Citizens in Support of Dr. Williams

ADMIN NOTE: This page was rebuilt using files provided by someone who had saved original copies of the pages before they were taken offline as well as from archived copies of the pages stored by Google. These pages were originally created and published by Susan Adams as a recourse for the websites we had established with www.wesupportwilliams.com and www.takebackperryschools.com Original Homepage | Grapevine

A New Beginning 

This past week has been an uplifting one. As I attended programs in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, I realized that this Board is a catalyst for change but will never realize the rewards for making those changes. Others will come behind us and build Perry Township from the bottom up and will enjoy, and earn, that glory. This is such a great and unique opportunity, for all to come together and create a model of education for others to follow. 

We not only have management issues with Dr. Williams, we have basic fundamental differences in educational philosophy. Our former leader scoffed at the government for enacting No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind has forced the education community to address the needs of ALL students. He minimized the importance of the state ISTEP exam. The ISTEP exam is a valid instrument to measure achievement. I’m sure if our scores had been at the top of Marion County instead of the bottom, they would have been seen as much more valid. 

Perry Township has changed. We continue to function as a township of high social status when we are now a community with many at risk children with a poverty population of almost 50%. We are providing an education for the elite when we are no longer a community of elite. Last year, the Board asked Dr. Williams to set measurable goals for achievement. His reply was that it was not possible. Setting goals and having high expectations for our schools and students has to be possible. They can no longer be victims of apathy. We have to care. We have to care about ISTEP. We have to care about No Child Left Behind. We have to care about our students’ achievement. I was reading an educational journal and I came across a heart wrenching statement. “To deny a person the fullest intellectual and personal development is to deny a fundamental human right. Certainly, in our social context it denies property, liberty, and probably eventually life.” We are denying 25% of our children a life. The statistics regarding persons without a high school diploma are dismal. We are providing an education for the privileged. We can no longer have a survival of the fittest mentality in Perry Township. We have to embrace No Child Left Behind and leave no child behind. 

We not only have to change our thinking, but also our practice. Education today continues to deliver instruction as if it were teaching the children of 30 years ago. Our children have changed along with our society. Every aspect of society has moved forward but education continues to stand still. If we were treated for cancer as if it were 30 years ago, many of us would not be here. Others have addressed this issue and are having success. As we move in a new direction, we need to visit these places and learn how to save our struggling children. Our decision to implement New Tech High is a step in that direction. 

We are embarking on a journey of change. This journey has been mandated by the majority of the Board. It will be the charge of the new leadership, in partnership with all stakeholders, to map the course of this change. Dr. Williams would not change course, therefore, we had to leave him behind. 

Timeline of Board/superintendent relationship pertaining to Doug Williams as documented by Susan Adams, current president, Perry Township Board of Education

I watched last year as our Board leadership struggled with Dr. William’s refusal to cooperate. They discussed with him his lack of respect for the board, ignoring policy such as our election policy and hiring consultants without approval, questionable hiring practices, and refusing to provide information in a timely manner. This struggle with Dr. Williams began much earlier that July 1, 2006.

June 12, 2006

Perry Township was in the unusual position of needing to replace both high school principals. Doug’s hiring practices had been such that it was well known and talked about in the community that he hired personal friends of his or other administrators. It was a regular complaint that outside candidates were receiving positions over inside candidates because of their relationship with certain administrators at PTEC. In my opinion, this has become a problem for Perry Township because instead of hiring the best, in many cases, we are getting the mediocre. It is also a problem because when they don’t perform up to expectations, they are not removed because of loyalty to friendships. The former president told Dr. Williams that she wanted two board members to serve on the interview committee. This was normal practice for most school districts when hiring administrators. He told her that was not a good idea and that if board members became involved with personnel issues that he was not the superintendent for this township. At the beginning of the board meeting on June 12, 2006, I made a motion to add an item to the agenda. We voted 4-3 to allow two board members to participate on the interview committee. This was becoming the only way we could get Dr. Williams to cooperate with our requests. We had to vote in a public meeting to direct him to do what we asked him to do. It was obvious in the interviews, that two of the candidates were far superior to the others. If we had not participated in the interview process, I am not sure the outcome would have been the same.

June 19, 2006

We met in executive session to evaluate Doug Williams. Areas of improvement were reviewed and agreed upon.

June 26, 2006

We met in executive session to review the final document the former president had written to present to Doug Williams. Consensus was reached.

July 5, 2006

The officers of the Board met with Dr. Williams to review his evaluation and discuss areas for improvement. The president shared the following with Dr. Williams. Ensuring harmony and trust with the Board is a challenge, but it is the superintendent’s responsibility to do this by promoting a feeling of teamwork with the Board. This can be accomplished by: 1. Sharing information with the Board earlier in the process. 2. Ensuring Board receipt of notice of complaints, personnel issues. 3. Supporting the Board publicly. 4. Treat Board members in an un biased and impartial manner 5. Be supportive of open work sessions and all questions asked. 6. One-on-one calls from and to the Board can be useful, but work sessions can be used to the Board and Superintendent’s advantage, as well. 7. Respect opinions, respect differences. There are concerns regarding the relationship between the Board and Superintendent. The MSDPT Board make-up changes nearly every election. The stability and responsibility of the Superintendent’s position makes it absolutely imperative that he take the lead in developing a relationship of teamwork, respect, and harmony. The Board wants to be confident that each and every Board policy is reviewed, clarified, and most importantly, carried out. Dialogue with the Board regarding policy concerns should commence as soon as possible. Dr. Williams heard and signed these evaluation goals. In the coming months, Dr. Williams will blatantly disregard these improvement goals. It was at this meeting that the president told Dr. Williams there was not support on the incoming board to hire Mr. Borgman as the board attorney. She also informed him that the incoming board wanted open door committees instead of superintendent appointed committees. Doug did not agree with this and put the superintendent committees on the agenda for the July 10 meeting.

July 10, 2006

Three new board members were sworn in; Nancy Walsh, Barbara Thompson, and Steve Maple. The superintendent committee appointments were tabled.

July 20, 2006

Nancy Walsh and I met with Doug to try to compromise on the open door vs. superintendent appointed committees. The board members agreed to the superintendent committees as long as the president appointed the members to the committees and the committees had to meet once a semester. We also discussed the need for an attorney for the board. I asked Doug point blank if he believed Mr. Borgman could represent the board with the close relationship they had. He admitted that he believed Mr. Borgman could not. I suggested Jon Bailey be considered for this position. He agreed that Jon was a good choice. We agreed to compromise on Mr. Borgman acting as the district’s attorney and the board having separate representation. I realized from past leaders struggle with how to handle Dr Williams’s refusal to cooperate, that I would need someone to call for direction. ISBA had been one sided and prone to protect the superintendent. We really had no one to turn to in handling Dr. Williams’s insubordination.

July 21, 2006

Nancy asked for travel receipts for an employee’s trip to Chicago. The amount was suspicious, 16% of her/his yearly budget.

August 16, 2006

I e-mailed Doug and requested that he provide Nancy with the travel receipts she requested 3 weeks before.

August 28, 2006

Nancy Walsh and I met with Doug Williams. Nancy asked about serving on the negotiations team. Doug was visibly shaken by this and told Nancy it was not a good idea.

September 12, 2006

I, again e-mailed Doug and requested travel receipts Nancy requested on July 21, 2006.

September 13, 2006

Nancy and I met with Doug Williams. Nancy asked for copies of travel receipts. Doug resisted. We asked for a list of consultants. I protested that we were paying too much for consulting, particularly Mr. Vance. He was making twice as much as we would pay a regular employee for the same service. We expressed our concern at the number of consultants we hired and the amount we were paying them. Nancy asked Doug about the class size at Perry Meridian. The Spanish teacher had 37 students. Doug said we could not afford additional teachers. Of course, we were never given this list of consultants. I did finally receive a list in our finance meeting with Mr. Brown on January 12, 2007.

September 18, 2006

A group of teachers, administrators and board members departed to visit New Tech High in Napa Valley. Nancy Walsh and I had seat assignments next to each other. The third seat was empty. Terry Rice moved from the back of the plane to sit with us. He voiced concern about a personnel issue that Dr. Williams would not address. He also voiced his opinion that Dr. Williams had problems dealing with strong women. He expressed his feelings that we were doing a good job and to keep it up. Nancy asked if he had any objection to her sitting and observing at the negotiations table. Nancy had mentioned this to Doug and he told her this was not acceptable practice. Terry said he did not have a problem with it and that Board members had done this in the past. Nancy also informed Terry that we had received a memo from Doug about the meetings at the building with Terry. She asked him if he was open to her attending those meetings. He said he did not have a problem with it. Nancy asked Terry his opinion of Edison. Terry’s opinion was favorable. I commented that I did not like hiring a for-profit company with tax- payers’ money. Nancy said she had visited the Edison schools and was continuing to research it.

September 25, 2006

This is the board meeting where Dr. Williams requested that the stipend for Terry Rice, president of Perry Education Association, to teach adult Spanish classes increase from stipend to per diem. I asked how much this would be and the administration admitted they did not have that information. Nancy asked how we could afford this when in her last meeting with Doug he said we could not do anything about overcrowding in Spanish classes which had 37 students in them. Nancy thought that our first consideration should be given to educating students. Dr. Williams had just told us on Sept. 13 that we did not have any money. Nancy asked to table for further discussion. Doug protested and told her just to vote no if she didn’t like it. The motion was already on the table for a vote so it could not be tabled. The motion lost 4-3. This was purely a decision based on wanting more information and we would revisit it after the information was provided.

September 26, 2006

Nancy Walsh received a threatening letter from Terry Rice concerning her vote against his increase in pay.

September 29, 2006

The board received a Friday letter from Doug reprimanding Nancy for her vote on the 25th. He also sent this letter to all central office administration. This was in total disregard for what had been discussed and put in writing at his evaluation conference in June. (This seems to be the turning point. Doug lost all control. We were getting reports that he berated the board at every opportunity.)

September 30, 2006

I sent an e-mail to Doug and cc’d the board that I wanted consideration of attorney on the agenda for the next meeting.

October 2, 2006

I called ISBA and talked with Julie Slavens. I asked if a superintendent could publicly reprimand a board member. She said no. I was anxious to hire our attorney so that I could find out how to deal with this situation. I called Jon Bailey and asked him if he would be our attorney. I told him I was going to ask the Board for approval on Oct. 9. He said he was surprised, but would be willing to represent the Board if approved.

October 3, 2006

I received a phone call from Nancy Walsh. She had attended a meeting at Rosa Parks where Doug and Terry Rice were speaking. They did not see her in the audience until the principal called attention to her at the end of the meeting. Doug began the meeting by saying how out of control the board was. He said there was a threat to the Edison contract on the board but that he knew we would not vote against it because we would not want our houses burnt down. He asked them to attend the next meeting. He said, “ But we don’t want to use a 12 gage on them when a BB gun will do, but when I need a twelve gage I will let you know” Terry Rice said this board could draw a vote faster than he could draw a gun. She said the entire meeting was inciting the crowd against the board. Doug asked the teachers to attend the next board meeting. He said Mrs. Puckett-Harpold, principal at Jeremiah Gray, offered to get the big dogs when he needed them. This meeting was shocking not only because of the threats being made by Dr. Williams, but also because we knew there had been no opposition to Edison by the Board. It was obvious that Dr. Williams was orchestrating this unrest to undermine the Board. He was using the teachers to accomplish what he could not do because we were his employers. He fabricated the threat to Edison to get someone to fight his perceived battle with the Board. This was not a Board that was going to sit back and rubber- stamp his decisions.

October 4, 2006

Nancy Walsh called to inform me that she had shared the Rosa Parks situation with Julie Slavens, and Julie advised that we could cancel the retreat we had scheduled for Sat. and call an executive session. I called Lisa Tansel to ask how to advertise this. She suggested evaluation of personnel or alleged misconduct. I called Doug Williams and told him I was cancelling the retreat and changing it to an executive session. I told him to advertise it as evaluation of personnel and that we would be discussing his evaluation. He asked me if I needed him to be there, and I told him he did not have to be there. I e-mailed the board of the change. I received e-mails back from some of them asking me what it was about. I told them it was to discuss the superintendent’s evaluation.

October 7, 2006

We met in executive session to discuss Doug’s evaluation. I specifically focused on the area of improvement concerning board relations on his June evaluation. We discussed Doug reprimanding Nancy publicly. Four of us were adamant it was not acceptable. We discussed how difficult it was to get information from Doug before voting. One of the Board members suggested we tell Doug that we needed more specific information. It was agreed this was a weakness in the administration. We then discussed his inciting the crowd at Rosa Parks against the board. This is definitely against policy and his evaluation goals. Four of us voiced our opinion that Doug was not making progress towards improvement. One Board member voiced that he should be terminated. One Board member suggested reprimand. I voiced my concern that we needed the advice of an attorney. The four/three split concerning Doug’s behavior as being unacceptable was evident at this meeting.

October 9, 2006

This board meeting was a circus. Teachers and parents from Edison showed out in force to brow beat the board about the Edison contract. Six of the board members voiced their support for Edison and told the crowd Edison had never been in jeopardy. The crowd was out of control. Doug Williams did nothing to control the crowd. When I asked him to call security, he ignored my requests. Mrs. Rhonda Tipton, a parent who had witnessed the behavior of Williams and Rice at Rosa Parks, spoke in support of the board and told what she had witnessed at the meeting. Dr. Williams admitted he said things he probably should not have said but that he was just a smart ass. His lack of support for the board was, again, unacceptable. He was obviously inciting them to be out of control. His behavior was less than professional or supportive of the board.

October 12, 2006

I met with Doug Williams to discuss rescheduling facilitation with ISBA. I told him I wanted consideration of attorney on the agenda for the next meeting.

October 18, 2006

I e-mailed Doug and told him I wanted security visible at the 23rd meeting. I asked him to have security escort anyone out that could not adhere to rules stated in board policy when speaking to the board. I told him this would not be a repeat of the last meeting. He wrote back telling me this would be frowned on by the public and did not think it was a good idea. I told him if we can escort parents out for cheering for their children at graduation, we can escort them out for disrupting a board meeting. This is just an example of how every request was an argument. I called Doug to tell him that Nancy Walsh had called me and requested we put the pay for adult Spanish instruction on the agenda. She had talked with Max and had gotten the information she needed.

October 20, 2006

I received my board packet and Doug had on the agenda that he would let the public speak in the middle of the meeting before the Edison vote. I called to tell Doug I did not want this procedure. We have never allowed anyone to speak in the middle of a meeting. He promised he would limit the speakers to four. I told him I would trust him on this and allow it if it was limited. Nancy Walsh called me to ask why the vote for adult Spanish instruction was not on the agenda. I told her I had asked Doug to do it, but that obviously he had ignored my request.

October 23, 2006

When I got to the board meeting, I sought out Dennis Nichols and told him he would be taking his cue to get security from me and not from Dr. Williams. The meeting was much more controlled, but there were 25 people signed up to speak before the vote. Doug had promised to keep it at four. I should have known. We also voted 4-2 with one abstention to hire Jon Bailey as the board’s attorney. The Edison contract was approved 5-2. The contract was not even finished. When I asked the financial impact they didn’t even know, but they did know it would be more than it was in the past. This is also an example of the lack of respect Doug has for the board. He would pressure us to vote on a contract that is not even written. He does not recognize the board as the governing body.

October 24, 2006

I called Jon Bailey to tell him the Board had voted to approve him as consultant. I informed him we had a mediation session the next day. I scheduled an appointment with him for Friday.

October 25, 2006

We met with a facilitator from ISBA to try and air our concerns. Dr. Williams was sullen in the meeting and did not offer to begin working as a partnership. One member voiced their opinion that we could not trust him and he should resign. There were no apologies from Dr. Williams and very little participation in the mediation session. It was obvious afterwards that Dr. Williams did not want to work on the relationship. I received calls from three of the board members that they felt like there was no level of trust nor was there an effort on Doug’s part to mend the relationship. He saw us as an enemy to placate and then conspire against, and not a partner to work with.

October 27, 2006

The officers of the Board met with Jon Bailey. We voiced our concerns and asked what our options were. We informed Jon that the board was split 4-3 with regards to support of Williams. Jon gave us options ranging from doing nothing to cancellation of contract. He gave us case law that supported removing a superintendent because of no confidence and a lack of trust. We told him at this time that we did not want Williams to continue as superintendent. Jon said he was in court all week but would get back with me. He asked that the four of us write down our concerns and reasons we did not want Williams to continue as superintendent.

November 6, 2006

I contacted Jon Bailey and asked him how to proceed. He recommended that we place Dr. Williams on leave to investigate reasons for cancellation based on the information we had given him. With Dr. Williams on leave, we would have access to information and answers to questions that he refused to give us. He said he would e-mail a resolution for the next board meeting.

November 7, 2006

I e-mailed Dr. Williams and asked if Mrs. Walsh and I could meet with him on Friday. We wanted to tell him about the resolution. He said he was out of town on vacation Thursday and Friday. We scheduled to meet at 7am Monday morning.

November 13, 2006

Nancy Walsh and I met with Doug Williams at 7am Monday morning. We informed Dr. Williams that we would introduce a resolution at the board meeting that night putting him on indefinite leave with pay. We expressed our regret that we could not work together and that this relationship was keeping us from doing our job as a board. Dr. Williams said that we could talk with his attorney. He did not want Mr. Borgman to represent him because of their relationship. He felt like it would be too painful for Mr. Borgman. We left Doug’s office and I called Dennis Nichols and made an appointment for 5:30. We proceeded to make phone calls to Mr. Maple, Mrs. Buffie, and Mrs. Houchin informing them that we would make a motion at the meeting to place Doug on leave. We then called Terry Rice (PEA president) and set up a meeting. We met with Terry and informed him of our intention to place Doug on leave. We asked him to cooperate with whoever was interim. Nancy and I met with Dennis Nichols at 5:30 and told him we were making a motion to put Doug on leave. We asked him if he would act as interim. He told us he would but that he was not interested in a long term commitment. He planned to retire soon. Dennis was one of the two administrators in the district that had a superintendent’s license. He was liked and respected by everyone. We felt he would maintain stability. Dennis was always neutral in his behavior. He was like Switzerland. If he had said no, we would have hired an interim from the Educational Service Center. We voted 4-3 that night to place Doug Williams on indefinite leave with pay. We put Dr. Williams on leave so that we would have access to information, review past and present behavior towards the Board, and determine if it is possible to have a trusting, confident relationship with Dr. Williams.

Finance Committee ReportJanuary 22, 2007The finance committee met January 12, 2007. Attendance: Susan Adams, Barbara Thompson, Steve Maple, Dennis Nichols, Bill Brown. Attorney, Jon Bailey was also present.1. Susan Adams expressed a concern that vouchers were being paid before approval. State Board of accounts rules specifically state that vouchers should not be paid before Board approval.

Mr. Nichols had a concern that some vendors could not wait for payment. Mrs. Adams stated that vendors will have to understand that this is a State Board of Accounts Ruling. This is common to school systems and most vendors will conform to this practice. Schools usually have a 60 day turnaround for payment.

Mr. Brown responded by saying that this had been their practice for years. He also stated that many townships also have this practice.

Susan Adams replied that State Board of account rules should be broken as emergency arises, not as practice. Vouchers are to be paid after Board approval in the future.

2. Barb Thompson questioned why Ice- Miller and Mr. Borgman were both paid for reviewing the Edison contract. Bill stated that Ice Miller review was to make Edison agreement compliant with IRS. Lease agreement with Edison.

3. Why Mr. Borgman spent 4 hours on Perry Park Lease issue since we had been without a lease for 3 years. The response from Mr. Brown was that they had been negotiating a lease with the park.

Susan Adams would like a copy of the lease.

4. Why do we have Stephenson, Morrow, and Selmer working on lawsuits but also using Lou Borgman? Why are we using two attorneys?

Response was that Mr. Borgman was watching the attorney and making sure the attorney was doing the best job for the school corporation.

5. Mrs. Thompson stated that in more than one audit we were cited for needing supporting documentation on travel receipts. State Board of Accounts report states, “Supporting documentation such as receipts, cancelled checks, tickets, invoices, bills, contracts, and other public records must be available for audit to provide supporting information for the validity and accountability of monies dispersed. Payment without supporting documentation may be the personal obligation of the responsible official or employee.”

Response was that the administration will expect documentation from employees before being reimbursed for travel expenses in the future.

6. Coke Fund: It was brought to the attention of some Board members last year that the perception in the employee ranks and some community members was that the township coke fund was known as Doug’s slush fund. This fund is in the amount of $234,080.00. The funds are divided and distributed to buildings in the district. PTEC has a percentage of this fund. It is perceived that this is a fund for pet projects of Doug’s and Doug’s favored people. It is being said that Doug paid for private voice lessons for a student from this fund.

Susan Adams asked Dennis Nichols to provide an accounting of this fund. She was given detailed expenses, but not what the expenses were for. She asked Mr. Brown if private voice lessons for a student were paid for out of this fund. Mr. Brown did not know. However, Dr. Williams did tell a Board member that he paid for these lessons from this fund. The coke fund money is a school fund. Susan stated to the committee that it is not appropriate to pay for private lessons of any kind for certain favored students or for certain favored employees. There needs to be a criteria developed for the distribution of these funds. Mr. Bailey commented that State Board of Accounts has become aware of the large sums of money generated by these accounts and in the near future they will probably address it. He also stated that this practice was very close to crossing the line. Mr. Nichols has been asked to provide detailed accounting of what was paid for with coke fund monies.

7. Contracted Services: Susan Adams had a concern that consultants were being hired without Board knowledge or approval. The State Board of accounts clearly states that the Board should approve all contracts. Contracts are not valid without approval and Board signature. It is also stated in our Board policy. We were cited for this in our State Board of Accounts audit. My concern is that we are hiring consultants that are not needed or are extremely overpaid. It would be financially prudent in some cases to hire a regular employee instead of a consultant.

8. Changing the Teacher Agreement without Board knowledge or approval: On June 13, 2005, the Board approved a contract with the PEA. There was a statement in the contract concerning long term care that read as follows: During the 2005-2006 school year, the Board of Education and the Perry Education Association shall endeavor to work with a vendor to develop a long-term care insurance plan. The plan document shall provide details of coverage. The employer contribution to the plan shall be negotiated. In September of 2005, the agreement was changed as follows:

Beginning with the 2005-2007 Agreement, the Board of Education will provide a guaranteed issue, mandatory coverage long-term care insurance plan at no cost to the employee. The long-term care insurance vendor shall be selected by mutual agreement between the Board and the Association. Employees who retired at the end of the 2003-2004 school year and at the end of the 2004-2005 school year are also eligible for guaranteed issue coverage (if issued by November1, 2005) at their own expense. The employee may continue coverage into retirement at his/her own expense at the then current vendor rate through the employer.

This language change was not discussed with nor ratified by the Board. All contract changes have to be ratified by the Board in order to become effective. The Board has always been informed and ratified all changes in the teacher contract in the past. This jeopardizes the security of the teachers. Without Board approval the negotiated benefits are not valid.

This language change puts the corporation and ultimately the tax payers at risk. If the cost of this policy increases, the corporation has to fund the entire amount. The amount paid should have been capped at a flat dollar amount to protect the corporation from future financial responsibility.

Response from Administration: None given

9. Change in corporation insurance coverage and hiring of consultant without approval.

On September 29, 2006, the Board received a letter from Mr. Brown concerning a change in Workman’s Compensation program effective last May. He wanted to hire a safety consultant at $30.00 an hour because we were now self-funded. He was requesting to hire a retired administrator or teacher. I thought the letter was written to ask the Board about approving this position in the future. I had planned on voting no because most of the duties were clerical and safety training is provided free through vendors.

The first question was, “Why wasn’t the Board informed and asked to approve the move to self-funding the Workman’s Compensation Program?” Mr. Brown said he made the decision because it saved a lot of money.

First of all, any changes of this kind should be approved by the Board and is not the unilateral decision of a single person in the administration.

Secondly, self-funding opens the door for incredible liability.

During the conversation, I learned that the administration had already hired the safety consultant without Board approval or knowledge.

10. Continuing to pay employees after resignation without Board discussion or approval

It was brought to my attention several months ago, that an employee who had left employment last November continued to be paid by the corporation until the end of May last year. This employee had been accused of misconduct and to the Board’s knowledge, provided by Dr. Williams, had decided to resign last November. It was never discussed nor approved by the Board that this employee would be given a six month paid vacation. After researching this, I found that it appeared he was also paid for his extra-curricular position. I can only believe that he also kept all benefits.

The Administration admitted that they did pay this employee in order to get a resignation. In February of 2006, the president and vice-president received a copy of a letter to Dr. Williams concerning this employee and possible illegal activity concerning the corporation. When questioned, Dr. Williams said he had taken care of it. When we received Mr. Borgman’s bill last month, he had charged the corporation for 20.5 hours concerning this former employee. My question to the administration was what was so involved that Mr. Borgman had to spend 20.5 hours on the case and how was the corporation impacted?

Mr. Brown said that he had signed a confidentiality agreement and asked Mr. Bailey if he should answer the question. Mr. Bailey recommended that I not press Mr. Brown to give us the information requested and stated that no one should ever sign a confidentiality agreement.

Any time that an agreement to buy out a contract is made it should be discussed and approved by the Board. Also, any law suit, or possible law suit against the corporation should be discussed with the Board.

And on the advice of our attorney, a confidentiality agreement should never be signed.

Incentives for Edison Employees

I would like to bring up one more pending investigation. I did not bring this up at the finance meeting because I could not get the information to do so. In our research on Edison, Mrs. Thompson and I both came across articles stating that employees of Edison schools were monetarily rewarded up to the amount of sometimes $30,000.00. Mrs. Thompson asked Mr. Oldham if this were true in regard to our employees. Mr. Oldham stated that is was true but he did not know specific amounts and individuals and did not want to know. This is a concern because the law is clear about public school employees not accepting payment beyond school contracts for school services. I have looked at the contracts of our administrators and our teachers at the Edison schools. There is no mention of additional monies. I have had someone inform me that at least one of the Edison school principals received $20,000.00 last year. This has not yet been substantiated. I have contacted Edison three times in the last month to get a response to the following questions. 

1. Who receives incentives from Edison? 

2. What is the incentive received and how is it determined? 

3. How is the incentive paid?

Edison at this time has not responded to my requests for information. I received an initial reply that they would do so, but to this date, it has not happened.

I have had patrons question whether or not Dr. Williams is receiving incentives in exchange for pressuring the Board to contract with Edison. I do not have the answer to that. If it is true, it would go a long way to explaining the frenzy around the Edison contract.

I have contacted the State Board of Accounts to ask about the ramifications of this and if they have any suggestions for acquiring this information. I am waiting for a return call.

Recent situation:

I would like to share an experience that happened last week. This is an example of how it seems to be a weekly experience that I learn more about what is not right in Perry Township.

Last year one of the Board members would tease Dr. Williams about the Pizza Hut pizza he served us at our executive sessions when the administrators were being served extravagant lunches such as tenderloin at the PTEC building. Dr. Williams surprised her one meeting and served the tenderloin dinner. I must say, it was a welcome change. After our meeting two weeks ago, we scheduled another executive session with Dr. Balch. I called Dennis and asked him to order the tenderloin dinner for the meeting. I received a voice mail the next day from Mr. Nichols telling me that someone had told him that they were going to leak it to the public that the Board president had ordered a $700.00 dinner because that is what the corporation had been charged for the dinner by the food service department last year when Dr. Williams had ordered it. I knew I could buy a cow for 700.00, so I called another caterer. I asked her what a tenderloin dinner for eight would cost. She told me that she could not order half tenderloin and would have to order a whole tenderloin so it would be more expensive than it should be. She said it would cost 15.00 per person. I told her that I had an estimate of 700.00. She offered to cater it for me. I then called Dennis and told him about the other estimate. I told him there was something really wrong if we had been charged 700.00. Mr. Nichols investigated and found out that we were indeed charged 700.00. He has since gotten a price for the tenderloin dinner and it is 16.00 a person. I do not know why Dr. Williams would condone paying this outrageous sum of money, but Mr. Nichols is investigating this situation further. I will not go into any more detail concerning it, but I just wanted to give a small example of how loose the ship is sailing.

It is my conclusion after this meeting that Dr. Williams has operated as if there were no Board of Education. This leaves the corporation with no checks and balances. Can you imagine if President Bush was a one man show, or the Congress did not have the Senate? This is not a good analogy because these people are elected officials and therefore equals. Dr. Williams is an employee hired by the School Board to conduct the business of the school corporation with oversight from the School Board. We cannot oversee what we do not know. There have been Board members on past Boards that have wanted to know what was going on. However, Dr. Williams has always managed to recruit people and retain the majority whom only has an interest in being Board members in name only. In the last two elections, Dr. Williams has not been able to get his slated candidates elected and therefore has a genuine working Board that he has no desire to work with. You have elected a Board that wants to work. If you want a Board that does not ask questions and does not hold people accountable then you have the opportunity to return to the polls and elect them.

Money issues concerning placing Williams on leave.

Dr. Williams’ salary: $189,000

Mr. Nichols’ salary as assistant superintendent: $112,000.00

Mr. Nichols’ salary as interim superintendent: $160,000.00

Difference with Mr. Nichols’ salary is $48,000. He will receive 75% of this because he will act as interim for 75% of the year.

At this time, Mr. Nichols has not hired anyone to help him with his duties as assistant superintendent, so he is doing both jobs. If he feels the need to get additional help, this will be an added cost.

Attorneys fees: ?

When Dr. Williams’ contract is cancelled, we will have to pay him through his teacher’s contract which is June 30, 2007.

With Mr. Nichols taking on both responsibilities of superintendent and assistant superintendent, the cost of cancelling Dr. Williams’contract will be $36,000 plus attorney’s fees.

If there is litigation concerning the cancellation, it will be most likely covered by the corporations insurance.

Edison Schools 

In order to make my decision about renewing Edison’s contract, I had to look past all of the emotional persuasion and focus on what was best for all 14,000 Perry students. I had to examine my core beliefs about education and carefully study the data. 

In Perry Township we are bordering on 50% of our children living in poverty. I do believe in the unequal treatment of un-equals. That means I am aware of the research that shows that there is a direct correlation between a lack of student achievement and poverty. There are federal programs in place, such as Title 1, that provide extra financial resources for these children. Research findings show that individual and school poverty have a clear, negative effect on student achievement and that students who attend schools with the highest percentages of poor students perform worse on reading and mathematics tests. Poverty is determined by the number of students on free and reduced lunch. In order for a school to qualify for federal Title 1 money, their free and reduced student lunch count must be above 50%. We have five elementary schools in Perry Township that qualify as Title 1 or poverty schools. They are: Southport Elementary, Abraham Lincoln, Homecroft, Clinton Young, and Winchester Village. Because of their poverty level, these schools qualify for Title1 Federal- funds to pay for additional services for these children such as the Reading Recovery Program. 

All educational programs and salaries except those paid for with Title One funds or grant money is taken from our general fund. The General Fund is made up of local and state tax dollars. The General Fund is what we lobby the legislature for every other year. It is difficult for a school system to keep up with inflation with threatened cuts in public school appropriations because of the competition for dwindling tax dollars. The following is my justification for voting not to renew the Edison contract. 

1. Educational funding is uncertain from year to year. The Edison contract, which provides for the franchise name of Edison, depletes the general fund of 1.6 million dollars a year. Our capital projects fund is also depleted with the burden of supplying a laptop computer to every third through fifth grade child at the Edison schools. I am absolutely opposed to locking us in to a 5 year contract with such an uncertain financial future. I believe Perry Township can manage these two schools just as efficiently as they manage our other 15 schools in the district. 

2. Edison is a for-profit organization. I do not believe a public school, paid for with public tax dollars should be paying a for-profit educational management firm to manage two of its public schools. I would compare this to the non-profit model we are looking at now, New Tech High. New Tech High is a non- profit school reform model. We will pay New Tech to come in for three years and train our teachers and help us develop our own New Tech High. After three years we are independent, trained in the model, and no longer financially obligated to them. I believe our Edison teachers and staff are trained well enough in the Edison model that we no longer need to pay Edison millions of dollars for their name. 

3. We are approaching a contract renewal with our teachers. I am sure that because of the love they have for their school, the Edison teachers would gladly sacrifice dollars to keep the contract. However, there are 800 other teachers to consider. I do not want to hear from the administration this spring that we cannot afford to keep our teachers’ salaries competitive. You are making a decision today to deplete those funds. Do not come back this spring and blame it on the legislature. 

4. What is missing from this picture so far? Data. When the administration determined that summer school was not working, they brought us data in the form of test scores. The ISTEP results showed that the children who went to summer school showed minimal or no improvement. Therefore, the summer school program was dramatically changed. We implemented the Everyday Math program in Perry Township two years ago. Everyday Math is not the brainchild of Edison. Everyday Math began as a result of the research at the University of Chicago School of Mathematics Project in 1985. The Indiana Mathematics Initiative Project with the Indiana Urban Schools Association brought this curriculum reform model to Indiana schools. How have we determined that Everyday Math is a success? We have looked at the ISTEP scores. Perry Township’s ISTEP scores have significantly improved in Math since the implementation of Everyday Math. The program works. I have studied the ISTEP results of Perry Township schools on the DOE website. I ranked the schools in order of poverty because as I said before, poverty has been shown to negatively affect student achievement. Out of the eleven elementary schools, the Edison schools have the second and third highest socioeconomic status, with Rosa Parks at 29% and Jeremiah Gray at 30%. They have the most socio-economicly advantaged children. Therefore, I would expect them to have the highest test scores. However, when I looked at the scores, that was not the case. Jeremiah Gray is ranked first, but Rosa Parks ranks below Mary Bryan and Southport Elementary and is matched by Burkhart in test scores. Southport Elementary, a title 1 school with 52% of its children in poverty outscored Rosa Parks and came close to matching Jeremiah Gray. Southport Elementary had this level of test scores looking back to its scores in 2000. What is so amazing about these statistics is that the Edison school students are given 20% more instructional time in the classroom. Their day is an hour longer and they have two additional weeks in the year. With 20% more instructional time one would expect the test scores to be at the very least, exceptional. 

5. The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of education. It has left that decision up to the individual states. Here is what our State Constitution says about education: 

Knowledge and learning, general diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all. 

I would argue that to pay for Edison to manage our schools out of our general fund which is tax dollars set aside to provide an equal and uniform system of education for all of our children is unconstitutional. I believe the taxpayers of this community would have a class action suit against this Board for providing 20%additional education to a select few, providing technology tools for home use to a select few when other parents have to pay for their own, providing additional educational services such as foreign language instruction, and for providing free all day kindergarten to a select few when other parents have to pay for the same educational opportunities. 

To vote for this proposal is to become Robin Hood in reverse. It is taking from the poor to give to the rich. It has been suggested that harm will come to members who vote no to this contract. I thought long and hard about that. There are many heroes in history that have been persecuted for the color of their skin, their differences in culture, or their heartfelt beliefs. I came to the conclusion that I am in good company. I believe with all my heart that the children in Perry Township are entitled to an equal opportunity education. My vote on the Edison contract represents the silent majority. My hope is that they will no longer be silent, but will demand an equal education for their children.