Key Takeaways: Transfer student policy was discussed. The board was asked to vote to keep the current transfer practice with TSC unchanged for the 2026-2027 school year. The board voted 4-3 to postpone this decision to the February meeting because community focus groups on the topic were scheduled to begin the next day and the superintendent recommended accepting transfer students from other districts, not just TSC, through a limited open enrollment process. The board voted 7-0 to allow currently enrolled transfer students to remain in the district next school year. There was discussion, but no vote on allowing the siblings of current transfer students to enroll next year. Austin nominated herself as board president and was elected in a 4-3 vote. Austin claimed that Robert’s Rules do not allow any negative comments about officer nominees and would not allow any discussion about why she is a poor choice to serve as board president. Wang was elected as vice president in a 7-0 vote and Lyle as secretary also in a 7-0 vote. The board will hold a public work session at the central office (3061 Benton Street) on Monday, January 26, 2026 at 6 pm to discuss the proposed transfer student policy.
Agenda with links to board documents
Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording
- 1:01 Consent agenda approved
- 10:05 Vote on removing agenda item on Accepting New TSC transfer students with 2-5 vote
- 18:54 Election of Austin as board president with 4-3 vote
- 22:58 Election of Wang as vice president and Lyle as secretary with unanimous vote
- 34:44 RDC appointment, Witt appointed to WLSEF with 6-1 vote, Committee assignments
- 42:40 Communication from the Audience about support for policy related to teacher compensation
- 43:55 Preschool Continuation
- 49:30 WLJSHS Non-Standard Course Proposal
- 52:46 Proposed 2026-2027 Course Fees
- 1:08:10 WLJSHS Roofing Architect Agreements
- 1:13:22 Policies F175 Collection and Forgiveness of Debt (Bad Debt), F300 Time and Effort, F350 Reserve and Liquidity Policy, G100 Facility and Transportation Safety, G200 Environmental Health and Safety Issues, G225 Vehicle Idling, G250 Pest Control, G325 Free and Reduced-Price Meals, G425 Pledge of Allegiance and Moments of Silence approved, Policy F100 Internal Controls and Reporting Losses, Shortages, Variances or Thefts approved
- 1:35:25 Policy F150 Use of Credit Cards approved with revision to be added to board packet
- 1:53:34 Policies F176, Unpaid Meals, F200 Investment Income, F225 Fundraising and Crowdfunding approved
- 1:59:43 Policy F250 Travel Expenses postponed
- 2:05:41 Policies F275 Gifts and Donations, G125 Criminal Organization Activity, G150 Registered Sex or Violent Offenders, G175 Chemical Management and Preparedness for Toxic Hazard, G275 Animals on School Property, G300 Latch-Key Programs, G360 Data Breach and Protection, G375 Community Use of School Facilities, G400 Title I Comparability Policy approved
- 2:20:18 Rescind NEOLA Policies: 1000, 2000, 3000, & 4000
- 2:21:12 Policies 1st Reading: B100 Board Authority and Philosophy, D425.1 General Guidelines for Requesting Additional Compensation, F125 Purchasing Procedures and Capital Assets, G350 Audio, Video and Digital Recording on School Property and of School Meetings
- 2:36:42 Current TSC Transfer Students approved to continue next school year
- 2:56:17 New TSC Transfer Students was postponed until more information shared with 4-3 vote
- 3:14:43 Superintendent Report
- 3:17:28 CFO Report
- 3:24:34 Board Reports
- 3:24:34 Annual board of finance meeting with Investing Officer’s Report and Investment Register and Fiscal Indicators Report
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.
0:51 – The organizational meeting began. There was no communication from the audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began)
1:01 Consent Agenda:
Agenda for the January 12, 2026 Regular Board Meeting- Minutes of the December 8, 2025 Regular Board Meeting
- Field Trip: All-State Honor Choir to Ft. Wayne, IN – January 15-16, 2026
- Personnel Report
- Accounts Payable
Mumford motioned to remove the agenda. The remaining consent agenda items were then approved.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:33 – Agenda for the January 12, 2026 Board Meeting: Mumford asked for clarification on implementing the newly approved Policy B150 (approved in Nov 2025), which requires the board to set meeting times and vote on committee assignments at this organizational meeting and noted that these items were not on the agenda. Austin asked if holding meetings on the second Monday of each month works. Mumford made a motion to add the meeting schedule as an agenda item to comply with the new policy.
