Key Takeaways: The transfer policy and referendum survey received over 800 responses. Community forums on these issues are scheduled for January, with planning underway and dates to be announced. A consultant presenting community input on the Happy Hollow facility reported strong support for keeping the site, with interest in expanding its use for flexible, multi-purpose programming while preserving existing student activities. Recommendations included clearer branding, potential partnerships, and facility upgrades to strengthen its role as a valued community space. A new district policy was debated and narrowly approved that removes the ability for parents to appeal to the superintendent when they disagree with a student promotion, placement, or retention decision, making the principal decision final.
Agenda with links to board documents
Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording
- 0:00 – Recognition of Scripps Spelling Bee winner
- 2:37 – JSHS update on new PE elective course proposal
- 4:45 – Consent agenda approval
- 5:18 – Happy Hollow community input update and facility recommendations
- 18:37 – Administrator/classified raises aligned with teacher contract
- 22:44 – Property and casualty insurance renewal
- 26:29 – E-Rate internet services purchase
- 28:01 – Happy Hollow chiller recommendation
- 31:22 – Policies without revisions, discussion on volunteer background checks and RIF policy
- 48:33 – Policy D100 Corporation Organization
- 49:59 – Policy D125 Superintendent Evaluation
- 1:07:55 – Policy D150 Board-Superintendent Relationship
- 1:08:58 – Policy D200 Student Supervision
- 1:13:12 – Policy D300 CDL Substance Testing
- 1:16:38 – Policy E100 Curricular Materials Adoption
- 1:17:25 – Policy E125 Promotion/Retention with 2 of 7 vote to keep option to appeal to superintendent
- 1:40:45 – Policy E150 High Ability Programs
- 1:44:45 – Policy E200 Religious Release Time
- 1:58:22 – Policy E225 College/University Programs
- 2:02:09 – First reading of 34 new policies
- 2:05:51 – Rescind Policies from Neola Bylaws Section 0000
- 2:06:39 – Superintendent Report: transfer and referendum survey information and plan for community forum
- 2:08:13 – CFO Report
- 2:09:13 – 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 regular meeting began. Austin moved my seat assignment to the far end in response to a request from Witt to not have to sit near me. Her complaint is that I make an audio recording of each public school board meeting on my cell phone. Given the history, it’s not surprising that recording public meetings makes them uncomfortable. However, it’s hard to understand her reaction, considering I write these summaries and the school’s own recordings are not always reliable. Witt and Austin both served on the board during the period when the board was unwilling to share even basic information, including keeping the entire board packet confidential (in violation of Indiana law). At that time, the board apparently was trying to prevent people from recording meetings by banning cell phones (also in violation of Indiana law). Witt was board president at the time WRTV Indianapolis broadcast a news story about our school board’s lack of transparency.
0:00 Kathy Parker, with LARA Educational Opportunities, recognized Sharanya Kar, a 8th grade student, for winning the Scripps Regional Spelling Bee.
2:37 Chad Rodgers, JSHS Principal, shared that counselors recently visited 8th-grade English classes to help students think about their four-year high school plans in preparation to register for courses next semester. He also previewed a new course, combining nutrition and physical education (with yoga), with a proposal coming to the board in January.
4:36 No communication from the audience
4:45 Consent Agenda:
- Agenda for the December 8, 2025 Regular Meeting
- Minutes of the November 10, 2025 Work Session
- Minutes of the November 10, 2025 Regular Meeting
- Donation
- Personnel Report
- Accounts Payable WLCSC and Accounts Payable WVEC
Voted 7 out of 7
5:18 Happy Hollow Community Input Update: Consultant Adam Jones from Skybound Education presented a summary of the community feedback gathered through surveys and focus groups regarding the future of the Happy Hollow facility. He emphasized that there is strong community support for retaining the property, with fewer than ten respondents suggesting it be sold or rented out entirely.
More than 90% of survey respondents indicated a willingness to pay for programming at the site. Popular suggestions included after-school programs with transportation, and potentially child care, though interest in the latter was mixed. Jones noted a perception issue, where some community members view Happy Hollow as unused space. He recommended the board consider developing a clearer identity and branding for the facility.
The priority is maintaining current student activities at Happy Hollow, such as robotics, sports, band, and cheer. There was also support to create a proposed large flexible multi-purpose space, such as a fieldhouse, that could support various events and generate revenue. There was a caution against creating highly specialized spaces, which may be harder to use consistently.
Jones also reviewed opportunities for improving underutilized areas. These included rehabbing the second floor for storage or usable space, assessing revenue-generating leased spaces like the library media center and former board room, and considering upgrades to outdoor spaces like the old tennis courts. Community members expressed a strong emotional attachment to the building, and some urged preserving its architectural elements even if modern upgrades are made.
He suggested the board look into aligning with the city’s five-year Parks and Recreation plan and explore partnerships with local corporations for funding opportunities, including naming rights. The overall tone of the feedback was one of enthusiasm and hope for a future that keeps the facility both functional and deeply connected to the community.
18:37 Classified Staff and Administrator Raises: Greiner explained that administrators will receive the same raise as teachers on the first column of the contract, prorated on a daily basis. To qualify for the raises, administrators must have worked at least 120 days in the prior school year and received an evaluation rating of “effective” or “highly effective,” aligning with the teacher evaluation criteria.
Voted 7 out of 7
22:44 Property/Casualty Insurance Renewal
Voted 7 out of 7
26:29 E-Rate Internet Services Purchase
Voted 7 out of 7
28:01 Happy Hollow Chiller Recommendation
Voted 7 out of 7
31:22 Policies Without Recommended Revisions: D225 Employee Ethics, D275 Drug-Free Workplace, D325 Employee Background Checks and Mandatory Reporting, D350 Fitness for Duty Leaves and Examinations, D375 Employee Discipline, D400 Family and Medical Leave (FMLA), D425 Employee Benefits, D450 Resignation, D475 Justifiable Decrease in Teaching Positions, D500 School Resource Officer Employment & Training, D550 Remote Work, E175 Student Records. After months of requesting that the policy committee clearly list which old policies are being replaced by the new new policies, they finally did it and listed old policies to be rescinded on the agenda. It takes persistence to ensure that complete information is shared with the public.
Referencing policy D325 on volunteers and background checks, Mumford asked what the current guidelines are at each school building. Greiner said that for ongoing contact or situations where a volunteer is not under direct teacher supervision, a full background check is required. For short-term activities, such as a one-day field trip or classroom visit under teacher supervision, volunteers provide their driver’s license upon entry. Mumford noted that there have been inconsistencies and some confusion in the past and asked that the district send out clear information to parents about volunteer background check requirements. She said that the explanation Greiner just gave was clear and more welcoming than some prior communications. Purpura recommended sending a dedicated district-wide email, noting that such details could easily be missed in a newsletter. Greiner confirmed the district would send out a standalone email through Skyward and allow schools to personalize the message if they wished.
Mumford asked for clarification on policy D475 regarding the procedure for a reduction in force (RIF) in teacher positions. She asked about the order in which positions would be affected and whether the criteria would be detailed in administrative guidelines. Greiner confirmed that the process will be clearly outlined in administrative guidelines, developed with legal counsel to ensure legal compliance and to protect the district. He emphasized that the district takes a proactive approach to avoid RIFs, which can create instability and anxiety. Reflecting on past experience, Greiner explained that he prioritizes providing teachers with stability and support, and the district continuously plans ahead to avoid such scenarios. Greiner’s response was reassuring and hopefully will help the teachers feel more supported and secure. The last time the board approved a RIF process was in April 2019. I was a teacher at WLES at the time and personally know several teachers who chose to leave our district due to the uncertainty and lack of support from district leadership. 15 teachers resigned over the next 4 months, 23 in total that academic year.
In terms of the process, Greiner stated that seniority is a factor, but not the sole criterion. The RIF process also considers teaching needs and evaluation ratings, such as “effective” versus “below effective.” A RIF would not simply go in reverse seniority order.
Voted 7 out of 7
48:33 Policy D100 Corporation Organization with the recommendation to add the blue text.
Voted 7 out of 7
49:59 Policy D125 Evaluation of the Superintendent with the recommendation to add the green text. Mumford emphasized that the superintendent’s evaluation should reflect the perspectives of all seven board members, not just those of the board president or leadership. She motioned to adopt the two blue sentences along with the policy committee’s proposed addition that the Superintendent provide a written response to the evaluation.
Witt explained that the policy committee’s proposed addition (in green) gives the board officers flexibility in what and how they deliver the evaluation to the superintendent in order to emphasize support for the superintendent’s success. Wang said he agrees with the focus on promoting the superintendent’s success, but suggested that the word “incorporate” might be better replaced with “consolidate” to more clearly indicate that individual board member input should be combined and shared as a whole, rather than selectively altered. He clarified that he favored presenting aggregated information rather than adjusting individual board member feedback.
Voted 3 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed Mumford’s motion)
Witt motioned to approve the policy committee’s proposed addition (in green) with Wang’s proposed word change from “incorporate” to “consolidate”. Yin asked what the common practice in other districts is for how evaluations are presented to the superintendent and expressed a preference for aligning with standard procedures. Austin said that previously the board president met individually with the superintendent and presented the evaluation alone, but this year it was the group of three board officers. She explained, “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who wants to sit through a performance evaluation with seven people who cannot agree on the wording of a policy. If we are in a meeting and one person is saying, ‘I want you to go left,’ and another is saying, ‘I want you to go right,’ that creates confusing information. This meeting is too important for that kind of confusion. It needs to be clear: this is what was decided. If others have comments or clarifications about their own scores, they can have that separate meeting.”
I don’t agree with Austin’s view that because the board is not rubber stamping the proposed policies, this justifies excluding some board members from the meeting where the evaluation is discussed with the superintendent. The goal seems to be to suppress minority views and only communicate those views that the president agrees with.
Yin repeated her question about identifying the common practice in other school districts. Austin responded, “I have no idea. I’ve never been on a board in another district, and I don’t think it matters. This is the practice here.” The Indiana School Boards Association recommends that superintendent evaluations involve the full board in meeting with the superintendent. I have raised this concern several times over the past three years and continue to encounter strong resistance.
Yin motioned to change the wording from superintendent success to district success. She said that the board’s responsibility is to represent the district and ensure that the superintendent is leading the district toward success.
Voted 2 out of 7 (Wang abstained; Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt opposed Yin’s motion)
Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed revised policy D125)
1:07:55 Policy D150 Board-Superintendent Relationship
Voted 7 out of 7
1:08:58 Policy D200 Standard of Care and Supervision of Students: Yin said the red paragraph, added recently by our legal council, was confusing. She noted that it was a single long sentence with many commas and suggested breaking it into two sentences to make it easier to understand. Purpura said that because this is based on Indiana code, it is not something that the board can edit. That’s not accurate. Our legal counsel recommended specific wording, which is different from the wording used in Indiana code (20-26-5-45). The board can’t change the meaning, but the board could certainly select a clearer way to express it. I’m happy that Yin brought this up because after the meeting I looked up the relevant Indiana code to check the wording and it turns out that there is a bigger issue. Indiana code now requires two things: (1) if a student makes an allegation of misconduct by a school employee the school must notify a parent within 24 hours and (2) if, after an investigation, the school determines that the allegation is unsubstantiated it must inform the employee and a parent with 14 days after the determination is made. Our legal council only recommended we include (2) in our policy, but left out (1) the part about informing a parent within 24 hours. I will follow up on this.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:13:12 Policy D300 Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing for CDL License Holders
Voted 7 out of 7
1:16:38 Policy E100 Adoption of Curricular Materials
Voted 7 out of 7
1:17:25 E125 Promotion, Placement and Retention of Students: Mumford noted that our current policy allows students and parents to appeal promotion, placement, and retention decisions to the superintendent (current policy 5410). This new proposed policy removes that option. She said she disagrees with this because involving the superintendent can be beneficial when an issue with a teacher or principal remains unresolved. She said that the wording recommended by legal counsel in paragraph 2 is abrasive and should instead express a desire to collaborate with parents. Mumford made a motion to revise paragraph two to say “Teachers and principals, in collaboration with parents, determine academic grades and promotion or retention decisions in the best interest of the child. If disagreement remains, the superintendent will make the final decision.”
Witt opposed Mumford’s proposed language change, stating that it inappropriately suggested parents should be involved in grading their children’s work. She emphasized that teachers are the professionals responsible for assessing student performance and determining accuracy. Lyle said, “I agree with Witt about having parental involvement in grades and promotion and retention decisions, because that is a bit strange and takes the authority away from teachers who are in the classroom with the student.”
Lyle asked Greiner whether allowing parents to appeal to the superintendent was necessary, whether it had occurred in the past, and whether it should continue. Greiner responded he has not had appeals in the past. He explained that, as long as policy is being followed, he supports the principal in backing the teacher. While he and the district are always willing to meet with parents to address communication issues, they do not meet to discuss changing grades. Instead, they help restore communication between the parent and principal, who then works with the teacher. Greiner said he was comfortable removing the appeal language from the policy, reiterating that while parent collaboration is important, he does not support overriding teachers’ professional judgment unless a policy has been violated.
Mumford raised concerns that the proposed policy language removing the superintendent from the appeal process sends the message to parents that they are excluded from having collaborative conversations when earlier efforts with teachers or principals have not resolved their concerns. She agreed that parents should not dictate grades, but there should be a collaborative spirit when questions or concerns arise, especially about the decision to hold a student back a grade.
Lyle responded “Hopefully nobody here is thinking that we don’t want parental involvement, because we do. But putting that in a policy statement, which is essentially akin to school board law for lack of a better way to describe it, I’m not sure that’s something we want to do. I don’t know that we want to put in our local district law that parents have the ability to go and potentially harangue teachers because they don’t like what happened in the class.”
Mumford reiterated that the current wording feels harsh and lacks a tone of collaboration, which is why she proposed an alternative phrasing that is more welcoming. Purpura countered that problems should be resolved at the closest level possible and that appeals to the superintendent undermine principals’ authority.
Voted 2 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, Witt, and Yin opposed Mumford’s motion to continue current policy which allows appeals to the superintendent)
Lyle supported revising the language to clarify that final appeals rest with principals. Purpura responded that the current wording already conveys this and did not see a need for any changes.
Yue expressed concern that most parents wouldn’t read the policy and would still approach the superintendent, questioning what guidance they’d receive in such situations. She also pointed out that not all academic concerns are about grades and that placement decisions can be contentious. She worried that the current structure could create a loop where parents are redirected repeatedly without resolution, which has happened in our district in the past.
Lyle replied that the person best positioned to assess student performance is the teacher, not the superintendent, who does not teach or know the student. He warned that involving someone unfamiliar with the student in academic decisions would be unfair to both the parent and the administrator. Witt added that teachers are trained, evaluated, and held accountable for assessments and should be the ones to determine student performance. She emphasized the need to let teachers and administrators do their jobs.
Voted 5 out of 7 (Mumford and Purpura opposed changing the sentence to say that all appeals rest with principals)
Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed revised policy E125)
This was discouraging. Legal counsel recommended language that would prohibit parents from bringing concerns to the superintendent. While the policy committee removed the word “complaints” from the text provided by legal counsel, they retained the recommendation to block parents from appealing to the superintendent. My view is that it is inappropriate for legal counsel to propose limits on parent participation that are not required by law. Given the current board’s tendency to rubber stamp, it seems likely that if legal counsel had recommended preserving the existing appeal process, that approach would have been approved. I think our policies should be shaped by our community with our legal counsel serving to ensure compliance with the law.
Instead of addressing the core issue of how parents can appeal significant decisions, some board members deflected the conversation toward grade disputes, ignoring the broader consequences. The real concern is that the approved policy removes the ability to appeal, placing all decision-making authority in the hands of teachers and principals. This is especially troubling in light of past instances when former principals in our schools refused to engage with families. Policies should reflect community values, particularly when they affect critical decisions like student promotion, placement, and retention, which can have long-term effects on a child’s education.
1:40:45 E150 Programs for High Ability Students: Witt said, “This is a policy we’re required by state law to have and basically all we’ve done is change one word because the board of school trustees does not actually develop a plan. What they do is require and approve a plan. We don’t as a board tell the teachers how to teach.” Wang asked for clarification on changing the word “develop” as it is taken directly from Indiana Code. He wanted to know if altering the language could have legal implications and whether any guidance was received from the CCA about the change. Witt said they did ask CCHA. Purpura said, “Functionally, this is not our job to physically develop it. We are delegating this to the appropriate people to develop, and we’re approving, modifying, or not approving what they develop.” Lyle said there shouldn’t be any compliance issues.
A half hour earlier, Purpura had argued the opposite regarding a proposed change to Policy D200 (1:08:58) claiming that the board didn’t have the authority to make changes to clarify the wording because it was based on Indiana code.
Yin asked about the plan and Roth stated that the district follows a state-mandated template for reporting their plan, and there have been no changes in the current version. The plan, which is published on the website, focuses solely on identification and the assessments used for that purpose. It does not address specific student placement. She also confirmed that the board reviews and approves the plan annually.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:44:45 E200 Religious Release Time and Credit for Religious Education: New Indiana legislation requires schools to allow release time for religious education. The board voted to approve this new policy.
Voted 7 out of 7
Legal counsel communicated that the board can decide to award elective credit for religious education if certain requirements are met. The board was asked to discuss if this should be added to the policy. Mumford asked the administrators to provide more information on how other districts are approaching this along with any concerns. Greiner stated that he does not support granting academic credit for off-site religious courses and believes they should remain separate from the school’s academic program.
Roth explained that granting credit for off-site religious education would pose several practical challenges, including ensuring instruction is provided by licensed educators, difficulty in aligning courses with academic standards, and questions about rigor and assessment. She also noted potential issues with fairness and consistency in recognizing various religious organizations. Overall, she emphasized the complexities of granting credit for instruction the school cannot oversee or regulate.
Lyle asked whether a student pursuing a career as a religious professional could receive credit under the new workforce development guidelines. Rodgers explained that such a scenario would fall under work-based learning, which has clear guidelines and agreements among the facilitator, school, and student about how credit is awarded. He clarified that credit is not given for the religious content itself, but for the skills and career preparation demonstrated through the experience, regardless of the field, whether religious, nursing, or otherwise.
Witt asked whether any students have applied for religious instruction release time in the past. Rodgers responded that while the school often allows release time for specific faith-based celebrations, there are not currently any students regularly participating in off-site religious instruction during the regular school day. However, the district would honor such requests if they arise.
No board members made a motion to include granting elective credit for religious education, so this is not part of our district’s policy.
1:58:22 E225 College and University Programs: Yin asked for clarification about the third paragraph stating that the corporation “reserves the right to deny student eligibility if the course is cancelled due to low enrollment.” She found it confusing since the issue seems to lie with the university, not the school corporation. What if the course is canceled for reasons other than low enrollment? Witt’s response clarified that if a student is approved to take a college course and that course gets canceled, the school through the principal can revoke the student’s eligibility to leave school for that course, requiring the student to instead take a class from the school’s curriculum.
Voted 6 out of 7 (Yin abstained)
2:02:09 First reading of 34 policies: After more than a year of bringing very few of the revised policies forward, the new approach appears to be bringing them all forward at the same time. Setting policy is one of the board’s most important responsibilities and rushing them through them does not serve the best interests of our teachers, students, or parents. Pushing through so many policies at once limits the community’s opportunity to review and provide input. I appreciate Wang trying to bring some organization to the process.
2:05:51 Rescind Neola policies Bylaws: Section 0000
Voted 7 out of 7
2:06:39 Superintendent Report: Greiner shared that the transfer policy and referendum survey has closed with over 800 responses. He said that preliminary results show more support for controlled transfers and more support than opposition for an increased referendum rate. Community forums will be held in January, and after those focus groups, a full report will be presented to the board. Planning with the forum facilitator is underway, and dates will be advertised soon. He also announced the retirement of Mrs. Carol Lecher, who has served the district for 20 years, praising her passion, especially in the music department, and noting that she will be greatly missed.
2:08:13 CFO Report
2:09:13 Board Reports: Austin announced her intention to remain as chair of the board for the upcoming year. If reappointed, she plans to keep committee assignments unchanged and asks members to notify her if they wish to switch assignments. If she is not reappointed, she will pass that information along in January. I have been disappointed with her leadership approach which seems far too focused on her having control. It is past time to give someone else the opportunity to lead the board in a more inclusive way.
2:16:15 The meeting was adjourned
Upcoming Public Meetings in the Central Office Board Room, located at 3061 Benton Street:
- Regular Board Meeting: January 12, 2026 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.
Dacia Mumford 