April 3rd, April 24th, May 14th, and May 18th, 2026.

And I second we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Next uh order of business are the public questions.

Uh first one up is the Beechgrove Schools.

Director Becker, do you want to take over?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um so uh we've got in total uh on this agenda for um school corporations that have submitted um public questions for approval.

Um this process is outlined uh in state law and uh they follow an approval process through the department of local government and finance.

Um so uh at this point what you have in front of you are uh basically the text from the language um in the order approved by uh each of the school corporations.

Um what we will do, I have the um you guys have a condensed version of just the language of the question.

What I have here in my uh packet is the order from each of the schools that does include um you know the page uh where the language is found where we where we pulled that out.

Um so at this point I I don't believe, and I'll defer to council for for any clarification.

I don't believe the board um we don't need to necessarily read these questions into the record, they will be part of the record um uh now anyway.

Um and then what we're really doing is um just kind of ratifying the language as it's already been approved and what will as it will appear on the ballot in November.

And again, I uh defer to council to help clarify anything I messed up there, yeah.

And there it there are representatives from these uh school corporations here too, if you have questions, but uh I believe those packets really are verifying that they've done all the steps required up to this point in time, and it has um the language that they would like to have on the ballot there.

Um so really what you're doing is taking a vote to sort of certify that they've done everything that they're supposed to do up until now and to accept that language for the ballot, um, and then later on the board will have to uh provide them uh a proof of the ballot uh by law to sort of show that um yep, this is this is the language.

Um make sure we got it right.

And what is uh the order in which we have these, is that um public question one, public question two, and for those who live in no so what is in front of the board right now is a summary of all of the public questions that we are um tracking um as an office.

So there are two statewide excuse me, public questions, um, which appear in your packet um as a summary of all of the public questions.

What's in front of you for um today is um and I'll just read through them, Beachgrove Schools, um the MSD of Decatur Township, MSD Washington Township, and MSD Wayne Township.

There is um another public question we're anticipating.

We did receive from IPS schools, uh Indianapolis Public Schools.

Um we got that language uh late last week, and so um I did not have time to update the agenda.

Um but we'll have that question appear uh at a future meeting uh for the board as well.

So again, uh they've gone through um the order.

You can see that the school corporation has has gone through the process, and this is just kind of one step along the process.

Um from here we will um you know uh notify the the Department of Local Government and Finance that this is the language that's been approved, and then um we will be sure to make sure that all the school corporations are included when we have uh ballot proofs ready to send out so that they can inspect those ballots uh prior to the ratification to make sure that we've uh captured the language correctly there as well.

And what's the deadline to file file these for the school corporations?

Is that also August 21st?

I belie yeah, I believe it's August 3rd.

Um and so I don't know that we're tracking any others at this time.

Uh typically the school corporations and their representatives do a good job of uh try to notify us of of things that are going to be coming to us.

Uh but I I believe this is all we're we're tracking at this time.

Thank you.

Is there anybody from Beach Grove Schools here that wants to say anything?

If I may uh I'm serving as counselor regional schools, um have them to work with version of your post.

Thank you.

Uh I'm serving as counselor schools that you should know uh actual representatives could make it this morning, but I'm um here on their behalf.

I don't believe they had any questions or anything on uh additional they needed, but we're happy to answer any questions this board may have regarding the process.

Any questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

Do we want to move on to MSD Decatur Township question?

Um yeah, if you want to see if there are other representatives here for Beach Grove or for all of them.

Council for the votes.

Do we need to take these individually?

I would take them individually.

Um but you can do all the discussion and then vote.

You can vote one at a time.

It's up to the board.

What do we want to anybody else here that represents uh MSD Decatur Township, Washington Township or Wayne Township wish to uh comment?

Jeff Quaken Bush with Farms and Fargar representing Decatur Township schools.

We have the superintendent and the CFO here that we don't wish to meet any comments we share to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak?

Yeah, I'm back.

Um also serving as counsel for the City of Washington Township and MC Wayne Township.

Um Dr.

Matt Kaiser, assistant superintendent uh on behalf of MC of Washington Township is here.

Again, if you have any questions, um no representatives from MSC of Wayne Township were able to attend this morning there on their behalf as well.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Do we need to vote on these or are they just okay?

Can we do them all at once or should we do them individually?

I'd recommend just doing them individually for the record.

Okay.

Uh call for a vote.

I'd entertain a motion to approve the public question for the Beechgrove schools.

I move approval of Beach Grove Schools public language.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chair, would you like to vote?

Did you say aye?

No.

Do I have to vote?

Yes.

Yes.

Aye.

Trouble with being a proxy.

That's okay.

I've been here a long time.

Okay, the second question, MSD Decatur Township public question.

Do we have a motion?

I move approval of the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township public question language.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh public question for MSD Washington Township.

Do I have a motion?

I move approval of the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township public question language.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Public question for MSD Wayne Township.

Do I have a motion?

I move approval of public question language for Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township.

Second.

Have a motion and a second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

Next order of business is the candidate challenge.

Uh Director Pecker, would you like to comment on this?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, folks, a second to leave.

Um so uh the uh agenda item is for a candidate challenge in um Indianapolis Public School District 4.

Um there is uh Friday afternoon, uh late Friday afternoon.

There was a uh a new challenge uh in the same race in that same district.

Um that is for the um opposing candidate.

And um the challenges are are substantively um similar in nature, and typically um you know, staff and and the board would deal with those in in one hearing uh if we had multiple challenges.

And um I'll let our our let I'll let counselor um Boswell um continue with this boat through our our research and uh preparation for the challenge.

District that is for the um opposing candidate and um the challenges are are substantively um similar in nature and typically um you know staff and and the board would deal with those in in one hearing uh if we had multiple challenges and um I'll let our our let I'll let counselor um Boswell um continue with this but through our our research and uh preparation for the challenge um we we basically I would ask that the board table uh this uh this agenda item to a future meeting uh that we can get scheduled hopefully within the next week or so um to give staff some more time to uh prepare for that um and seek some more clarification uh um and guidance uh from the state as well and and I'd like counselor uh defer to counselor Boswell to go from there um yeah so this is this is kind of a tricky one um I haven't been here as long as you but uh me too and uh this is um one of the more fascinating I think legal situations we've come across so the first challenge had multiple um claims on it the second one just had one but the one that overlaps has to do with their challenging the party affiliation of those candidates these are school board candidates and this is the first year that school board candidates can run with declaring a party affiliation so this is the first time we've seen this first time it's come up this was put into law from Senate Bill 287 in 2025 and um everybody's still navigating this for the first time and it presents some interesting interpretations of statute it presents some interesting interpretations of the election division's guidance of that statute and in just preparing for the hearing that we were supposed to do today and then looking into it further after we got that challenge on Friday it became apparent that there were some discrepancies between the way the statute read and the way the election division's guidance was reading that I felt very strongly deserve further um clarity from the election division that would really help this board in adjudicating those challenges and I'm happy to talk through and I think it may be helpful to talk through what those are to kind of set up the future meeting and there's also a question just because of the way the IPS statute works you know what is the practical outcome of what your decision may be depending on how you adjudicate it and where we are in the timeline of candidate filings and challenges and and where just the election calendar generally um is is also very relevant here so there's a lot of layers to this and having um the extra week to make sure that puzzle is fully put together um for this board is is I think also um very helpful in addition to just making sure that you can fairly adjudicate both challenges equally at the same time any questions from the board to counsel yes a couple uh so we got one challenge that we were going to hear today and then we got another one on Friday um from opposing on behalf of opposing candidates for the same office yes and one challenge had more things on it yes and the latest challenge had uh one point that was similar to the original challenge that's correct and that is the one that is in contention with this how this how the statute was written versus what the state of Indiana election division recommended that is correct so in this new law in well let me let me talk about not election boards for just a second so if you're gonna run as a Democrat or Republican for any other uh race in the in the state we as we know those parties hold primaries you know we just we just did one and in order to run in that primary you have to show um that you're a member of that party and we have a very recent Supreme Court case about that the Rust opinion that looked at the statute and it says in that statute that you have to have uh voted in that party's primaries and the way the statute reads is that it's the two most recent primaries in which the candidate voted so somebody could have voted in the year 2000 if they're old enough I'm I'm one of those people they could have voted in 2000 and 2002 in those primaries and then not voted again in a primary and they would qualify.

That is correct.

It doesn't have to be 2026 and 2024.

That's that's correct.

Two most recent that the candidate voted in has to be from that party.

But when the General Assembly wrote the two primary rule for the school board, that's not what they wrote.

They wrote the two most recent primaries held by the party, which is different.

That suggests, you know, the two most recent primaries.

So in this case, that would be 2026 and 2024.

So it's very clearly distinct language, it's different language.

So when you look at it, you think, well, that's a different situation.

Um that's what everybody was, I think assuming was the case.

But then when you look at the election division's guidance, that's not what they say.

They say even for school board candidates, it's the rule that everybody else has that's the two most recent that you voted in.

So their guidance almost suggests that it's a distinction without a difference, um, which I think deserves some clarification.

Um it's possible that they made an assumption about legislative intent, it's possible they just made an assumption about we just read it too fast, but no one's no board has adjudicated this before.

It's not come up.

So in order to clarify that, I think it's um important to know did is that what is that what they meant?

Is that their guidance?

Now, of course, that's their guidance.

The board's job is to apply the statute to apply the law to the situation.

So you could disagree with it, but it's helpful to know what the election division's guidance is and why they believe that to be so.

And right now we don't know why they've issued the guidance that they have.

So we should, in my recommendation, seek what seek some further information from them about what that is.

I also want to say that in um 38 2.57, the statute suggest that you're challenging the party affiliation, not the candidacy itself.

So if you are challenging somebody in a primary, say you're running as a Democrat in a Democratic primary, and you challenge that person, and you say, Yep, they don't meet the the two-party rule or the or the two primary rule, so therefore they don't qualify to be a Democrat, it would make sense that they're removed from the ballot because it is a Democrat primary.

We are voting on who the Democrat representatives are going to be.

The statute suggests that when you're challenging someone's party affiliation under the uh school board uh candidacy, uh-huh, that you're only challenging their affiliation.

So I want to run as a Democrat for school board, and someone challenges my Democrat bona fides, you're only challenging that D beside my name.

You're not challenging my entire candidacy.

So the challenge is upheld, the D comes off, but my name is still there, I'm still running, I'm just not running as a Democrat.

That's what the statute suggests.

What the election division's guidance says is that if the election if the challenge is upheld, that the entire candidacy goes away.

That if the um party affiliation challenge is sustained, then nope, the entire candidacy is done, the person comes off the ballot.

And the reason that that is um interesting to me is that you could in theory be um appointed to the uh to to serve on a school board now and not meet not and I'm not talking about this particular seat, I'm talking about any seat anywhere in the state, and not meet that requirement.

You know, you could be serving in Fort Wayne, not meet the party affiliation requirement of any major political party, and meet all other requirements and be able to serve, right?

It's it's not a otherwise a requirement to hold that office.

Um and so the fact that it's a requirement to run is only relevant if you're trying to run for that party, but it's not a primary, you know, the party doesn't have any say over who gets to do it and who not who doesn't, because we're on you know, it's not like they're controlling the whole process, and that's what the statute suggests.

So I think again, seeking some clarification from them on is that in fact what you what you intended, and this was a 2025 piece of legislation.

The guidance from the election division came out in 2025, and it and that's kind of right after that Russ Supreme Court opinion came out.

I assume that to a large degree it's the election division interpreting that um that opinion.

Um I have not um went through and compared the opinion to the to the statute, but um, I think just on the face of the language, it seems that that their guidance and the and the statute seem to be at odds.

So um I again I think seeking some clarification from them on what their guidance is and why would be very helpful because no one is taking this up before.

Um and it and it I think we've talked about this individually.

I've talked with each of you individually, like there is a decent chance that you know this could be taken, you know, for a judicial review, and the more that I think we can um be very clear and have a clear record of what any decision making is is helpful.

Um you certainly want to make sure all candidates have um you know uh a fair adjudication of their issues, and particularly on something that's brand new and novel that no one's ever seen, taking the extra steps to make sure you gather all the information possible seems like um a really good idea um on something like this uh well thank you, General Assembly, because this seems clear as mud when you mentioned adjudication uh by a court we've got some deadlines that we have to have our ballot done by and there are I mean I know you don't tell a judge what to do, right?

Uh but you can request, but that is timing is important on this because the deadline to is the third to file any other challenge, right?

21st 21st April August 21st.

Yeah.

Uh and our first ballots get mailed out if approved when?

Middle of September.

Um so the way this would work is that whenever the board makes a decision, anybody that disagrees with your decision would have 30 days to seek judicial review of that decision, and then um, you know, a judge would have to decide what to do, but um, you know, we would have to to ask anybody to to do that quickly.

And I only bring that up because like it is novel, it is unknown, you know, and so you're really go you're to some extent you're making your best uh judgment, and I I'm not uh inviting that in any way, but you're just going to be the first board that is ever decided this and particularly deciding it on the grounds where I think you're gonna you may continue to have conflicting um guidance versus the statutory language, and so I just want to preview that because I think that timeline is relevant.

Um to that point, we're past the filing deadline, so no one else can file to run, although uh Mr.

Klingerman pointed out to me today there's still the write-in candidate window is actually the 21st to the 28th.

And then there's uh so you could you could do I have that?

Yeah, and then you could challenge August 21st.

Yeah, and then you could challenge the writing candidates.

So that and it's unclear to me if somebody was removed through like let's if somebody filed, was removed from the ballot for a party affiliation issue, could they file as a writing candidate?

Very unclear.

Um I think the answer that's likely no, we'd have to look into that.

Um but in this case, let's say we have a vacancy.

The the IPS statute is odd because what we had here was a sitting uh IPS board member uh left to run for state senate.

Her board seat ran until 28.

Normally, if this was any other um school board like the ones we were talking about earlier, Beech Grove, Decatur, Washington, those school boards would just appoint someone to serve out until 28.

No big deal.

It's not what the IPS statute does, though.

They appoint somebody to serve out until the next school board election.

In this case, it was this year, 26.

They appointed an individual to serve until the election this year who happens to be one of the candidates in this case, and then we were gonna hold an election to for the remaining two years of the previously elected person's term.

And let's say neither of these people end up on the ballot, and then we have a vacancy, uh what happens?

Uh well, uh that is a little unclear because then you're then you're kind of in this no man's land.

There is a constitutional provision about holdovers, which may which may apply.

Um you're really getting far out there in the um, you know, deep into Title III for sure.

Yes, for sure.

So it's um in Title 20 and and and the whole thing.

So being able to like take these steps to like let's make sure we have all the information, I think is super helpful because um there are real ramifications, not only to uh how this new law is going to be interpreted going forward, not only here but across the state, I think are relevant, but also super relevant to the IPS board um and their makeup um uh for the next couple years.

So um it it is a tricky title three situation to your point that the General Assembly has uh provided Council.

Do we need to formalize this questioning and with a vote to ask you to seek the clarification from the state election division?

I think what you definitely need to do if you so choose is to vote to table um the challenge to Miss Cornette um to a time to be determined um whenever we can align it with the other challenge.

Um that would be the first, I think helpful step.

If the board um wanted to specify exactly what they wanted me to seek clarity on from the election division, um you could do that.

Um, or if you wanted to just give general guidance, then you could do that too.

Well, I I would like to know everything because right generally is better because I I don't know what other kind of stones you're gonna uncover.

I don't I don't want to you know hamstring you if we say something very specific that you have to go look for when you find ten other things.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I'll I will say I hope you don't fight ten of the things.

You know, better to know and have all of the information so we can make an informed decision rather than uh you know what what we read in code does not seem to jive with the instructions we got and maybe there's a reason and we don't know why exactly and I have no doubt that the Indian election division will be um very um amenable to being helpful.

I think it's in their interest to get this um and they too are bipartisan yes, yes, yeah, they are too.

They have um lawyers from both parties and directors from both parties that I think everyone will be very interested in making sure this is um aligned with uh what the legislative's intent is to in their belief.

Um but um that's asking a lot of anyone, but um that I I believe they will be helpful for sure.

Um but I but to your question um uh uh Madam Vice President, I think what you you definitely need to do is probably vote to table the the first challenge and are there people did people show up for that I don't know, but I would not take any comment on it.

Do I have a motion to table?

Someone show up someone to read uh I it's it's up to you to recognize anyone if you want.

I don't I I I do move to table the uh candidate challenge for IPS district four until we receive further clarification.

And I second we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye, aye, all those opposed motion carries this table till the next meeting.

Did you want to recognize that lady raising her hand?

We can.

It's up to you.

Do we need to?

I mean there's so much variability here.

Here's my recommendation is that if you're gonna table it for the sake of both parties, I would I would not because I think in if we're gonna adjudicate both at the same time, I would wait to just recognize everybody at the same time because we are doing this in some part because we want to be able to take both candidates and adjudicate them fairly and equally it's sunshine on all the proceedings.

Exactly.

Yeah, so that would that would be my recommendation, and anybody from either uh either party that like has information that they want to um provide to staff or the board is welcome to do that in writing um at any point in time, and of course, we'll be uh considered throughout the process and research um as as we as we go through this as we always would.

Yeah, okay.

I think we can follow council recommendation other business any other business before the board if none, I'll entertain a move.

Uh well actually what we have some news.

We have some news for everyone who might be watching at home or those of you here who might not already know.

We have a new election service center.

Oh yeah.

Uh it's closer to downtown.

It's uh has a fresh new paved parking lot, it's uh got more space, and uh we will be able to better serve the public when we uh conduct our trainings and um store our very very very precious election equipment.

Um and the security features are bar none, so uh we will have at some future date an open house so we can uh show off our our new digs, but it's uh the address is uh 51 Coeeba Lane.

Um we just call it COWIBA, but it's um conveniently located only blocks from um the famous Golden Ace Inn, which has a delicious hamburger, I'm told.

So uh the uh we we look forward to uh you know working out of there and um serving the public from this new location and more to come it's more of oh yes there there are more new and exciting things that are on the horizon.

Um but uh before we get to that we will have to um you know make some make some decisions but sounds pretty quickly and uh once we get the schedules worked out uh for the board members uh we will have a date um very soon and have it posted as soon as possible.

Yeah those are those are my updates anything else before the board I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved and I second that one meetings adjourned yeah and