September 8, 2025 Summary

Key Takeaway: The board discussed three options for the future transfer student policy: (1) keep our district closed while allowing for TSC to control which transfer students and how many to send, (2) keep our district closed while not accepting any new TSC transfer students but keeping all our current transfer students, and (3) open our district by setting a size for each grade, allowing students from any school district to apply, and using a lottery to select which applicants are accepted. There was a discussion on how these options may affect people moving into or out of our district as well as the effect on property values. The board approved 7 new policies, several with split votes.

Agenda with links to board documents

Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording

1:19 Work session on 2026 budget and fiscal plan
1:01:46 WLES data and goals
1:27:50 Public comment on transfers
1:31:12 Consent Agenda
1:32:28 Personnel Report
1:35:02 Budget Hearing
1:35:45 Transfer Student Policy Discussion
2:05:15 Pre-Bargaining Hearing
2:19:22 WLJSHS Natatorium Architect Agreement
2:38:47 Policy A125 – Nepotism, Conflict of Interest, Gifts, and Use of Corporation Resources approved
2:52:03 Policy H250 – School Library Material Removal Request Procedure approved
3:01:52 Policy A200 – Firearms, Weapons, and Destructive Devices approved
3:03:36 Policy A225 – Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect approved
3:05:32 Policy A285 – No Distracted Driving approved
3:06:42 Policy B100 – Board Authority and Philosophy approved
3:08:31 Policy B125 – Duties of the School Board approved with a 5-2 vote
3:49:56 First Reading of Policies: Policy B150 – Organizational Meeting, Board of Finances and Committees, Policy B175 – Functions, Policy B200 – Membership, Policy B225 – Board Meetings, Policy 250 – School Board Member Ethics, Policy C100 – Entrance Age and Requirements, Policy C125 – Determination of Legal Settlement and Eligibility for Enrollment WIthout Legal Settlement in the Corporation, Policy C150 – Homeless Students-Enrollment Rights and Services, Policy C175 – Student Attendance, Academic Engagement and Truancy Prevention, Policy C200 – Anti-Bullying
3:52:56 CFO Report
3:53:43 Board Reports

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

1:19 – The work session was held an hour before the regular school board meeting for Michelle Cronk and Mike Reuter to present the budget and fiscal plan in preparation for the 2026 budget, which is scheduled for approval at the October board meeting.

Cronk explained that the district faces a tight budget due to decreasing revenue ahead. Property taxes are a major revenue source. Projections show a decline in the assessed value of property in the district due to the state property tax reforms. Growth in assessed value is limited because there is little space for housing growth and many properties are in TIF districts. Our district is in a city with many taxing units that contribute to the overall property tax rate which raises circuit breaker losses and reduces the school district’s property tax revenue. As a result, the district is moving into a cash conservation mode.

Reuter said that the other important factor is student enrollment. The state projects a per-pupil funding increase of 1.13% in 2025–26 and 1.48% in 2026-27. However, the district’s enrollment has been declining since the pandemic and is projected to decline further, based on recent counts and cohort projections. This continuing downward trend in enrollment poses a significant financial challenge. While a variety of factors play a role, the recent expansion of transfer students into our district has signaled that families no longer need to live within district boundaries in order to send their children to schools in the district.

In addition to reductions in property tax revenue and enrollment, another source of financial strain is the new state legislation that prohibits charging transfer fees. As a result, our district will no longer collect tuition from TSC families (around $3,000 per transfer student) with an associated revenue loss of about $500,000 this year (1:55:52 June 2025).

57:44 – The work session was adjourned.

1:01:46 – The regular meeting began with West Lafayette Elementary School (WLES) Principal Sara Delaney presenting WLES data and goals.

1:27:50 Communication from the Audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began)

Brian Messer, parent of transfer students, shared how his children have thrived in West Lafayette schools through advanced classes and extracurriculars. He emphasized the commitment families like his make to be involved, including volunteering and by making donations, and highlighted the value out-of-district families bring to the community. He expressed gratitude that transfer students have been accepted and encouraged the board to consider the positive impact of allowing more families like his to join the district. I agree that transfer students and their families contribute to our schools. These families send their students to our schools because they place a high value on education. Our district’s current transfer practice, which changes at the discretion of administrators, has often left transfer families unable to voice concerns and at times fearful of a sudden change. Our district needs a written transfer policy that is transparent and helps transfer students and their families feel welcome.

1:31:12 Consent Agenda:

Witt motioned to remove Personnel Report from the consent agenda.

Voted 7 out of 7

1:32:28 Personnel Report: Witt asked about annual performance evaluations of coaches. Greiner explained that each head coach will receive a written summative evaluation from the athletic director at the end of each season or annually. Yin asked if families are invited to provide feedback. Greiner responded that families are not asked to provide feedback for the head coach evaluations, which are completed solely by the athletic director. Yin suggested it would be helpful to solicit feedback from team members and families, giving them a chance to share gratitude and feedback.

Vote 7 out of 7

1:35:02 Budget Hearing, Notice to Taxpayers, Bus Replacement Plan, Capital Plan

1:35:45 Transfer Student Policy Discussion: Mumford asked how much revenue the district gains under the current agreement with TSC compared to open enrollment. Cronk explained that the state provides TSC with about $7,350 per student while our district receives about $7,200 per student, a $150 per student difference. She reported that our district currently has about 160 transfer students. TSC charges a $50 administrative fee for each transfer student we receive through this unwritten agreement so each transfer student TSC sends provides our district with about $7,300 in revenue. Prior to this school year, TSC used to bill families between $2,000 and $3,000 per transfer student and send our district between $9,000 and $10,000 per student. A change in state law no longer allows this. Our district spends about $16,000 per student.

Mumford said that one proposal that has been discussed is to adopt open enrollment and asked what the budget impact would be. Cronk said that using the open enrollment system would give the district greater control of the size of each grade, noting that TSC currently has control over the number of transfer students they send us. However, our district would only receive $7,200 per transfer student rather than the $7,300 we receive for students from TSC. However our district could accept more transfer students which would increase school district revenue.

Mumford said that another proposal that has been discussed is to pause accepting new transfer students while keeping all of our current transfer students and asked what the budget impact would be. Cronk said that she estimates a loss of 20 to 30 students (primarily graduating seniors with fewer kindergarten students), amounting to a decrease in revenue of about $200,000 in the first year of the pause. Cronk noted the idea to increase the referendum to offset the reduction in revenue. She asked Policy Analytics to provide revenue projections for an increase in the property tax referendum rate from 37 cents per $100 in assessed value to 45 cents, but she does not yet have that estimate.

Witt asked what the budget impact would be if we had no transfer students. Cronk said that transfer student revenue is about $1.2 million in total. Witt asked for projections of what would happen year by year if the district were to stop accepting transfer students while keeping all our current transfer students and Cronk said that she would ask for that projection.

Lyle asked if the state legislature recently changed when school districts are allowed to run a referendum. Cronk said that they did and that we can only run a referendum election in even years. Purpura asked when we would need to make the decision in order to have time to get the referendum on the ballet in 2026. Cronk said that we would need to make the decision soon in order for the formal resolution to be approved by July 2026. Greiner said that if the board were to decide to call for a referendum at 45 cents and if it did not pass, the current 37 cents would remain and the district would find ways to reduce costs.

Yin said that she wanted to follow up on Witt’s question about the future projections if the district were to stop accepting new transfer students while keeping all our current transfer students. She asked that the projections consider the dynamic response to closing the district to new transfer students. Yin said that closing the district would encourage more families with children to move into the district and property values would likely rise. If our district were to allow open enrollment, this would encourage families with children to move out of our district and may cause property values to drop which would result in less school district revenue. Yin noted that there is added uncertainty about living in some parts of our district because of the strong feelings held by many about the new SK hynix plant.

Austin responded that “not everyone is afraid of the company that’s coming. I actually think that it is going to be great for our community. It is going to bring a lot of great jobs . . . and I have no intention of leaving because SK hynix is coming in.”

Returning to the topic of transfer students, Austin said that she personally cares about our transfer students and that children at home watching this school board meeting discussion may think that they are not wanted just because they are a transfer student. She said that having this discussion is hurtful to those children. Speaking to the camera she said that she wants to let the transfer students know that they are welcome and then told Yin that we should not be flip about saying that property values are more important than these children and their feelings. I have never heard any board member or any of our administrators say anything to suggest that our current transfer students are not welcome or that they would not be allowed to attend our schools. The rumor that some board members want to kick out our current transfer students is completely false. Austin is wrong to be stoking that fear.

2:05:15 – Pre-Bargaining Hearing: Indiana code requires the board to hold a public hearing before collective bargaining begins to allow public comment on teacher compensation.

Yin asked about administrative salaries and expressed support for increasing teacher pay and recommended a review of administrative positions and compensation. A community member had pointed her to data for the past 5 years that suggests teacher salaries had increased only modestly while administrative salaries had grown much more significantly. Administrator and teacher salaries are available on Gateway and OpenGovPay .

