The Vigo County Council has passed an ordinance that says voters must approve any county money to be handed to the school district — but whether that goes into effect remains to be seen.
On Friday, Vigo County Council President David Thompson announced he would not be signing the ordinance, which was passed on a 4-3 vote Tuesday night.
He said he’d filed a letter with county Auditor Larry Hutchings saying the council had not acted within its own rules when it brought the measure to a vote on Tuesday.
Thompson says the ordinance did not get a proper first reading. He also said it did not gather a twothirds vote in favor, which he said is required because it was passed without the opportunity for the public to comment.
Thompson said he will not sign the ordinance, which he says is a requirement under state law, specifically IC 36-2-4-9.
Also, he said there was a lack of public posting regarding the opportunity for public input before Tuesday night’s vote. That, he wrote, “… is inconsistent with the purpose of the Sunshine laws which were created to promote public transparency.” The hotly debated ordinance, proposed by Councilman Steve Ellis, put local government — county, city and schools — into a tizzy.
It’s common knowledge that many of the Vigo County School Corp.’s buildings — its three high schools perhaps most notably so — are dated and that the school district’s physical infrastructure needs significant, expensive work.
The question is how to pay for that work.
A VCSC proposal for a $261 million renovation and rebuilding project for the three high schools and West Vigo Middle School was rejected by voters in May 2022. That led to the district’s current consolidation plan. It calls for 23 schools to be trimmed to 16, with two high schools, four middle schools and 10 elementary schools. The process could take up to seven years.
The oversight board
Through the efforts of state Sen. Greg Goode, R-Terre Haute, new state legislation now allows creation of an oversight board regarding county money sent to the school district. The law is part of House Enrolled Act 1515. The law says, “If a county transfers or gifts any unencumbered funds to a school corporation located in the county, the county executive may establish a local board to exercise oversight and manage the use of the funds.”
Members of that board would be one member appointed by the county executive (the commissioners); one appointed by the county fiscal body (the council); one appointed by the mayor of Terre Haute; one appointed from the business community as chosen by the commissioners; and the president of the VCSC school board.
That committee would explore how the county (and possibly other public and private interests) might be able to assist the school corporation.
The law also says the expenses of such a board will be paid by the county.
Backers say such a committee is a good idea, in that it provides study of the possible ways to help the school district while also keeping the process out in the open. They say it takes no authority away from the county commissioners (the governmental executive body), nor the county council (the governmental fiscal body).
Those elected personnel would still be able to — even obligated to — make their spending decisions, backers say.
And the county/schools partnership backers are several, including the school corporation, Terre Haute Mayor Brandon Sakbun, and the Terre Haute Chamber of Commerce.
Those who back a required referendum for use of county money for schools say things aren’t that clear cut.
For instance, they say that requirement to cover the board’s expenses could land the county on a bigger financial hook that intended.
For instance, the by-referendum-only backers say the board could run up $5 million in expenses to monitor $1 million in spending, and the county would be powerless to do anything other than send over a check.
Opponents of the Ellis referendum ordinance say that argument is misleading and overreaching.
They also argue the law says the oversight board has “oversight and management” of any funds from the county only after those funds have been sent by the county. In other words, no one is giving the school district or an oversight board a blank check.
Quick-arising controversy
Ellis’ ordinance became controversial almost immediately.
He first brought it to the council floor Oct. 7, during a sunshine or non-voting meeting.
Neither Thompson nor council attorney Michael Wright were present, but Thompson said he did not believe the ordinance was properly put forth, so he scheduled it under communications rather than for first reading.
Backers of the referendum ordinance say a first reading was conducted Oct. 7, as Ellis did read the ordinance aloud and in accordance with the rules.
Ellis and his allies contend those who are attempting to keep the ordinance at bay on Oct. 7 and Oct. 14 were attempting to squash the ordinance and silence its supporters.
The heart of their argument in favor of the measure is two-fold.
First, they say the county does not have spare money to give to the school district. They point to current or coming needs. For instance, the county is considering a new community corrections facility, which has been estimated to cost $41 million.
Second, they generally oppose county funds — especially those derived from taxation — being handed from the county to the school corporation short of explicit voter approval.
They say the schools have their own taxing and bonding authority, as well as their own governance.
Ellis’ ordinance blocks county money going toward creation of the oversight board, as well as for actual building uses.
Further, the temperature around the issue has been raised by people on both sides of the issue, with each accusing the other of playing games with transparency or the lack thereof.
What’s next
At first glance, it appears the matter is headed back to the County Council.
County commissioners had a request in for a special Oct. 29 meeting with the council to discuss the establishment of the oversight committee.
In late September, commissioners were estimating committee startup costs, including for a lawyer for the board, at roughly $100,000. They say that could come from the county’s portion of casino funds.
Commissioners President Mark Clinkenbeard said that after the planned Oct. 29 meeting for information and discussion, the voting meeting would come in November. With the passage of the Ellis ordinance last Tuesday and Thompson’s subsequent refusal to sign on Friday, further scheduling on the oversight and funding questions seemed to be up in the air.
As of Friday evening, Thompson said the Oct. 29 meeting was still on.
Ellis, for his part, says Thompson’s non-signing won’t sidetrack his ordinance, and he and supporters will be able to keep a referendum requirement on the books.
Ellis has sufficient votes, he said, to get the measure back in front of the council, if necessary for separate public input and voting meetings. And he says he has the support to pass it a second time.
Ellis said he doesn’t want to take the matter into court.
“I don’t want to litigate,” he said. “That would be a waste of taxpayer funds.”
© 2025 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.