The new policy also requires the board to vote on committee assignments in this meeting and Witt explained that historically the full list of committee assignments was not finalized at the January meeting because board leadership had not yet been determined. She noted it would be difficult for someone new in a leadership role to make committee decisions immediately. Witt made a motion to defer the vote on committee assignments until February to ensure the best assignments are made. Purpura expressed concern about postponing committee assignments until February, noting that some external boards, such as Parks, require a designated representative in January. He suggested clarifying that current appointments remain in effect until new ones are made. Witt amended her motion to state that all current appointments would continue until reorganized in February. Mumford noted that she had proposed a revision, which was rejected, to the new Policy B150 to hold the board vote on committee assignments in February rather than January and that she had given the same explanation Witt just gave for why her revision was needed (2025 November 2:46:06). Mumford recommended that the policy committee change the new policy to match the desired practice.
Voted 7 out of 7
10:05 Mumford made a motion to remove agenda item 14, titled “New TSC Transfer Students,” stating that the board had requested community focus groups on this issue and that the focus groups were beginning the next day. The board hired a consultant to gather community input and provide a report to the board. Mumford argued that it would be inappropriate to vote on next year’s transfer student practice without considering the requested information first.
Austin opposed removing the item, stating it was only meant to affirm the district’s current practice to provide clarity to out-of-district families who need to make plans for next year. Witt added that postponing a decision would have real consequences, suggesting that without guidance, students might enroll elsewhere, which could negatively impact district funding.
Yin said that the board should delay this decision until after the focus groups and survey results are shared. She emphasized that the board would be better informed by waiting to hear from the community. Purpura noted that creating a transfer student policy for the district would likely require a first reading, significant revisions, and policy committee review, which could delay any approval until at least April. In his view, this timeline justifies keeping the item on the agenda.
Wang said he is not opposed to keeping this item on the agenda but he expressed support for public input, suggesting that a delay until next month would strike a good balance between thoughtful decision-making and responsiveness. He wanted the decision to be inclusive and well-informed.
Mumford questioned the sudden urgency to act on transfers before community input has been fully gathered. She noted that the board discussed creating a transfer student policy at the August 4, 2025 work session and at that time asked the superintendent to gather information and for Austin to move the policy creation process forward. Mumford argued that pushing a vote now to lock in current transfer student practice for another year with an item added to the end of the agenda just a few days before the meeting, signals to the community that their feedback is not being meaningfully considered and reinforces concerns about a rushed, nontransparent process. She contrasted that with Austin’s assurance at the August 4, 2025 work session that there was no need to rush: “Whatever sense of urgency has been shared with the public, we can chill them out because nothing is changing today. We have plenty of time for everyone to come talk, for everyone to share their opinions, for everyone to gather all the information they’re going to need to make a good choice. Okay? So, whatever people have been saying that this is urgent or it’s being hidden, it is not. This is the beginning of what is going to be a long and ongoing conversation as we collect information, as we finalize those kindergarten numbers, as we hear from the community, and as we see where we need to go in the future.”
Voted 2 out of 7 (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, Wang, and Witt opposed removing the agenda time “New TSC Transfer Students”)
Voted 6 out of 7 to approve the agenda (Mumford opposed)
18:54 Election of Board President: Austin stated that under Robert’s Rules, nominations are not debatable and that the person making the nomination or the nominee may speak in support, but members may not speak against a nominee or explain why someone would be a poor choice. There are two issues with this statement. First, it is not permissible to engage in viewpoint discrimination. Public bodies cannot allow only positive comments while prohibiting criticism, a standard that applies both to public comment periods and internal board discussions. Austin has previously attempted this approach during communication from the audience, which is not allowed. Second, Robert’s Rules does prohibit debate on whether someone should be nominated, but members are allowed to speak in favor of or against any nominee.
Austin nominated herself to continue as President. Mumford nominated Wang and stated that she supports Wang because she would like a board president who leads with professionalism, collaborates kindly with all board members no matter their perspectives or input, supports the community, and respects administrative roles. Had Austin not shut me down, I would have shared that she has not been a good board president. My most serious concern with Austin’s leadership is that her behavior often escalates concerns from both community members and fellow board members instead of working to resolve them. Rather than calming tensions or guiding conversations constructively, her actions frequently intensify conflict and confusion. While she has been more respectful during public meetings over the last year relative to her prior years on the board, her conduct outside of public meetings is often emotionally charged and divisive.
In addition, she has ignored the board’s agreed-upon communication processes, by responding directly to community emails with personal opinions even though the board agreed that only the secretary would acknowledge messages and would allow administrators to respond. Her decision to place a sensitive transfer item on the agenda just one day before the board was scheduled to hear from the community is another example of creating chaos and dismissing public input. Austin also selectively follows procedures, speaks inaccurately on behalf of administrators during meetings, and has made the superintendent evaluation process more confusing and time-consuming than in previous years.
Austin received 4 votes (Austin, Lyle, Purpura, and Witt)
Wang received 3 votes (Mumford, Wang, and Yin)
22:58 Election of Board Vice President: Austin nominated Wang to serve as vice president for a second year.
Voted 7 out of 7
23:34 Election of Board Secretary: Mumford nominated Lyle to serve a second year as secretary, noting that he has prepared accurate minutes and is open to making revisions when needed. She expressed support for a two-year rotation in board leadership roles, as it provides continuity and allows members time to grow in their responsibilities.
Voted 7 out of 7
24:36 Board Appointments: The board was asked to approve the reappointment and bonding of Michelle Cronk as Treasurer, along with bonded appointments for Janelle Wade, LeAnn Montemayer, and Robin Beckhman. Dr. Chester Ho and Dr. Anne Marie Bianculli were recommended to continue as school physicians, and Church, Church, Hittle, and Antrim as the school attorney.
Voted 7 out of 7
27:58 Board Compensation: The board approved its compensation, which remains the same: $2,000 annually, $150 per meeting, and $75 for special sessions held on non-regular meeting dates. Austin stated that the Indiana legislature allowed the board to increase its compensation after this past legislative session, but said the board chose not to do so in solidarity with teachers. The board never discussed or decided this as a group, so it is incorrect for Austin to make this claim. At the February 12, 2024 meeting (2:18:18), the board had voted to increase its compensation to the maximum allowed at that time in Indiana.
Voted 7 out of 7
28:44 Approve School Board Meeting Schedule: It was confirmed that regular meetings will continue to be held on the second Monday of each month at 6:00 pm, with work sessions at 5:00 pm if needed. Adjustments may be made for August and October due to the start of school and the fall break. Holding the August school board meeting on the same night as school open houses was an issue this year. Purpura recommended that the board have the full calendar of meeting dates approved in December each year to ensure the January meeting date is formally approved. The new Policy B150 currently requires this to be done in January and so would need to be revised. There was confusion this year about the dates for July and August meetings. We really need the year-long schedule of meetings to be shared publicly.
34:44 Committees and Education Foundation Appointments: Austin stated that her intention was to keep the committee assignments the same. She noted that her position on the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) is appointed by the mayor, so it is not the board’s decision to change that assignment. West Lafayette handles school board representation on the RDC differently than most other Indiana cities. The mayor is responsible for appointing members to the RDC, and one of those appointments must be a member of the school board. While the law allows this school board appointee to be either voting or non-voting, most Indiana cities appoint a school board member in an advisory, non-voting capacity. In contrast, the mayor of West Lafayette has appointed a member of the WLCSC School Board as a full voting member of the RDC. However, TSC has a non-voting advisory member on the RDC. This difference in voting rights has raised concerns among some community members about fairness and balance in local governance. A voting position gives school board members substantial influence over how tax increment financing (TIF) funds are spent, and there is concern that this may create pressure for the school board appointee to align with city officials, even when doing so may not be in the best interest of the school district. My view is that a non-voting advisory position would reduce the potential for conflicts of interest and better reflect the advisory role that school districts are intended to have in city redevelopment decisions. This would also help ensure the school district is represented without being placed in a position where board members may feel pressured to support city initiatives that do not serve students or schools.
Witt said she wants to continue serving on the West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation (WLSEF) but requested that an additional board member serve with her, especially as the foundation is preparing for strategic planning work that will extend beyond her time on the board. Austin asked that anyone interested in joining the foundation email her before the next meeting so they could coordinate with the foundation.
Austin said she intends to appoint Witt to the WLSEF and Mumford to the Public Schools Foundation of Tippecanoe County (PSFTC). Mumford asked for clarification, noting that the board just voted a few minutes earlier to postpone committee assignments until February. Austin responded that the foundation committee assignments have historically been made in January. Witt clarified that the WLSEF’s bylaws require the board to appoint a representative in January. The PSFTC appointment has not previously been made in January.
Yin said she is confused because she had previously emailed her interest to serve on the WLSEF but Austin told her no. Now Witt is saying she wants a second person, and Austin is asking board members to email their interest. Yin asked whether the second appointee would be named tonight or selected later. Witt explained that one board member would be officially appointed now to meet the foundation’s bylaw requirement, and that a second person could be added later if the foundation agrees. Mumford clarified that the WLSEF had two board members appointed and this practice only changed to just one board member recently. Both Austin and Witt served on the WLSEF previously when there were two appointed members.
Mumford also expressed confusion about the current process, noting that she had emailed Austin her committee assignment preferences and Austin replied indicating that Wang would be appointed to the PSFTC and that Mumford would serve on the community council.
Austin said that she would wait until February to make all other committee decisions and assignments. She said that the WLSEF requires a vote in January and wants Witt to serve and that she will decide in February if an additional board member will serve. Mumford stated that she did not support the appointment, noting that Witt had already served three terms on the WLSEF and expressing a desire for more diversity in the role. We have a diverse school district, with about 25 percent of students identifying as Asian and another 20 percent as Black, Hispanic, Multiracial, or other. Our White student population is around 55 percent. In contrast, the Foundation’s board is 93 percent White, with the only non-White member being Lyle’s wife. This lack of representation limits the foundation’s effectiveness in building trust, attracting donations, and engaging the full community. Rather than reappointing Witt, I believe appointing Yin to the foundation board would bring a valuable perspective and help drive meaningful change and financial support for our schools.
Voted 6 out of 7 (Mumford opposed)
Austin’s board committee assignments have reflected the board’s 4–3 split, with the three minority members consistently limited in which assignments they are allowed. Each year I have asked to serve on Teacher Discussion and the Community Council and have been denied. When I asked again in December, Austin said she was unwilling to let me serve on Teacher Discussion, but she reached out to Wang, who has served on Community Council, and he offered to switch with me. Wang continues to show a willingness to collaborate in a way that Austin has not. In my view, things would be less chaotic, more organized, more collaborative, and calmer if Wang had been elected board president. But Wang did not start a PAC that provided financial support for other board members’ election campaigns, as Austin did.
42:40 Communication from the Audience for the Regular Board Meeting: (those who had signed up before the meeting began)
- David Joest, JSHS social studies teacher and teacher union representative, thanked the administration and board for addressing a policy related to teacher compensation (Policy D425). He acknowledged that some existing policies did not align well and expressed appreciation for Greiner’s quick response. He expressed gratitude for the efforts to support and take care of teachers.
43:55 Preschool Continuation: Roth requested the board’s approval to make the elementary preschool program permanent following its two-year pilot. She noted that the program has operated efficiently, at capacity, and has secured voucher funding. With support from the administration and staff, she recommended continuing the program without any changes, with annual reviews of both programmatic and operational aspects. Purpura asked whether there had been consideration for expanding the preschool program in the future to meet community needs and for increasing teacher pay to align with other elementary teachers. Roth responded that both are potential long-term goals. While the program is currently at capacity, indicating potential demand for expansion, any changes to compensation would depend on adjusting tuition rates. She emphasized that the program is designed to be self-funding, maintaining competitive rates aligned with vouchers to avoid drawing from K–12 educational funding.
Yin asked whether there is typically a waiting list for the preschool program and how enrollment needs are being met. Roth explained that enrollment follows a three-tiered process: first to staff members, then to in-district families, and finally to the broader community with preference given to voucher-eligible applicants. She confirmed that there is usually a waiting list.
Voted 7 out of 7
49:30 WLJSHS Non-Standard Course Proposal: Roth explained that a non-standard course, as defined by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), is simply one not listed in their course catalog. These courses require board approval before being submitted to the state. She presented a new non-standard course proposed for the high school, which would combine two existing DOE courses: 7171 (a nutrition course already taught) and 3560 (an elective physical education course). The course, developed by Mrs. Heim in the FACS department, would integrate nutrition and PE and is intended to benefit junior-senior high school students. Roth asked for board approval to move forward with the course.
Voted 7 out of 7
52:46 Proposed 2026-2027 Course Fees: Cronk explained that under updated state law, schools can now charge reasonable fees for non-curricular supplemental items used in the classroom, as long as there is justification. These items fall outside the state-defined list of curricular materials, which includes textbooks, workbooks, and technology. She presented proposed fees by grade level for elementary and intermediate schools and by class for the junior-senior high school, noting that principals and teachers worked hard to prepare the lists early. Fees cover items students will use, keep, or take home as part of a project. She also reminded the board that students eligible for free or reduced meals are exempt from these fees.
Purpura stated that while he planned to vote in favor of the proposed course fees due to current budget concerns and recent state-level changes, he strongly disagreed with the concept of charging fees in public schools. He emphasized that public education should be free and expressed concern that students might avoid certain classes due to associated costs. He acknowledged that fees are waived for students on free or reduced lunch but urged the board to be cautious about what families are being charged. Looking ahead to the potential renewal or revision of the district’s referendum, he suggested that the district consider building these costs into the referendum to eliminate course fees in the future.
Mumford requested that parents, particularly those with students at the junior-senior high school who will be registering for classes soon, be informed as early as possible about course fees and the rationale behind them. Additionally, she suggested the district consider partnering with the foundation to support families who may not qualify for free or reduced lunch but still find the fees burdensome. She proposed including a note with the course fee information encouraging families facing financial hardship to reach out to a principal or trusted staff member. She stressed the importance of ensuring that no student is excluded due to cost.
Witt expressed her belief that public education should be free but supported finding alternative funding sources for course fees. She praised the foundation for its recent efforts, such as covering AP exam costs. While acknowledging that a completely fee-free system would be ideal, she noted that when families are aware of small fees, such as under $20 for a semester of art supplies, it can help students better appreciate and respect the value of classroom materials. She felt there is some benefit in students understanding that educational resources have costs.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:08:10 WLJSHS Roofing Architect Agreements: Cronk recommended proceeding with two roofing projects at the JSHS this summer, which were originally planned for 2026 and 2027, due to rising construction costs. She explained that each project would require a separate architect agreement using standard terms approved by legal counsel. The projects are not urgent but should be completed proactively to prevent future issues.
Voted 7 out of 7
1:13:22 Policies without recommendations: F175 Collection and Forgiveness of Debt (Bad Debt), F300 Time and Effort, F350 Reserve and Liquidity Policy, G100 Facility and Transportation Safety, G200 Environmental Health and Safety Issues, G225 Vehicle Idling, G250 Pest Control, G325 Free and Reduced-Price Meals, G425 Pledge of Allegiance and Moments of Silence
Voted 7 out of 7
1:26:46 Policy F100 Internal Controls and Reporting Losses, Shortages, Variances or Thefts: Wang recommended that the proposed policy be revised to add that credit card transactions related to extracurricular activities be subject to the requirements outlined in Policy F150. Cronk clarified that general credit card transactions are not addressed in this policy and are instead covered by Policy F150. She questioned why only extracurricular accounts (ECA) would be addressed here when credit cards overall are not part of this policy.
Voted 1 out of 7 for Wang’s recommended revision
Voted 7 out of 7 to approve Policy F100
1:35:25 Policy F150 Use of Credit Cards: Cronk said the credit cards are kept at the building level, and staff have to fill out a Google Sheet log and get prior approval before using a card. The log is shared with auditors during audits and is part of the internal controls they test. She said that her proposed revision to the policy is to match the process they already use.
Yin motioned to add an additional revision to reflect another current practice: “if available, the monthly credit card statement will be included in the monthly board packet for review.” Witt said the committee looked at the proposed addition and took it to legal, and legal did not recommend including it because it isn’t necessary and could be cumbersome. She said the board already receives the statement information and is covered through existing processes, including the board’s authority to request any financial documentation and the accounts payable reporting. For those reasons, the committee did not recommend adding specific language about including the monthly credit card statement in the board packet. Yin said she wants the language in the policy to increase transparency and make the practice less dependent on specific people. She noted that Greiner and Cronk currently provide the statements, but future staff may not, so putting it in the policy would ensure ongoing accountability and transparency.
Witt said legal counsel’s point was that requiring the statement in policy could be burdensome because it may create a standing expectation to include a lot of data, and if the board later didn’t want it included, it would have to change the policy to remove the requirement. If it’s not in the policy, the board can still request the statements as it does now, and can also stop requesting them without any policy change. She added that boards already have broad authority under state and federal law to request financial information from district management, even when it isn’t explicitly written into policy. I have not always found this to be the case. There have been several instances where I have requested financial information from our current administrators and my requests were denied.
Mumford said that the current level of financial document access should be written into policy. She explained that our district has a history of not sharing credit card statements even when board members requested them. She described several past instances where access was denied or limited. Witt emphasized that none of the employees who oversaw credit card reporting back then are still with the district. She described credit card reporting as something that has evolved over years as expectations changed and said the district’s current practices are far different than they were five, six, or ten years ago. Witt served on the board during the period when credit card statements were kept confidential and supported the systems that limited access to financial information. Adding the current level of access to policy is a positive step for future transparency and accountability.
Voted 7 out of 7 to add Yin’s revision and approve the policy
1:53:34 Policies: F176, Unpaid Meals, F200 Investment Income, F225 Fundraising and Crowdfunding
Voted 7 out of 7
1:59:43 Policy F250 Travel Expenses: Legal counsel’s draft was unclear and created confusion, so a motion was made to postpone the policy and send it back to the policy committee for further work and clarification.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:05:41 Policies: F275 Gifts and Donations, G125 Criminal Organization Activity, G150 Registered Sex or Violent Offenders, G175 Chemical Management and Preparedness for Toxic Hazard, G275 Animals on School Property
Voted 7 out of 7
2:12:26 Policy G300 Latch-Key Programs: Since joining the board, Yin has pushed for our district to seek parent feedback on our after-school latch-key program (2021 March 8:50; 2022 February 7:37). There was significant pushback to asking parents for feedback at first, but over time it became standard practice. Now a requirement to survey parent satisfaction has been added to policy, which is another positive change for our district.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:14:22 Policies: G360 Data Breach and Protection, G375 Community Use of School Facilities, G400 Title I Comparability Policy
Voted 7 out of 7
2:20:18 Rescind NEOLA Policies: 1000, 2000, 3000, & 4000
Voted 7 out of 7
2:21:12 Policies 1st Reading: B100 Board Authority and Philosophy, D425.1 General Guidelines for Requesting Additional Compensation, F125 Purchasing Procedures and Capital Assets, G350 Audio, Video and Digital Recording on School Property and of School Meetings: Mumford raised concerns about the newly proposed G350 because it doesn’t match our current policy which we approved in September 2024. Our legal counsel sent us this new version of G350 to comply with new legislation, but the version that we passed in 2024 already complies with the new legislation. There was discussion and some confusion about what revisions legal counsel will provide and how they will be shared. Greiner said he would get more information. The original version of Policy G350 required parents to get written permission three days in advance in order to record a public performance or an individual meeting with an administrator (e.g., IEP meeting) and would be removed and cited for trespassing if they recorded without written permission. I faced significant pushback when I advocated for the changes that allow recording that went into the final version of our policy (May 13, 2024 (38.58)and August 12, 2024 (1:02)). There was some state-wide attention to the original version of our policy (particularly the part where it threatened parents with trespassing). A recent change to state law (HEA 1285) now says that a school cannot prevent a parent recording an IEP meeting. We had already put this into our revised version of Policy G350,
2:36:42 Current TSC Transfer Students: Each month the meeting agenda is put together by the administrative team and posted to the school website 5 days before the meeting. After the agenda was posted, Austin requested to add this item and the item about keeping the transfer agreement with TSC for another year to the end of the agenda.
Austin announced that she scheduled a work session on the transfer policy review for Monday, January 26th at 10am, with the consultant to present results from focus groups and surveys. Witt asked whether the meeting could have been scheduled with the board, stating that the topic was important and expressing frustration that she would be unable to attend because she works during the day. She said she would need significantly more advanced notice in order to attend and emphasized that she would be unhappy to miss a topic of such significance. Austin said that 10am was when the consultant is available and said that the presentation would be recorded for Witt to watch later. I agree with Witt that it is inappropriate to unilaterally decide to schedule a special board work session in the middle of a workday. It’s not just difficult for board members to attend a workday meeting, this limits attendance by our teachers and community members. The standard procedure is for the school administrators to schedule meetings. Austin should not have taken it upon herself to set the time that worked best for her without talking with anyone else. After significant pushback from board members, the administration took over the scheduling, and the work session is now set for Monday, January 26 at 6:00 pm.
Austin said the district is getting inquiries from families about transferring next year and that rumors are creating uncertainty. She proposed a vote to affirm that current transfer students will be allowed to remain in our district through the end of the 26-27 school year.
Mumford asked whether the proposed language had been reviewed by legal counsel, noting that “all students will be retained” may conflict with discipline or attendance situations. Wang suggested adding qualifiers such as “in good standing” and “subject to school capacity.” Mumford warned that the definition of “capacity” has frequently changed in our district and that a change to capacity could be used to exclude current transfer students. Mumford said that while she supports allowing our current transfer student to stay, she disagreed with this rushed vote at the end of a long agenda. Austin said not to ascribe motives to her putting this on the agenda and explained that her goal was simply to give the central office direction.
Greiner clarified that he is not asking for a vote. He said that the staff would like guidance on how to respond to families that inquire about transfers. He noted that the board had previously asked for data and community feedback, and that he had consistently recommended a limited open transfer policy, open to districts beyond just TSC, with board oversight. Greiner said that the recent survey data showed that over 60% of respondents supported limited transfers, provided there was a transparent policy that prioritized in-district students and included annual review. He said that he would like clarity from the board on what could be communicated publicly at this point. He explained that if the central office were to state that the board is likely to work on a policy related to accepting transfers based on current data and upcoming focus groups, he needed to know if that would be appropriate. Greiner emphasized that, as superintendent, he wants to ensure alignment with the board, but is not asking for these votes. Austin said that she is asking the board to vote now on transfer students.
Mumford said there are two separate agenda items and that this first one is only about current transfer students, so this discussion should be on our current transfer students. Mumford said that she disagrees with the timing of this vote but supports the principle that students already accepted into our district should not be removed. She recommended voting on that issue and addressing the topic of new transfers as a separate discussion. There was agreement and the board voted. Once we accept a transfer student, that student should be treated the same as any other student at our schools. I’ve never heard a board member disagree with this. However, this vote was handled poorly. The administration wasn’t ready for it, did not have it reviewed by legal counsel, and it just looks bad to vote on part of the transfer policy the day before we go to the community asking for input on the transfer policy.
Voted 7 out of 7
2:56:17 New TSC Transfer Students: Austin made a motion to accept students who have not yet transferred from TSC but would like to for the 2026-2027 school year. She said that if the board could agree on this direction, it would reduce the risk of losing students who would have previously been eligible to transfer. She acknowledged this was moving into policy development but said she included it to see how the board would respond. This is not how voting should occur in school board meetings. Adding a topic for a vote just to see what happens undermines the process. Typically, information is gathered and shared, the administration provides a recommendation, discussion takes place, community input is considered, there is a legal review, and only then does the board vote.
Yin said it was too soon to vote and motioned to table it until after the work session, focus groups, and additional information are received. Lyle said that he personally supports continuing with our current TSC transfer process but wanted more time to consider and prefers postponing rather than voting no. Witt said she agreed with tabling but cautioned that delaying a decision carries financial and enrollment risk because families may make other plans. Lyle said that staff should communicate truthfully that a decision is forthcoming, and Purpura suggested collecting contact information so families can be notified once a policy is finalized.
Greiner then asked about whether “current transfer students” includes siblings not yet enrolled, such as a kindergartener with older siblings already in the district. Austin said that the schools should treat younger siblings in the family as current transfer students and automatically accept them. Purpura recommended going back and changing the language from the previous vote to say current families instead of current students. Mumford said that the board should wait on this decision for community input because accepting an entire family is different from retaining current students. There was no vote on changing the previous vote to include current families.
Voted 4 out of 7 to table this item (Austin, Purpura, and Witt opposed)
This was a strange vote. Austin voted against postponing while Lyle, Wang, Yin, and I all voted for postponing. Purpura and Witt waited until they saw that it would be postponed and then cast their votes against postponing. This was after Witt said that she agreed with tabling.
I think Austin was wrong to push for this the day before the community feedback sessions began and before the consultant we hired delivers her report. It just doesn’t seem like she cares about community input. I appreciate that the current administration is gathering community feedback through surveys and focus groups, but I do not appreciate the way this was handled.
Our district has never had a written transfer policy. Officially our district is closed to transfer students, but in practice has a handshake agreement with TSC to accept students from their district if both superintendents agree. Which students are accepted is left to the discretion of the TSC and WLCSC superintendents, either can deny access. Many students have been denied in the past and there have been accusations of discrimination. There are no written rules about what to do if there are too many students requesting the same grade. There are no written rules specifying the deadline when a family would need to ask TSC to be allowed to transfer. The cutoff date each year changes and is not announced in advance. Last year, TSC suddenly announced that they were done sending transfer students for the year and subsequent students that applied were denied because they asked after the unannounced cutoff date.
The question of whether siblings of current transfer students should be treated the same as a current transfer student deserves careful consideration. Giving priority to applicants who already have a sibling enrolled in our schools helps families stay together and makes it easier for parents to be involved and supportive. However, a sibling’s automatic acceptance can unintentionally advantage larger families, since they have more chances to have one child accepted, which could translate into greater access compared to smaller families. There are also important short term implications. A family-based transfer approach could significantly affect enrollment across multiple grades, and it may reduce the incentive to live in district once one child is admitted. This issue has not been discussed previously, and should not be voted on before receiving community feedback.
I am frustrated with how this was handled by Austin. For months she told us that there was no urgency and that we had time to gather information and engage the community, and now she is treating this as though it is an emergency. It is the administrator’s job to lead the planning and scheduling of work sessions and to bring proposals forward with sufficient time for board review, legal review, and meaningful community feedback.
3:14:43 Superintendent Report: Greiner gave an update on the district’s community forums to gather more input on transfers. He said that virtual forums are scheduled for community members and an optional in-person staff meeting to gather input. Mumford asked how many participants had signed up for each focus group. He said that they had about 65 participants in the first virtual session and around 75 in the second one. Mumford noted that her understanding was that if the signup numbers became too high, there would be more options provided so that everyone felt heard. I appreciate that the virtual sessions were scheduled at different times to make it easier for more people to participate. However, it is also important to have real verbal dialogue, not just a few comments typed into a chat box.
Greiner said they reviewed the survey results that show a majority supports some form of controlled transfer policy, with a strong desire for transparency and annual review, and he said the district wants to get the policy and process in writing. The facilitator will lead the forums to gather stakeholder input on what a fair and transparent policy could include. After the forums, the district will share an update from the facilitator.
3:17:28 CFO Report
3:24:34 Board Reports
3:33:10 The regular meeting was adjourned. Austin needs to work on not swearing during the public meetings.
3:24:34 The annual board of finance meeting began with Wang nominated as President and Mumford as secretary.
Voted 7 out of 7
3:35:44 Investing Officer’s Report and Investment Register
3:36:43 Fiscal Indicators Report
3:42:47 The annual board of finance meeting was adjourned.
Upcoming Public Meetings in the Central Office Board Room, located at 3061 Benton Street:
- Work Session: Monday, January 26th at 6pm
- Work Session: February 9th at 5pm, if needed
- Regular Board Meeting: February 9th 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 