Austin said that the increase in the cost of administrative salaries is due to adding positions, like the assistant superintendent, because there were no large raises for individuals. Greiner said that the overall number of administrators has not changed. The district currently has 16 administrators, including central office staff, principals, assistant principals, and the special education director. He explained that one administrative position was added and another eliminated over the past five years. Regarding the assistant superintendent role, Greiner explained that it was created by consolidating multiple positions rather than adding a new one, and said that this restructuring was expected by the board at the time of his hiring.

Witt said that even talking about this topic could lead to misunderstandings in the community. She stressed that our district fairly compensates teachers. Greiner cautioned against potentially framing teaching compensation as a conflict between teachers and administrators and emphasized the need for unity during this time of financial uncertainty. He added that the administration is already reviewing each open position to determine whether it should be filled. Witt said that cutting administrative positions would push the workload onto others, particularly teachers and building-level staff. She noted that past efforts to reduce central office staffing led to problems and also shifted some burdens to those working directly with students. There definitely were serious problems in the past including the recent construction projects, the 2019 teacher reduction in force notification, and other financial decisions. But the blame is not all on previous administrators. Our district could have avoided these problems if board members had asked questions and discussed these issues publicly, rather than simply rubber stamping. I have appreciated the recent shift toward greater accountability with our new administrators and new board members.

David Joest, a JSHS teacher who has served on the teacher bargaining team, said that large differences between school districts in reported administrator salary might be due to whether benefits are included, making them difficult to directly compare. He expressed appreciation for the continued collaboration among the board, administration, and bargaining team. Joest made a good point. Salary comparisons with other districts need to adjust for differences in benefits. I would like to see those comparisons. Offering higher teacher salaries is one important way to attract the best teachers to our school district.

I agree with Yin that it is the board role to review changes in staffing and compensation over time. Claiming to value collaboration is not consistent with trying to shut down public discussion and it does not make the concerns go away. I hope the board will continue this discussion in the coming months as decisions about teacher and administrator compensation are finalized.

2:19:22 WLJSHS Natatorium Architect Agreement and Memo: Lyle asked Greiner to briefly explain the purpose of the pool project for the record. Greiner said the project involves work on the south-facing wall, repairs to the pool deck, and backfilling in certain areas.

Voted 7 out of 7

2:38:47 Policy A125 – Nepotism, Conflict of Interest, Gifts and Use of Corporation Resources and Disclosure Statement

Paragraph 6 recommended revisions: Mumford asked how employees are expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest, noting the policy lacked clear guidance. Witt responded that employee disclosures are covered under a separate policy, D225 on employee ethics, currently up for first reading. There was confusion about the policy committee’s recommendation for paragraph 6, and after discussion it was clarified that their intent had been to remove the first sentence but they had forgotten to cross it out. Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed approving the green revisions and supported using the blue revisions instead)

Paragraph 15 & 16 recommended revisions of allowing nominal gifts: Voted 7 out of 7

Policy A125 with voted on revisions: Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)

2:52:03 Policy H250 – School Library Material Removal Request Procedure:

Paragraph 7 with blue revisions: Mumford motioned to approve her recommended blue revisions, which add parents and potentially students to the committee, stating that community involvement is essential. She argued that the administration should be required to include community members and should not have the option to limit participation to only school staff, as the current language allows. Witt explained that the policy without the blue revisions gives the superintendent flexibility in forming the committee. Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed to including community representation on the committee)

Paragraph 7 with revisions from policy committee in green: Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)

Paragraph 8 revision requires the committee’s written recommendation to be shared publicly: Voted 7 out of 7

Policy H250 with voted on revisions: Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)

3:01:52 Policy A200 – Firearms, Weapons, and Destructive Devices

Voted 7 out of 7

3:03:36 Policy A225 – Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect: Mumford asked for clarification about the confusion caused by the second and third paragraphs repeating the same content. It was clarified that the second paragraph, originally from ISBA, should be removed, and the third paragraph with the blue text is the correct version to keep.

Voted 7 out of 7

3:05:32 Policy A285 – No Distracted Driving

Voted 7 out of 7

3:06:42 Policy B100 – Board Authority and Philosophy

Voted 7 out of 7

3:08:31 Policy B125 – Duties of the School Board

Paragraph 1 recommended revisions: Mumford noted that she had submitted the blue revisions and explained that they were based on past issues that underscored the need for clearer policies outlining the board president’s responsibilities. While she supported adding the phrase “work collaboratively,” she cautioned that the term can be interpreted differently, particularly on a divided board. To support equitable governance, she recommended requiring a vote for committee appointments, as done in some districts, and proposed adding language guaranteeing all board members full access to information—another issue she identified as a previous issue. Yin said she agreed that we should have clarification so that mistakes are not made. Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed the blue revisions)

