing how each board member voted. There was no discussion.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:23:18 – WLCSC and WLPD SRO MOU: Greiner emphasized that there will continue to be an SRO present in every school building and that WLPD is working toward having consistent officers assigned to each building to strengthen relationships. Yin expressed appreciation for the positive rapport SROs have developed with students, sharing her own observations of student-friendly interactions at the elementary school. Wang asked for clarification on whether each building would have a dedicated SRO. Greiner explained that while the current arrangement ensures coverage in every building, the same officer is not always assigned consistently. However, a new grant application by WLPD may fund dedicated SROs for each school. When asked about the timeline, Greiner said the grant decision is expected by the end of summer for implementation in the next school year.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:27:01 – Food Service Bid Recommendations: Cronk presented a brief update related to the food service department’s participation in the K–12 Leading Indiana Cooperative (CLICK). She explained that CLICK handles the annual request-for-proposal process for food purchases on behalf of its member districts, including West Lafayette. For the 2025–26 school year, CLICK recommended a set of initial contracts and renewals, as detailed in the board memo.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:27:52 – Meal Price Recommendation: Cronk recommended a 50-cent increase in lunch meal prices for the 2025–2026 school year, citing decreased federal lunch reimbursement rates, the expiration of COVID-related supply chain assistance, reduced commodity entitlement funds, and increased labor and food costs. She noted that breakfast prices would remain unchanged.

Yin asked whether students could avoid being charged for milk if they chose not to take it, given some students prefer water. Administration clarified that under USDA guidelines, a reimbursable meal must include milk as part of the package, though students are not required to take it or consume it. Yin pointed out that this seems wasteful and asked if there was any way to avoid the cost. Cronk explained the rules are set by the USDA. Austin mentioned seeing bins at elementary schools where unopened items like milk can be placed for sharing.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:32:44 – Copier Lease and Buyout, Statement of Services, Maintenance Agreement, Software and Services Agreement: Cronk explained that the district currently uses various copiers under multiple lease and service agreements costing approximately $7,000 per month, with reported issues in equipment and service. To streamline operations and reduce confusion, the administration recommended consolidating all copier leases and maintenance into a single contract with Toshiba, using the state’s Quantity Purchase Agreement (QPA). Under this plan, Toshiba will buy out existing leases, and the district will pay $3,819.17 per month, with no minimum monthly service charges. The service agreement includes maintenance, repair, toner, and supplies, as well as card readers for badge-based follow-up printing. The five-year lease ends with a $1 buyout option, and legal counsel has reviewed the agreement. Cronk projected the district would save approximately $2,400 monthly.

Yin voiced support and encouraged broader discussions on paper-saving initiatives to further reduce costs and waste. Cronk said she and Hamilton have discussed such efforts and that this copier change is one of the first steps. She noted the district will receive monthly usage data to support further dialogue on cost-saving strategies. Greiner emphasized that while cost-saving is important, it’s essential that teachers continue to have access to the resources they need. He supported data-informed conversations involving all stakeholders.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:37:09 – Ad Hoc Policy Committee Report: Witt reported that the ad hoc policy committee, now composed of herself, Purpura, and Wang, met on April 27 along with central office staff. She explained that the committee is currently at step four of its process, which involves presenting its work to the full board. For this meeting, four policies will be brought forward for a first reading. One request was to reset all policies to first reading status, regardless of their current stage, to allow the committee to begin the review process with a clean slate. Witt noted that policies affected by recently passed state laws should be prioritized once updates from legal counsel and administration are received.

Mumford asked about the status of two policies not on the agenda: C200 on anti-bullying and G450 on naming rights. Witt explained that G450 is awaiting legal input, while C200 is paused due to a new law taking effect July 1, 2025, which will necessitate updated legal guidance.

Wang suggested that any proposed amendments be shared via email with all board members, and Austin added that community members should review the draft policies on the school website and submit their suggestions to the full board by emailing schoolboardmembers@wl.k12.in.us.

1:43:43 – Policy A125 – Nepotism, Conflict of Interest, Gifts and Use of Corporation Resources; Policy C475 – School Sponsored Publications and Productions; Policy H200 – Relations with Special Interest Groups; Policy H250 – School Library Material Removal Request Procedure and H250 Questions and Answers: First Reading of the four policies. A first reading of a policy allows the board to review and discuss a proposed policy change without taking formal action, with a vote typically occurring at a future meeting.

