ILNews

Education board measures would curb Ritz's powers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Schools Superintendent Glenda Ritz said Wednesday she would have her lawyers review a pair of measures from the State Board of Education that would curb some of her powers as board chair.

The board voted 7-3 on one measure establishing a committee to review Ritz's ability to set the board's agenda. And board members voted 9-1 on a separate measure mandating that the Department of Education deliver regular updates to the board on the status of the state's No Child Left Behind waiver.

Board members who supported the measure argued that she was reading too much into their requests and that it was not about a power play against her.

"I don't think I see this as anything other than collaborating and trying to put our best foot forward," said Gordon Hendry, a Democratic member of the board.

It will now be up to Ritz to decide whether to appoint the special committee called for by the board. She said Wednesday that she wanted a legal review first to determine if the board acted within its powers.

The votes capped more than two hours of emotional and, at times, combative debate between Ritz and the other board members, all appointees by the state's past two Republican governors. Ritz accused Pence's education agency, the Center for Education and Career Innovation, of trying to interfere with her efforts to secure the federal waiver.

"I feel like it's an attempt to actually bring to bear and question my integrity, my honesty, my department's capacity to do the work of the waiver. Perhaps he (Pence) thinks his agency is the agency that should be doing that," Ritz said.

A CECI spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Ritz's statements Wednesday evening. But Ritz pointed out that CECI staff submitted a 28-page critique of the state's waiver that she argued "jeopardizes" the state's chances at keeping the waiver.

The U.S. Department of Education alerted the state at the end of April that it was in danger of losing its federal waiver because of problems tracking low-performing schools. At stake is control over a slice of the more than $200 million Indiana receives in federal "Title I" funds each year.

The news of the state's waiver being placed in jeopardy also re-opened old political battles between Ritz and Pence's staff and board appointees that had been dormant since last December.

The infighting has drawn criticism from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a supporter of the education overhaul pushed by former Superintendent Tony Bennett and former Gov. Mitch Daniels. Duncan said in January that the state was facing "deep dysfunction".

At the height of the battling last fall, Ritz ended a meeting abruptly after ruling one member's motion out of order. She later sued the other members of the board, claiming they violated Indiana's public access laws when they sought to move calculation of the state's "A-F" school grades to legislative analysts.

Pence called in an arbitrator from the National Association of State Boards of Education to negotiate a truce between Ritz, the board and his staff. But during a December meeting with the arbitrator, Ritz released an email discussion between Pence's staff discussing ways to strip her of power.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT