Bartholomew Consolidated School Board members Monday finalized eight district policies and put three on hold pending further review as part of an ongoing consolidation process.
The group is also planning a work session to take a look at changes to two policies the board had already given approval to in the past year, along with another they have yet to review.
School board members unanimously approved eight policies on second reading, including one related to distracted driving and another outlining guidelines for the amount of cash the district should have on-hand at a given time.
Three policies — C475: School Sponsored Publications and Productions, E125: Promotion, Placement and Retention and H100: School Visitors and Parent-Family Engagement — were tabled to ensure they are in alignment in relationship with other policies.
The school board passed the policies on first reading during their meeting on July 21. This was the fifth packet of policies the board has worked through.
The consolidation — which began in earnest last August — is part of a wider reorganization, meant to simplify and streamline BCSC’s policy structure and eliminate any redundancies, school district officials have said.
Board members voted in July 2024 to terminate an agreement with NEOLA, the education consulting firm that assisted with BCSC policies previously, and approve an agreement with Indianapolis-based firm Church Church Hittle and Antrim as a replacement.
The firm is managing BCSC’s board policy platform and will update policies based on changes in state and federal legislation, as well as changes in case law.
The following are the policies that were finalized Monday:
- A100: Non-Discrimination & Anti-Harassment
- A285: No Distracted Driving
- B150: Organization
- C400: Use of Restraint & Seclusion with Students
- D425: Employee Benefits
- F350: Cash Balance Policy
- G275: Animals on Corporation Property
- G375: Use of School Facilities
School Board Member Logan Schulz, District 6, requested that C475, E125 and H100 be tabled. C475 “due to conflicting language between several policies,” E125 “due to conflicting chain of commands across several policies” and H100 “pending a legal review against the one-party state recording and how it’s described.”
The motion to amend the three policies pending legal review was approved 4-2 with Dale Nowlin, District 4, and Rich Stenner, District 2, voting against. The remaining polices were approved unanimously 6-0. Board Trustee Tom Glick, District 6, was absent.
Later on, Schulz asked to add another item to the agenda, wanting to present three policies to the board on first reading, which would require unanimous approval by the board. He wanted additions to Policy 0155: Committees, A125: Nepotism, Conflicts of Interest, Gifts & Use of Corporation Resources and D150: Board- Superintendent Relationship.
Policy 0155 was last revised by the school board in 2020, but A125 and D150 had already been considered and approved by the school board in November 2024 and April 2025, respectively.
Schulz indicated that he sent the changes to his colleagues the day of, and several said they hadn’t even gotten the chance to look at them.
Nowlin observed that the typical process for policies involves them being posted online for the public to review for at least two weeks, followed by a first reading.
Changes Schulz wanted to Policy 0155 was to restrict “ad hoc appointments to committees by the (school board president) without the board’s approval outside of an emergency.” In the absence of an emergency, the proposed changes would require consent by the majority of the board and visibility during a public meeting, Schulz said.
The proposed change to A125 involves the inclusion of “conflict of interest statements when the party has knowingly or intentionally provided benefit to a school board member or employee to receive a contract with the corporation or a purchase made by the corporation,” Schulz said.
“Right now, the conflict of interest statement is only if they were to financially derive benefit from a contract, not if they were to have already received one ahead of time,” he continued.
And tweaks to D150 “would include what I believe the spirit of the language would have been, is that the superintendent is there to appoint non-board members to any negotiation teams.”
Board President Nikki Wheeldon, District 7, said she didn’t “feel OK about approving a change to an agenda when one board member isn’t here, and they were also provided the same few hours notice.”
After some confusion and back-and-forth, Jason Major, District 1, asked to amend Schulz’s motion to add the agenda item so that Monday would serve as an introduction to the policy changes, with first reading to come during their next meeting on Sept. 8.
That failed 4-2 with Whittney Loyd, District 3, and Wheeldon voting against, although the school board president said they would plan a work session to talk through the second group of changes proposed by Schulz.
“I’d like to out point team, we don’t have to do these motions and amendments. We could just communicate as a team ahead of time on things like this and try to put them in a stream-lined fashion,” Wheeldon said. “I hope we can get better at that going forward just for the efficiency of the meeting and our content in the future… We’re making this a little hard.”
