By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – Republican Gov. Mike Pence said Thursday he will dissolve a controversial education agency he created last year as part of an effort to “restore trust and harmony” with Democratic Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

Pence said he will also ask the General Assembly to let the State Board of Education elect its own chairman, which would essentially oust her from the position. Indiana is the only state with an elected state superintendent who also chairs its education board.

“It is time to take the politics out of education in Indiana – or at least out of the State Board of Education – and get back to the business of investing in our schools in ways that prepare our kids for the future that awaits them,” Pence said in a speech to lobbyists and public officials attending the Indiana Legislative Conference in Indianapolis.

Currently, state law assigns the superintendent – who is elected by Hoosiers – to serve as the board chair, although its 10 other members are appointed by the governor.

The moves come after nearly two years of wrangling among Ritz, Pence, the state board members and the staff of the governor’s Center for Education and Career Innovation, which has been taking over some functions once reserved for the Department of Education. Relationships have become so strained at times that Ritz once walked out of a meeting and also sued her fellow board members when they took action without her knowledge.

Pence said eliminating the Center for Education and Career Innovation is the “first step” in resolving those issues. The change, which could occur early next year, means that the five agencies that have been working under the center’s umbrella – including the Indiana Career Council, the Regional Works Councils, the Education Roundtable, the State Board of Education and the Indiana Network of Knowledge – will now operate independently. Members of the education board will hire and manage its own staff.

In a statement on Thursday, Ritz said she welcomed news that the governor will eliminate the agency. She called the move “another sign of the great work that is happening in our schools throughout Indiana and the Department of Education every day.”

But she said there are “other aspects of the governor’s legislative agenda that are concerning for public education in our state.”

And House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he was “especially appreciative” of the governor’s decision to eliminate the Center for Education and Career Innovation “I hope this good faith step by Gov. Pence will be the first of many by elected and appointed leaders to end the finger-pointing and allow all of us to work together for the betterment of Hoosier children,” Bosma said.

Pence’s moves are part of a larger education agenda for the 2015 legislative session that also includes boosting overall funding for K-12 education – although the governor wouldn’t say how much more schools could receive. He said those decisions will be made after a bipartisan committee releases a revenue forecast later this month.

“For decades people have purported to be on the side of children by simply proposing more money for education. But money alone isn’t the answer,” he said. “We do need to increase funding, but we need to do it the right way, the smart way. We need to fund excellence.”

Pence said he wants to boost money for so-called performance funding for schools, which provides extra dollars for teacher salaries when students achieve. On Thursday, the education department distributed the first round of performance funding, sending $30 million to more than 1,300 schools to reward thousands of high-performing teachers.

“How do you get more good teachers in more classrooms? You get more good teachers by paying good teachers more,” Pence said. “That’s the principle behind today’s bonuses.”

Pence said he wants to boost funding for charter schools, remove a cap that limits the amount private elementary schools receive for vouchers, and extend a pilot program for pre-kindergarten programs for two more years.

He said the proposals are meant to support a larger goal: Putting 100,000 more students in high quality schools by the year 2020. That could happen by improving schools that are now failing but also by moving more students into schools that are rated As or Bs.

Currently, Pence said, that those students are now attending schools that have Ds and Fs.

“We have to have a sense of urgency about how we help them,” said Chris Atkins, the governor’s budget director. “We owe it to our kids to not leave them in failing schools that are not giving them the skills, the experiences they need.”

Pence “wants an all-hands-on approach” to solving the problem, Atkins said.

“This is about the kids. This is about their future,” Pence said. “Let’s stay focused on the kids.”

Lesley Weidenbener is executive editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyer.com

Convicted fraudster and ex-attorney William Conour’s appeal of his conviction and 10-year sentence on a federal wire fraud charge argues the court failed to investigate his defense counsel’s withdrawal. His appeal also claims that the court wrongly imposed “suspicionless” searches and other conditions of supervised release following his imprisonment.

Conour, 67, also challenges standard supervised release requirements that he not consume excessive amount of alcohol, among other things, after his prison term is up. The Bureau of Prisons projects his release will be in March 2022. He is seeking oral argument before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Conour is being represented by two federal public defenders from the Central District of Illinois.

Once a leading personal injury and wrongful-death attorney, Conour was sentenced in October 2013 after he pleaded guilty in July of that year to defrauding former clients. The government says Conour stole nearly $6.8 million in settlement proceeds from 36 former clients or beneficiaries.

He resigned from the bar in June 2012 rather than face a disciplinary proceeding filed in May 2012.

“The district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct any inquiry into the reasons behind defense counsel’s motion to withdraw during the restitution proceedings after Mr. Conour had been sentenced,” despite the office’s statement that conflicts existed between Conour and his public federal defender, Conour’s brief says.

“The district court’s failure to conduct a sufficient inquiry and to permit defense counsel to withdraw severely prejudiced Mr. Conour. This court should reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

Various public defenders had appeared for Conour at the time the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana became aware the agency was holding $2,512 from a Conour trust fund while he also was subject to the court’s restitution order.

“The district court abused its discretion by failing to address trial counsel’s motion to withdraw until after making substantive rulings regarding restitution and garnishment,” the brief says.

At some point during the restitution phase, Conour was filing pro se motions in the court of Chief Judge Richard Young while he also was represented by a public defender, which led Young to strike his pro se pleadings in multiple instances.

“The court did not ask whether defense counsel could continue to adequately represent Mr. Conour, despite the conflicts of opinion on restitution and loss and the conflict of opinion on the garnishment action” regarding money the office held in Conour’s name, the brief says. Conour had sought that money for his commissary fund at the Morgantown, West Virginia, Federal Correctional Institution, but Young ordered the public defender’s office to turn the money over to the court.

The appeal brief says Conour and his defenders consistently disagreed with restitution calculations and the court’s garnishment of funds the office held in his name.

Separately, Conour’s appeal brief argued the District Court abused its discretion because he was never granted an opportunity to object to a special condition of supervised release that made him subject to “suspicionless” searches.

“(T)he special condition at issue here authorizes not only the search, but the seizure of any contraband found,” the appeal brief says. “The basis for this broad authority to seize is not contained in the record, which is problematic.”

Prior to his conviction, though, Conour had been jailed and had his bond revoked for dissipating assets without first seeking court approval, which had been a term of his pretrial release. Limited restitution has been made, and Conour still owes victims more than $6 million.

Conour’s brief also argues that a condition requiring him to “truthfully answer all inquiries (by) the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer” would violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The brief also attacks special terms of release it contends are generally overbroad in federal sentencing. For instance, Conour’s terms of probation include that he support dependents, regularly work and not frequent places where illegal substances are sold, among other things.

Conour’s youngest children will be legal adults when he’s released, the brief says, and he will have no dependents at that time. The brief also raises the hypothetical instance of Conour getting into trouble for frequenting a store where a clerk sells heroin.

“The concerns … are not meant to be absurd or picayune,” the brief says. “They are meant to illustrate the fact that Mr. Conour, like other defendants, has been subject to conditions that should at least be more particularly crafted because they pose a penal risk if violated.”

The government’s reply brief is due Jan. 2, 2015.