I have read your post regarding business friends, gifts and information and could not agree with you more. Your business observation and analysis was right on! Our current board leadership lacks the ability to look at and analyze critical business information without some personal or emotional bias. As you stated, while this started out being about Dr. Williams, that issue has become the catalyst to much greater problems with these board members.

After reading your posting, I was reminded of a recent article I read in The Indianapolis Star written about Gary Coons, the Perry Township Trusetee. In the article Mr. Coons makes a powerful statement regarding his position as an elected official. He states: “You have to be a good steward to the taxpayers, and you’ve got to be a good steward to your employees”.

By their actions, 4 members of the Perry Township School Board have shown that they do not posses the knowledge, foresight or willingness to be good elected stewards to the taxpayers they represent nor to the employees they serve.

If you desire to have good stewards serve the taxpayers of Perry Township, please join the efforts to TAKE BACK PERRY SCHOOLS!

Newcomers, take heed! These women are the sorts of destructive, imcompetent things that have happened to our schools while we as voters chose not to watch!

Awful things happened to our PT schools in the 80’s, and worse things are happening now! So, young parents, keep guard –always! I hope we aren’t witnessing a cycle for our community!

All of us must take advantage of being informed and then voting! Indeed, we are witnessing one of the very best examples of why.

Very well written and to the point! I have friendly relationships with business associates, we may go to lunch or dinner or even to a Colts game. This is what business professionals do. I do not expect preferential treatment, but, I appreciate the opportunities available to me. I would never scheme, backstab, slander, or do anything unethical to gain an unfair business advantage.

Mrs. Adams presented Mr. Bourgmann’s contract extention to the board as a renewal of the existing contract and it passed 7-0. In reality it was a revised contract to removed Mr. Bourgmann as the board’s attorney (this was not disclosed to Maple, Houchin, or Buffie until after the fact). Mrs. Adams submitted one name to the board for consideration as board attorney, Mr. Bailey. When Mr. Maple questioned Mrs. Adams if she were hiring Mr. Bailey to terminate Dr. Williams? Mrs. Adams dismissed that as a rumor! Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Walsh, Mrs. Alexander and Mrs. Thompson approve the hiring of Mr. Bailey. Mrs. Adams and Mrs Walsh met the very next day with Mr. Bailey to discuss the removal of Dr Williams as Superintendent. I can’t help but wonder if Mrs. Adams or Mrs. Walsh had a prior relationship with Mr. Bailey, either friendly or professional. For a person to use their position of authority to remove a competent professional (Mr. Bourgmann), so they can hire someone with whom they have a prior relationship (Mr. Bailey), at nearly 3x’s the salary, is what I would consider a conflict of interest, a breach of their elected position, and possibly having criminal implications.

According to the minutes, a copy of the revised contract was in the ‘Friday’ packet with no mention of the changes. What did not happen was any heads up about changes made to that contract. Apparently the 3 minority members did not read the contract because they didn’t think they needed to. Comments were made about not reading the contract by Walsh and Alexander.

Here’s the details in the 10/23/06 minutes:

“Mrs. Walsh commented that as Board Vice-President, she and Mrs. Adams met with Dr. Williams and one of the topics of discussion was what Lou Borgmann could offer the Board. She explained that Dr. Williams stated that school law was not Mr. Borgmann’s specialty and that it was within our rights to hire a Board attorney. She stated that it was at that time that Mr. Borgmann’s contract was redefined and she noted that each Board member was given a copy of the redefined contract with the August 14th Board meeting agenda. Mrs. Adams stated that Board discussions regarding such items as hiring an attorney must be done in a public meeting and that it is illegal to discuss them in an Executive Session. Mrs. Buffie commented that just as Mr. Oldham highlighted the changes to the Edison contract, the changes to Mr. Borgmann’s contract should have been presented to Board members prior to the August 14th Board vote. She added that in the future it is crucial that proper protocol be followed when a significant change is being voted on. Mrs. Adams assured her that future items would be handled differently. Mrs. Buffie stated that she has no issue with Mr. Bailey, but will choose to abstain from voting because of her previously stated issues. Mrs. Walsh and Mrs. Alexander commented that the necessary information was included in the Friday Packet and encouraged fellow Board members to inquire when questions arise.”

http://www.indiana.edu/~syschang/decatur/leadership_team04/index.html

RENEWAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY CONTRACT
Dr. H. Douglas Williams, Superintendent, requested approval of renewal of a contract with Mr. Louis H. Borgmann to serve as the School District’s Attorney. Mrs. Houchin moved for approval of the contract. Mr. Maple seconded and the motion passed 7/0. A copy of the contract is included with these minutes.

October 9, 2006:

APPROVAL OF BOARD ATTORNEY
Susan Adams, Board of Education President, explained that the Board does not presently have an attorney and asked Board members to approve the hiring of Attorney John Bailey for this role. Mrs. Walsh made a motion to approve Mr. Bailey and Mrs. Thompson seconded. Mrs. Houchin stated that it was her understanding that the Board members would be discussing the possibility of changing Board attorneys and that that meeting never took place. She added that because Mr. Lou Borgmann had been the attorney for
number of years, she was opposed to the change. Mr. Maple commented that he disagreed with Mrs. Adams in that according to Mr. Borgmann’s contract, he feels the School Board currently has an attorney. He added that there is no doubt that Mr. Bailey is a good attorney, but given the fact that his fees will be a substantial amount of money, he feels it is an unwise move. Mrs. Buffie stated that the information regarding the renewing of Mr. Borgmann’s contract as the School District Attorney as opposed to the School Board Attorney was not properly communicated before the August 14 Board meeting. She asked for a discussion with the current Board members before making this decision. Mrs. Walsh asked Mrs. Adams that due to some of Mrs. Houchin’s concerns was there an urgency to approve an attorney. Mrs. Adams answered “yes” and then called for the vote. The motion failed by a 3/3/1 vote, with Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Alexander, and Mrs. Thompson voting in favor. Mrs. Buffie, Mrs. Houchin, and Mr. Maple voting against and Mrs. Walsh abstaining.

Quote:
“According to the minutes, a copy of the revised contract was in the ‘Friday’ packet with no mention of the changes. What did not happen was any heads up about changes made to that contract. Apparently the 3 minority members did not read the contract because they didn’t think they needed to. Comments were made about not reading the contract by Walsh and Alexander.”

Legal contracts can be tedious reading, Mrs. Adams presented Mr. Borgmann’s rectified contract as a renewal of an existing contract without modifications, when she knew she had made alterations. Protocal indicates she should have mentioned there were changes to the other board members.

Still I can’t help but wonder if Mrs. Adams or Mrs. Walsh had a prior relationship with Mr. Bailey, either friendly or professional. For a person to use their position of authority to remove a competent professional (Mr. Bourgmann), so they can hire someone with whom they have a prior relationship (Mr. Bailey), at nearly 3x’s the salary, is what I would consider a conflict of interest, a breach of their elected position, and possibly having criminal implications.