Paragraph 1 with revisions from policy committee in green: Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)

Paragraph 3 revision to posting legal notices: Mumford asked for clarification on the secretary’s listed responsibility to post all legal notices, suggesting it reflects outdated practices and questioning why it is still included. Witt responded that, in practice, the secretary is responsible for ensuring the notices are posted. Yin added that the policy should reflect actual practice and not include duties that are not being carried out. Purpura then motioned to amend the policy to state that the secretary will ensure all legal notices are posted. Voted 7 out of 7

Paragraph 3 revision adding “The Board secretary shall also ensure that all parties who send written communication to the Board receive a response on behalf of the Board.” This had not been done previously with inconsistent responses to community members on behalf of the board so I appreciate that they followed my recommendation to revise the policy. Voted 7 out of 7

Paragraph 6 revisions: Mumford explained that she recommended adding the final two sentences in order to make clear who is authorized to communicate with legal counsel. She said this addition is necessary because board members have previously received misinformation about who may contact legal counsel and how those communications should occur, and the policy should explicitly state the proper use of this authority. Witt and Lyle shared concern with that final sentence that says, “All communications from the legal counsel shall be provided to all Board members.”

Wang recommended making a change to having questions to legal counsel be sent through the superintendent. Purpura noted that Wang is a member of the policy committee and said: “I just wanted to point out that the policy-committee-proposed revisions are ones that all three of us on the policy committee agreed on. Across every single one, we all fully agreed in those meetings that these were what we wanted to put forward as a group.” Witt added, “I do also want to commend [Wang]. He is very open to having these discussions in a public forum, and I appreciate that he is offering seconds to some of this blue language to allow that conversation to happen. But I agree with [Purpura]—there is nothing in these policies that we, as a committee of three along with our administrators, did not already agree on as suggested edits.” These comments just seemed to be Purpura and Witt trying to silence Wang.

Yin asked for the vote to be postponed in order to have questions addressed by the superintendent and our legal counsel. Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed)

Paragraph 6 revisions: Wang again recommended that the policy be revised to say: Board members may submit questions for legal counsel through the superintendent who will coordinate with legal counsel to ensure appropriate and consistent communication. Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed)

Paragraph 6 revisions: Mumford and Yin recommended to amend the final sentence in blue to say: All board members should have equal access to the communications from legal counsel. Witt argued that this revision would create a barrier between the superintendent and board chair, limiting needed consultation and access. Witt said, “As a former board chair, there were times when Dr. Greiner just needed to call me and say, ‘This is what is going on. What do you think is appropriate? This is what I can share. What should I share? And what should that timing look like?’ It’s an important dynamic.” Mumford said, “I have asked legal counsel if there’s anything that a board president is supposed to know that other board members are not, and I was told that there is not.” It is worth noting that Witt acknowledged Greiner had shared information with her in the past that was not provided to the rest of the board. However, there does not appear to be evidence of this occurring recently, suggesting a shift toward more consistent and appropriate communication practices in which information is shared equally with all board members. This improvement is appreciated, as selective communication with individual board members was not appropriate. Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed)

Paragraph 6 revision: The policy committee recommended changing the wording from specific legal problems to specific legal issues. Voted 7 out of 7

Policy B125 with voted on revisions: Voted 5 out of 7 (Mumford and Yin opposed)

With a divided board, it is not surprising that those in power would oppose policies designed to make processes more inclusive and prevent the misuse of authority.

3:49:56 Policies (1st Reading): Policy B150 – Organizational Meeting, Board of Finances and Committees, Policy B175 – Functions, Policy B200 – Membership, Policy B225 – Board Meetings, Policy 250 – School Board Member Ethics, Policy C100 – Entrance Age and Requirements, Policy C125 – Determination of Legal Settlement and Eligibility for Enrollment WIthout Legal Settlement in the Corporation, Policy C150 – Homeless Students-Enrollment Rights and Services, Policy C175 – Student Attendance, Academic Engagement and Truancy Prevention, Policy C200 – Anti-Bullying

3:52:45 Superintendent Report: Greiner opted not to give a report during the meeting, noting that any updates would be included in his Friday notes.

3:52:56 CFO Report: July Financial Report – Funds, August Financial Report – Funds, Cash Flow, Credit Card Statement, Claims Docket Object Breakdown

3:53:43 Board Reports

4:05:45 The meeting was adjourned

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

Regular Board Meeting: *October 6, 2025, at 6pm

*DATE CHANGE: 1st Monday of October (2nd Monday is Fall Break)

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