This policy revision process, which began with a 4-3 vote in November 2023 (20:16 & 2:50:19), has been chaotic and disorganized from the start. I hope that with this latest reset and more defined procedures, we can finally move forward productively and get policies properly discussed and approved.

1:53:13 – Superintendent Report: Greiner shared that several central office staff members recently attended the Indiana Association of School Business Officials (IASBO) annual meeting, where they received professional development and updates on legislative changes. He noted that the full impact of these changes, particularly those involving school funding and property tax relief, will unfold gradually and vary by district, likening each district’s experience to a snowflake.

Greiner shared several key legislative updates impacting the district. SEA 366 may affect the ability to accept transfer students from TSC, potentially requiring the adoption of an open transfer policy with class size limits. HEA 102 removes the mandate to use effectiveness labels in teacher evaluations, prompting a review of current evaluation practices. HEA 101 changes the Teacher Appreciation Grant criteria, limiting awards to 20% of teachers, with further guidance pending from the state. SEA 255 shortens the timeline for notifying parents about bullying incidents to the end of the next school day.

Prior state law allowed administrators to wait up to five days before informing parents that their child was bullied or was accused of bullying. As we considered our policy on bullying, our school administrators proposed informing parents within three days. I proposed same-day notification and am grateful that new state legislation has shortened the timeline. I expressed my support for quickly informing parents by speaking directly to state legislators and also during school board meetings (2024 October 0:49).

1:58:21 – CFO Report: March Financial Report – Funds, April Financial Report – Funds, Cash Flow, Credit Card Statement, Claims Docket Object Breakdown: Cronk reported that total claims from April 10 through May 2 amounted to $2,569,633.80, covering regular corporation expenses and Wabash Valley Education Center expenses. Of that amount, $1,623,732 was spent on wages, salaries, and benefits.

2:01:17 – Board Reports

Greater Lafayette Area Special Services: Yin attended the meeting on April 15. She reported that children in preschool can receive free special education services through GLASS if needed, which is a lesser-known service typically associated with K-12 students. She hopes preschools inform families about this resource. Yin also noted growing concern among special education educators regarding job security as GLASS is dissolved, and shared that one proposed solution is joint employment with both GLASS and individual school districts to ensure stability during the transition.
West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation: Witt reported that 38 seniors received 42 scholarship awards totaling $51,000. These awards will be recognized at a May 22 reception. One new scholarship, the West Lafayette Youth Baseball and Softball Scholarship, was added this year. The Foundation assisted in launching the “Pass the Pride” event where graduating seniors passed on Red Devil pride to kindergarteners via friendship bracelets.
Parks and Recreation: Purpura announced the Cason Family Park grand opening event is set for May 22nd. The park includes a 4.2-acre recreational pond, five nature-themed playgrounds, and the restored Moore Schoolhouse as an outdoor classroom. Activities throughout the day include tours, kayaking, crafts, a fishing derby, and outdoor yoga.
Public Schools Foundation of Tippecanoe County: Mumford reported that Erin Pierson, an intermediate school teacher, received a grant for a project titled “Stop Motion Animation Storytelling.” A reception to celebrate the grant recipients was scheduled for May 13 at Capo Wine Bar.
Legislative: Lyle said that property tax relief is limited, and new local taxes may offset savings. K-12 funding increased by 2% and minimum teacher salaries raised to $45,000. Partisan school board elections are now allowed, though party declaration isn’t required. Schools must enroll eligible middle schoolers in advanced math unless parents opt out. Lyle raised concerns about Senate Bill 289’s vague language on DEI, citing legal risks, and highlighted new limits on referendum timing that will affect future planning.
Redevelopment Commission: Austin shared that the Redevelopment Commission approved new equipment for a park, accepted bids for lighting projects, and provided new safety gear for the fire department.
Board/Teacher Discussion: Austin missed the Board/Teacher Discussion meeting but noted that participants were looking forward to summer.

2:19:26 – Adjournment

Upcoming Public Meetings in the Central Office Board Room, located at 3061 Benton Street:

Regular Board Meeting: June 9, 2025 at 6pm

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.

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply