Teddy- people will begin to suspect something if we keep chatting this way or at least get bored. Seriously your question about a buy out is valid. Yes, I hear rumors, only the number is much less; I believe it is 125 thousand. My sources all say the same but I've nothing in writing or on video & although I trust my sources it's not as if Ginger called them up and said, "Hey pass this on to Tami so a discussion can start on the forum & maybe the school board will find the courage to buy me out even though the whole town has seen videos & public records that show I should have been fired a long time ago."

But on the off chance that Ginger purposefully began discussing that she was open to a buyout . And that she maybe began those discussions around the time she decided to sell her home & travel back and forth to the Carmel-Indy area. Then maybe it's time the community discussed their feelings about the board buying out Bolinger & sending her on her way much like her previous employer did. Perhaps members of the board are afraid to agree to a buy out because they think the public will respond negatively. However, if the public mattered it seems logical to assume we would have mattered long before this point - and we haven't mattered at all.

What's your thoughts - (whether the rumor is true or not that she will take 125K) should the board consider buying her out?

Better to get rid of her now and give her another black mark on her record. We'd make the second job in a row that she was tossed out of. If we pay off 125 what difference does it matter since we end up saving millions without her. To keep her is to condemn us to more debt, lower quality education for kids not to mention a bad community reputation. I thought I read schools were the number one thing people looked at to relocate. It's not like you can google MCS and get anything positive. Can her school board and fire Frazier while you're at it.

Buy her out? That is akin to rewarding bad behavior with a large sum of money. No, put her in a corner office and remover her responsibilities and let her live out her remaining days there in the corner. Place her as a bus monitor. Do not buy her out. there is enough talent currently in place that will maintain the corporation properly, without intimidation, the others will rise to the occasion. Bob Mann

Sometime back I heard a rumor that appeared to originate from connections to Bolinger or Ms. Imel. The rumor was that Bolinger was open and even requesting the board consider a buyout. It seemed to me that no other board members knew about the proposal. But now there are many more persons sending essentially the same information so- word has gotten around. I am told Bolinger is anxious to go but, again, I have not had a heart to heart with Ginger on her emotional status, future plans & soiled reputation. Bob Mann had a great post & I honestly believe the majority of persons agree with Bob & do not want to reward someone who should have been terminated months back. But Larry Henry provided the contract wording so it appears the board cannot make her a bus monitor even if we wanted to. The bottom line is will the board terminate Bolinger as her previous employer did? If so they will have to either show cause (which would appear to be remarkably easy) or they will need to buy out her contract. The longer they wait, the more damage is done. But without a superintendent one thing is clear, any capital projects such as EO Muncie should be delayed until the board has selected a permanent replacement. Or at least that’s normally the course and no I have not heard if they release Ginger if the 3 board members plan to temporarily hold the EO Muncie and other capital projects until they have a superintendent to manage & supervise the projects.

No I do not know for a fact if Mrs. Hensler has been approached to replace Bolinger. I do however believe that the early leaks from Wilson Ave are intentional & meant to interest media & measure the public’s mood. Update on Mike Frazier coming shortly. Tami

Here’s what I know: Yes, VI had most of the information correct. Mr. Crank and Mr. Pattison are not only friends but have a strong & successful business relationship. However, VI's comments about Mr. Crank’s financial matters are not related to the school but instead involve a land purchase with issues related to county right of way & access. However, Mr. Crank’s relationship with Mike Frazier and alleged bid rigging are public issues. Mr. Crank owns Terrys Heating and Air. It has been alleged by past employees & verified by current employees that Mr. Crank received preferential treatment when bidding on MCS heating and air repairs & installation. You can review the affidavits for more information. In my opinion the fact that Mr. Crank and Mr. Pattison are closely tied personally & financially and Mr. Pattison is the school attorney & Mr. Crank has possibly been unethical in business dealings concerning the school with the aid of Mike Frazier – makes it easy to see how people suspect some sort of coordinated effort to toss money Mr. Crank’s way. The relationship between Mr.Crank & board member Carl Glesing only makes matters worse. Believe it or not to get to the bottom of all this I had to hear stories about John Eckert & Wil Georing & Al Huntington. Which is why maybe someone posted something about Merritt. So that covers that part of VI’s post.

VI- To call someone a drunk is to imply an addiction to alcohol, which may or may not be true with Mr. Glesing. However it is true Mr. Glesing often drinks in public & it’s also true various citizens continue to insist the Carl has been irresponsible with his intake. Whether Carl is an alcoholic is not truly something I want to dance around in my reports even if the disease might interfere with his ability to make sound decisions as a board member. Primarily because I truly believe Carl and laCour and Imel have made enough mistakes & created countless problems to the extent there are far greater “sins” to discuss than someone’s health. It’s not so much that the characterization is in/correct but that in this case, there are bigger issues concerning Glesing’s decision making than how much he does or doesn’t drink. In regards to elected official who complain that they are criticized in public unlike the average citizen, the rule is pretty clear- public officials don’t have the protection that private citizens have. Glesing is an elected official so the public has far more latitude to express concerns about his alcohol intake, his intellect, his character etc…The best advice for public officials who don’t want to be criticized in public is: don’t run for public office. To answer Carls question from a much earlier post: no Carl the rule does not apply you.