LASD Board Meeting, February 17, 2025: Last Minute Additions and Substitutions

[XLFD]

Weather conditions were bad enough to close school on Monday, February 17th, President's Day observances shut down many other activities, and the agenda packet of the Ludington Area School District (LASD) Board meeting at their renovated board room at 6 PM was light on action and controversy.  Even so, a full crowd of about three dozen people braved the elements to attend the proceedings, including this reporter who had missed a couple of months of this board due to scheduling conflicts with city government meetings.

As such, this was the first time the Ludington Torch has seen Trustees Mike Winczewski and Alan Neuschwander in action (pictured 1st and 2nd from the left respectively).  And it's the first time we've seen the new boardroom and the new set-up, which has eliminated the 'horseshoe' arrangement of trustees with a more 'bookended' linear arrangement.

In presentations, student government Mayor Kylee Johnson updated the board on multiple activities of the student body over the last month.  Annabelle Lowman was then honored for her All-state honors in cross country.  Curriculum Director Mike Hart gave the most recent NWEA testing results for the district, with LASD improving over the last year but still falling in the middle percentiles in comparison to other districts.  

Public comment saw this reporter bring up the recent controversy dealing with a substitute teacher, reviewed in detail here.  The superintendent mentioned in a memo that they were investigating why they didn't vet the teacher properly, but we think the bigger problem is why the superintendent felt 13-year-old dismissed charges were an issue when school policy says they shouldn't be.

XLFD:  "On February 5th, the superintendent publicly issued a memo that said in relevant part:  "The district hired a third-party independent contractor who served as a substitute teacher last week.  The district was recently made aware that this individual had a plea bargain over the weekend to dismiss sex crime charges against him.  The district immediately removed the individual from our substitute list and conducted a factfinding investigation... the individual will no longer be serving in the district."

At this meeting, twelve days after notifying the community that this lapse occurred, the community is wondering why the investigation hasn't concluded and why your findings haven't been publicly released, as you could easily do at this meeting.  My own independent investigation determined who the substitute was and that the sex crime charges were not dismissed over the weekend, but 13 years ago by an Ingham County prosecutor who fully dismissed all felony sex crime charges against him in a deal that had him plea guilty to two non-sexual misdemeanor charges.  

The district by statute needs to contact the MSP to do a criminal history check on any independently contracted sub before he makes it to a classroom.  By its own bylaw, 4121, the district has a duty to conduct a fingerprint-based criminal history check on the hiring or employment of any substitute teacher, unless it has been provided through another district the person has subbed at.  It also says that "neither the board or the superintendent shall consider criminal charges that did not result in conviction in determining whether to hire or continue the employment of any individual". 

Dr. Corlett violated that policy by unilaterally declaring that the sub would never work in the district again due to sex crime charges that were dismissed 13 years ago.  I doubt the district will make such a finding in its own investigation into this incident, an investigation which appears fatally tainted due to the preconceptions and procedural errors found throughout the memo. [END comment]

Neither the investigation nor any part of this troubling issue was brought up during the rest of the meeting, which the board has complete control over.  We will continue to investigate the issue through FOIA and surely bring it up at the next meeting so whatever glitches found can be targeted and corrected in the future-- rather than ignored.

Perhaps the next most controversial item on the agenda was a late addition at the top of the meeting, where a virtual instruction plan was presented and approved by the board in case the district has a couple more snow days.  The plan itself envisions invoking virtual learning to make up any snow days in excess of those allowed for schools by the state.  Under the plan, the next snow day can be made up on March 14th by making a professional development day a regular school day.  After that, the district will make a concerted effort to have all IPads sent home and provide students with internet access who need it.  There will then be 3.5 hours of instruction via the ether to make up for the snow day, rather than add in-class days at the end of the school year.

As many parents expressed dissatisfaction with virtual learning back in the COVID era, maybe there was a good reason to leave this off of the agenda, for fear of hearing some dedicated feedback.   Another item dealt with contracting for replacement siding on the new elementary school.  The original siding has not fared well, and due to the shoddy work, the school has negotiated with the Christman Company and the former contractor to pay $300K of the cost to replace the work.  The lowest bid of the three contractors was local Vischer Construction and this will cost $220K to the LASD ($520K overall).  

The board would also approve $1.554M in the bond project, which is almost fully complete according to officials.  Superintendent Corlett would discuss why the district is limiting those wanting to choose LASD over their other school, by offering LASD as a 'school of choice' for only those coming in from other districts for kindergarten and ninth grade, so as not to overly burden the staff except for the transitional grades mentioned.  

The board would end the meeting by going into closed session to discuss collective bargaining strategy between themselves and the teacher's union.  While many of those in attendance appeared to be members of that union, none spoke during the course of the meeting and no binding decisions were made before adjournment.