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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT