Saturday, December 31, 2011

Secretary of State Forwards Lugar Voter Fraud Complaint to Indiana Election Division for Further Review


CFE Greg Wright
 As previously reported, Certified Fraud Examiner and Indianapolis resident Greg Wright filed a complaint with the Secretary of State against Senator Richard Lugar and his wife for allegedly using a phony address for voting purposes. 

Wright received an official response today stating that his complaint will be forwarded to the Indiana Election Division to determine if the Lugars violated the Help America Vote Act of 2002 or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

"Your complaint has been forwarded to the Indiana Election Division for further review," wrote Vance Poole, Election Outreach Manager for the Indiana Secretary of State's office.

"The Election Division will first determine whether a violation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 has occurred, assuming the facts set forth in the complaint are true, and will advise you of that determination."

A copy of the letter was sent to Co-Directors, Indiana Election Division as well as to Senator and Mrs. Lugar. 

Wright sent a follow-up request, asking Poole for the address that was used to notify the Lugars.  Will the state officially recognize the phony address that the Lugar's have been using for 30 years for voting and driving purposes, or will they track down the real one?

You can access a copy of the letter below.  Click on to enlarge.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Administrative Hearing Requested of BMV to Determine if Vehicle Registration Process for Senator Lugar was Violated

Certified Fraud Examiner Greg Wright
How are Senator Lugar and his wife renewing their Indiana driver's licenses and showing proof of residency when they have none?  Is someone providing special favors inside the BMV?

Indianapolis resident and Certified Fraud Examiner Greg Wright sent a certified letter to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles asking for a formal hearing to determine whether or not Senator and Mrs. Richard Lugar may have violated laws pertaining to the vehicle registration process.  Wright uncovered documents showing that the Lugar's not only used a phony address for voting purposes, but they also used an address listing 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, when registering their vehicles.  The Lugars have admittedly not lived at that address for over three decades.

One has to wonder what is going through Charlie White's mind when he sees the selective prosecution.

See copies of documents below.  Click on to enlarge.

Copies of Return Envelopes
Here is one of the letters that Wright sent via certified mail today:

Copy of a letter sent to BMV by Greg Wright



Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Is Senator Lugar Using Phony Address for More than Voting?

Is Senator Lugar using a phony address for more than voting?
Acting as a private citizen, Certified Fraud Examiner Greg Wright has collected additional documentation that will be provided to the Indiana Election Commission in follow-up to his earlier complaint that Senator Richard Lugar allegedly committed multiple acts of felony voter fraud.

To date, the Commission has not contacted Wright, nor have its members acted upon the complaint; however, Wright says he intends to Use Indiana code 3-6-4.1 to force the hands of its members.  Indiana Law allows for private citizens to petition the Commission into action.

"If the Indiana Election Commission does not act, I plan to ask Tea Party members from across Indiana to help collect signatures to require the Governor to order the Commission to place the issue on its agenda," said Wright.

Wright is also raising new questions about a possible illegal vehicle registration for the Lugar's vehicle.  According to a 2009 DUI arrest record for Lugar's wife, Charlene, an address of 3200 Highwood Ct., Indianapolis, Indiana was listed on the vehicle's registration documentation that was provided to the arresting officer.

Some are asking how it is possible for them to have Indiana drivers licenses with the Highwood address since they do not reside in the Hoosier state.

This address has also been used by the Lugars for voting purposes even though they have not resided at that location for over two decades. 

In addition, a letter that was recently sent to the Lugars at the bogus address and returned as "undeliverable" will be offered as evidence to the Commission as well as the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. 

Here are the records that were recently obtained by Wright:


2009 Arrest Record for Charlene Lugar

Did Lugar mislead the police by giving a bogus address?
Phony Address Used by Lugars Returned by USPS

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Senator Lugar's Defense for Alleged Voter Fraud Flimsy As Certified Fraud Examiner Digs Deeper

Fraud Investigator Greg Wright
It's been nearly two weeks since Certified Fraud Examiner and Indianapolis resident Greg Wright filed an Election Fraud and Accessibility Grievance Form with the Secretary of State asking if Senator and Mrs. Lugar had a "legal right" to vote from an address they no longer own.  (See original story here.) 

Wright has yet to receive a response from any public official regarding the complaint; however, he is continuing in his quest for accountability and plans to follow-up on his complaint and possibly add to it as soon as he receives additional records that he has requested from various state agencies.


To date, Wright has received a nearly 30-year-old letter, dated August 30, 1982, addressed to Senator Lugar and signed by former Indiana Attorney General Linley Pearson, which Lugar has reportedly used in defense of his actions.  The letter was apparently in response to Lugar's inquiry about "what a person serving as a United States Senator from Indiana must do to maintain his residence, for voting purposes in Indiana."

After citing Article II, Section I of the Indiana Constitution, which states that "Every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen (18) years or more, who has been a resident of the precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding such election, shall be entitled to vote in the precinct where he or she may reside," Pearson offered an informal opinion on Lugar's question of maintaining a legal residence in Indiana.


Dear Senator Lugar:

...It is obvious that a United States Senator for Indiana, or a United States Representative, in performing his or her duties in that capacity, is acting 'on business of this state or of the United States.'  The constitutional and statutory provisions set out above make it clear that such a person's absence from the state, occasioned by his or her service in the United States Congress, does not cause such a person to lose whatever residence for voting purposes that person has established before his or her departure for Congress.


If such a person was entitled to vote in this state prior to departing for service in Congress, whatever residence that person possessed for voting purposes prior to such departure remains his or her residence.  There is no requirement that such a person maintain a house, apartment, or any fixed physical location.  Such a person's voting residence is completely protected by the Constitutional and statutory provisions set out above.


I am therefore of the opinion that a United States Senator from Indiana, or a member of the United States House of Representatives from Indiana, is to be deemed a resident, for voting purposes, of the precinct in which such person maintained his or her residence, and in which such person voted, prior to departing for service in the Congress of the United States.
So, what does Greg Wright think of this official response and does it really provide the protection that Lugar would like for us to believe it does?

"I've been told by an attorney that this 'opinion' is advisory and does not have any standing beyond what it might say," commented Wright.
Richard Lugar with Tricky Dick Nixon

"I see nothing in the Indiana Constitution or statutory law that says you can vote from an address at which you can't even say you have an intent to return to that address since you don't even own it or rent it, or have another close family member residing there.  According to the current property owner, Senator Lugar has not legal interest in the property," said Wright.

"My understanding is that people serving in the military either vote from their military base, or they vote at their parents or spouse's residence back home, a place they can at least receive mail."

After consulting with expert attorneys, Wright is confident that his legal position is correct.

After reading the letter from former Attorney General Linley Pearson, I also came away with the perception that Pearson was basing his opinion on assumptions that the Lugars still had an interest in or a connection to the property from which they were registered to vote, which has absolutely not been the case for the past three decades.  At the very least, I doubt Pearson would condone the fact that Lugar and his wife would continue to claim residence at a house they haven't owned in three decades.

Does Lugar's so-called exemption apply to his wife, who is not a U.S. Senator?  She has also been claiming residence at the bogus address for the last thirty years.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, as also noted in Pearson's letter to Lugar states that "No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in the State by reason of his absence, either on business of this state or of the United States."

The Lugars didn't lose their residence because he held office as a U.S. Senator; they sold it, which means they had no legitimate reason to claim it for voting purposes.  If Charlie White committed voter fraud, then why should Lugar get a free pass?

And what about Lugar's driver's license?  Are he and his wife driving using Indiana or Virginia licenses?  What addresses are they using at the BMV?  Have they broken BMV laws too?

Those answers and the ramifications of such will be forthcoming.  In the meantime, why is the media silent on Lugar's obvious dishonesty?

Will voters ultimately be forced to take up this legal issue since government officials seem to be shirking their duties?  Could a 30-year-old vague and informal opinion eventually be trumped by the justices at the Indiana Supreme Court level?  Time will tell.

 I predict this story will not fade away anytime soon.  If you don't believe me, just ask a guy named Charlie White.
 


Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Are Mainstream Media Reporters Being Intimidated From Reporting on Lugar's Alleged Voting Fraud?

Lugar hasn't lived in this house for years and yet he swore under oath that he does.
Sometimes the story behind the story is more interesting than the story itself.  Attorney and fellow blogger Paul Ogden touched on it recently in a  post when he reported allegations that Barnes & Thornburg attorney Peter Rusthoven "went ballastic" during a meeting with a Fox59 reporter who had considered breaking the story that Senator Richard Lugar allegedly committed multiple counts of perjury and voter fraud.   Ogden wrote that the reporter was so shaken by Rusthoven's outburst that she decided not to pursue the story further.

Also worth noting is the mysterious disappearance of a news story that was published via the Indianapolis Business Journal's website.  According to a regular IBJ reader, the subject of Lugar's alleged voter fraud made recent headlines on the IBJ website; however, it was removed later the same day.  One has to wonder if the political thugs had connections at the IBJ or if similar intimidation tactics were employed to secure its removal.

Apparently, the story that Lugar claimed via an Application for Absentee Ballot that he lived at 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis is too much of a political hot potato for media elites who are sometimes mistakenly believed to be watchdogs for the people. 

The real owner of the former Lugar home, Elizabeth Hughes, was surprised to hear that the senator and his wife were claiming occupancy of a home she had full ownership of and had lived in for years.  Did anyone except for the fraud investigator think of contacting Ms. Hughes for a comment?

Why the news blackout?  Are Lugar's political cronies ramping up their intimidation efforts in defense of the powerful senator?     Based on numerous hits this blog received from around the country after the subject was first raised, there is certainly ample interest that Senator Lugar may have committed voter fraud and perjury.

To date, the only mainstream news publication reporting on the story is the Fort Wayne News Gazette.  You can find the story at this link.

Ogden went on to report that Lugar admits that he doesn't live at the house.

"He stays in hotels when he comes back to Indiana. Yet when Lugar and his wife have voted, they continue to sign voter absentee and other forms UNDER OATH that they live at the Highwoods Court address. They are voting in the Wayne Township precinct that they haven't lived in in decades."

Ogden, an experienced attorney points out that there is no exception in perjury or voter fraud laws that would allow Lugar to continue these shady voting practices legally.

"As a result, Lugar and his wife have committed multiple acts of perjury and voter frauds, all felonies," wrote Ogden.

If Lugar supporters continue to claim that the senator did nothing wrong, then why are they afraid of airing the details publicly?  Why would they go to such lengths as to allegedly intimidate a reporter from doing her job?

And why are media personnel allowing themselves to be intimidated?  That may be an even bigger story waiting to be broken.

Until such time, bloggers will continue to take the bold lead in reporting what the public has a right to know while the mainstream media becomes even less significant to the masses.

For starters, take a look at Lugar's voter registration form and the formal complaint filed by Greg Wright against Lugar and his wife.  Click on to enlarge.







Update:  The National Journal has now reported on this story. 

Friday, December 2, 2011

Breaking News: Election Fraud Complaint Filed Against Senator Richard Lugar

Greg Wright
Greg Wright, an Indianapolis resident and Certified Fraud Examiner, filed a formal election fraud complaint with the Indiana Secretary of State on Wednesday against Senator Richard Lugar and his wife, Charlene Lugar.

Wright alleges that the senator and his wife may have committed multiple felonies for voting in a Marion county precinct, using an address for a home  they reportedly do not own.

"It is my understanding that Senator Richard D. Lugar has voted using an 'absentee' ballot that used as his residence a home located at 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, Indiana 46222," noted Wright.

Wright contends the property "appears to be owned by Elizabeth Hughes" and deeded to David and Elizabeth Hughes in 1989 and quitclaimed from David Hughes to Elizabeth Hughes in 2003. 

Wright claims he spoke with Elizabeth Hughes recently who reportedly told him that Senator Lugar "had not lived in the house for 33 years and had no ownership interest in the property."

"She appeared shocked that he used that address as his Indiana residence," wrote Wright while also noting that David and Elizabeth Hughes were also registered to vote using the same address.


Is Lugar above the law?
"Based on a published account, Senator Richard D. Lugar stays in a hotel when he visits Indiana," stated Wright.   "Based on my understanding of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles regulations, and because of his age, it does not appear that Senator Richard D. Lugar could lawfully obtain an Indiana Operator Driver License." 

Does he have a Virginia Operator Driver License?" asked Wright.

Wright describes himself as an "unofficial member of the Tea Party" and says says he was not asked by the Senator's political opponents to file the Election Fraud and Accessibility Grievance Form. 

"No one has paid me.  I am not a contributor to Richard Mourdock's campaign," Wright stated.  "I did meet him once a few years ago shortly after he was first elected Indiana Treasurer."

"Many came to the U.S. to flee from the yoke of European nobility, or to flee from the enslavement enforced by descendents of conquistadores, or to flee fromt he arbitrary rules imposed by tribal bosses," commented Wright.  "The ancestors of Tea Party members came to the U.S. because of the promise that all would be treated equally under the law," he continued. 

"Unfortunately, today, we have a political class that behaves not unlike European royalty of the nineteenth century.  The political class enjoys separate rules of conduct," he said.

 Wright says he fears that the questions he raised with the Indiana Election Division will be "temporarily lost, delayed, or not acted upon."

"Will Senator and Mrs. Lugar receive the same treatment that would be given to common folks?" he asked.

"Will they be successful in their defense through the use of an esoteric phrase in the law that would only apply to them and someone else in this elite political class?"

Those all all fair questions, and it will be interesting to see if the law applies to Richard Lugar the same way it did to Charlie White.


Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Guest Submission: Plymouth Citizens Express Outrage As Corruption Is Ignored by State and Local Officials


As reported on previous blogs, two complaints were filed with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission against Plymouth officials.

On 5/12/11 a complaint was filed against Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney David Holmes for his denial of citizens’ right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. Holmes has repeatedly refused to investigate an alleged crime of computer tampering on a Plymouth High School computer on at least 10/4/2007, and possible other dates. Additionally, he has repeatedly refused to ever once discuss this alleged class D felony with the victims, to examine or discuss the professional computer analysis that indicates computer tampering by Plymouth public school officials, or to even examine the crime scene. Instead, he lied to the Indiana State Police and more recently to citizens. Recently he even repeatedly refused to accept a citizen’s certified, restricted letter that for all he knows could have contained information about a murder! But, Holmes chose to not even bother to open the envelope.

On 4/27/11 a complaint was filed against Plymouth attorney Ed Ruiz for his most unprofessional conduct in his vulgar denial of his legal opinion –an opinion Superintendent Dan Tyree had previously publicly stated on WTCA radio (on 4/31/11) was, in fact, available to citizens---yet Tyree immediately thereafter sought legal counsel (at public expense) to then refuse citizens this access. Tyree also lied on air that this legal opinion was written by an Indianapolis attorney, but later under duress revealed it was not written by an Indianapolis attorney, but by Ruiz. Lies, lies, and more lies.

Do note Ruiz’s legal opinion, later secretly provided by a courageous mole, was obviously falsified by Ruiz and Tyree: this legal opinion was dated 2/15/11 yet therein Ruiz referred to a blog that was not even published until 3/10/11! Also note that this 2/15/11 legal opinion also revealed Tyree had not been honest on WTCA when he asserted he would not seek a legal opinion from a Tremco attorney—“as he/ Tyree had integrity”! Yet Ruiz wrote that in fact PCS consulted with Ice Miller attorneys in Indianapolis about this Tremco roofing scandal. Fact: Ice Miller has a negative history of involvement with Tremco. 

Tyree additionally made false implications to the IPA Counselor about this 2/15/11 legal opinion and its coverage of a non existent 3/10/11 blog. Are there any IPA laws about individuals lying to the IPA counselor? Lies, lies, and more lies.

Crimes are no doubt being committed in the Plymouth community. Where does a citizen go if the prosecutor without reason refuses to even investigate or prosecute substantiated crimes----especially when those crimes are allegedly committed by powerful public figures—even his friends? And Holmes falsely but willfully influences the Indiana State Police (Officers Don McKay/ Scott Schuh?) to also ignore such serious, far reaching violations of law by public officials!?!

What did the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission (i.e. the sole Secretary Michael Witte) determine in regards to these serious citizen complaints against Attorney Ruiz and Prosecutor Holmes? Did Mr. Witte and the Commission decide to take any action to hold these two publicly retained attoneys  accountable for their apparent  "cover up" of escalating wrongs to the Plymouth educational community?

This unidentified publicly entrusted Commission through the sole determination of their secretary Witte decided that “ . . .  these complaints did not raise a substantial question of misconduct that would warrant disciplinary action.”

Willfully ignoring an alleged Class D felony, a crime of computer tampering,  and assisting in an alleged cover up of roofing laws by public school officials is not misconduct? Please, therefore, pray tell what constitutes misconduct?

The preamble of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s Rules of Conduct for Indiana attorneys states the following regarding attorneys’ responsibilities:

          [1]     A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Whether or not engaging in the practice of law, lawyers should conduct themselves honorably.  (Defined “respectably, with honor, properly”)

       [5]    A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.

        [7]    Many of a lawyer's professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. However, a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation (Defined “good opinion, esteem, admiration) of professional peers. A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal professional and to exemplify the legal profession's ideals of public service.

          [9]     . .... (conflicts) must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules. These principles include the lawyer's obligation to protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved . . . .

These two publicly entrusted Plymouth attorneys--David Holmes and Ed Ruiz-- have in my experience, as is fully documented, been dishonorable in their conduct, sought to intimidate citizens, refused to serve the public’s interest, been unprofessional, and disgustingly discourteous. It is firmly believed they have sought with Plymouth administrators to cover up a crime, as based on significant evidence.  Yet, Secretary Witte finds their actions do not warrant disciplinary action. This is bizarre.This is frightening for the public welfare!

Can anyone in Indiana hold these “public servants” accountable? The question should better be stated, WILL anyone in public authority dare to hold these so-called public servants accountable for their actions that obviously fuel public corruption? Are you listening, Attorney General Zoeller? IDOE Chief  Bennett? Governor Daniels? Your silence thus far shouts.

The Plymouth School board (Todd Samuelson, Larry Pinkerton, Frank Brubaker, Melissa Christiansen, Larry Holloway and former member Attorney Ron Gifford –now on house arrest) historically refuses to do so. As does everyone else in public authority from Governor Mitch Daniels, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, State School Superintendent Tony Bennett, Representative Nancy Dembowski, Senator Ed Charbonneau, etc,. etc., etc. Everyone thus far willfully chooses to pass the buck—though our Governor asserted in a State of the State address the buck stops at his office. Experience proves that is hogwash. The Plymouth School System is continually being corrupted by both local and state leaders who possess no moral courage or strength. 

Mr. Witte states that his office has “ . . . no jurisdiction or authority to review the prosecuting attorney’s exercise of the very discretion that was entrusted to him by the voters.”  So WHY does the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission even exist?

Basically, Mr. Witte states if wrongs of our public leaders and their publicly retained attorneys--in this case an alleged CRIME--are ever going to be addressed it must be done by the voters. This opinion may sound "legal"  but is in reality empty platitudes. Legally, Citizens can not bring crimes to court,  they can only bring civil suits. Only the prosecutor can bring crimes to court for prosecution. BUT WHAT IF THE PROSECUTOR REFUSES--despite significant evidence, testimony, and professional analysis? Secretary Witte basically states the only recourse to bring this crime to justice in this case is to appeal to the voters, as he and everyone else in public authority refuses to address these alleged criminal acts/corruption against the Public's welfare!!!  In reality, from what Mr. Witte states, if a crime is not addressed by the prosecutor it can only then be sought to be addressed by popular vote--if the media even dares to publicize that crime! As is the case in Plymouth, the local and state media consistently refuses “for fear of being sued” to ever unbiasedly print the facts of this public corruption at the hands of too powerful bureaucrats. (    And, what about the statute of limitations on a crime expiring before an election is held?)

And what if there are no truly honorable citizens of genuine integrity and intelligence who dare to enter the political process?

And what will happen to our communities if no one cares any more about right and wrong because they are resigned only the corrupt will rule? Think about that.

Lies, lies, and more lies. Who will dare to stand for Truth? And then dare to fight for it to be upheld?

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Are Absences at Plymouth High School Connected to Black Mold?

FROM ONE CONCERNED PARENT TO ANOTHER:
Look at the tiles in the P.H.S. gymnasium and possibly elsewhere in the building.  Can you see black mold?

As a parent, I would like to know why/how did the problem begin?  Did Superintendent Mr. Tyree  contact OSHA for an inspection and help?  Has he advised students, parents, staff, and the visiting public of a potential health risk for all?  Does the lack of attention in this matter line up with the school system's publicly messaged image of creating a wellness plan for its students?  Could those students Superintendent Tyree wants to prosecute for "truancy" be sick because of black mold?
  

WHAT ARE THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BLACK MOLD?
Stachybotrys chartarum, also known as black mold, is a fungus that thrives in damp, humid areas of buildings. Black mold moves quickly into duct work, wood and wallpaper.  Black mold may be found in areas that have incurred water damage. Buildings with black mold are called "sick buildings" because of reoccurring illnesses of people who live or work in them.

Toxic Mold Exposure

Toxic mold is the term applied to several types of mold that can invade homes, commercial buildings, and schools, causing illness and triggering asthma. There are several types of mold that can cause illness, including:
  • Stachybotrys atra
  • Aspergillus
  • Chaetomium
  • Penicillium
The mold that has gained the most attention recently is stachybotrys atra, also known as black mold. Black mold has been linked to several adverse health conditions, including pain and inflammation of the mouth and throat, flu, recurring cold, fatigue, asthma, sinus infections, and brain damage.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Plymouth Insiders Say Black Mold Growing at Plymouth High School


A note from an insider....

URGENT! Plymouth Community School Maintenance Director David Schoof---

         PLEASE immediately check out the black mold still growing at Plymouth HIgh School! Our teachers students and teachers' health may be at serious risk!

"Some believe that certain molds (such as so-called "black mold") can cause a host of signs and symptoms such as fatigue, headache, nausea, fever, rashes and coughing ..."  Mayo Clinic

"...for a number of practical and logical reasons, the possibility that some portion of any group exposed to molds will suffer adverse health effects can never be ruled out when mold is found growing in occupied areas. Given that there is considerable uncertainty about the health consequences of exposure to contaminants from indoor problems, it is recommended that any mold growing inside be regarded as a sign of a potential (current or future) health hazard that should be corrected properly as soon as possible."    Environmental Structural Solutions



                                    Plymouth Citizens afraid to be identified for fear of retribution from PCS administrators

Monday, May 23, 2011

Cheating ISTEP Teachers...Do They Get Sent to the Principal?

The following was submitted by a Plymouth, Indiana citizen who asked not to be identified since there have been more allegations of death threats against those who are bold enough to speak out against corruption in their hometown.


 “Merit Pay” for public school teachers will not be successful. Based on  real-life experience, one too many judges (school administrators) of the teachers’ merits appear to be too susceptible to corruption to determine unprejudiced payments.  Sadly, this is a fact of our sinful human nature.  None of us can judge righteously except for Almighty God. All of us are inclined to being biased, influenced, and blind to sound reason.

As noted in the media, more than one Indiana teacher has committed serious ethical violations in ISTEP protocol, thus diminishing test results, cheating students, and causing THOUSANDS of public dollars to be wasted. IDOE Superintendent Tony Bennett has publicly stated these teachers COULD have their Indiana Teaching Licenses revoked---a punishment echoed by the ISTEP+ Program Manual.
 No severe punishment being administered  for these ISTEP violations negates the very future of ISTEP. If no severe consequences are enacted, few teachers would not be tempted or succumb to the pressure to positively influence their students’ ISTEP test results in order to increase their own merit pay .  For example,  if a student received a good grade by snitching a teacher’s answer sheet ahead of time, and the teacher learned of his theft and did nothing,  more students will begin to covertly help themselves to future answer sheets. Because of  enabling students' to cheat by permitting this act to pass without a severe consequence makes it hopeless  for the teacher to ever teach students  lessons about integrity—a foundation of any successful society.

According to the ISTEP+ Manual, there should be severe consequences for a teacher either knowingly or carelessly violating ISTEP protocol. The consequence should ALSO include superintendents, building administrators and even IDOE officials who “knowingly or carelessly” violated protocol by allowing teachers early access to test manuals or by publishing test questions in error on the internet that then showed up on the actual exam. If administrators either at the local or IDOE level have violated the protocol, then they should man up and take responsibility for their errors rather than blaming isolated teachers.

Necessary punishment for those responsible is not apparently happening in Plymouth, Indiana. PCS Superintendent Dan Tyree and his school board members did not even address this troubling issue at their 5/17/11 meeting. Instead, they approved the summer school contract for the teacher who reportedly “knowingly or carelessly” violated ISTEP protocol. She is reportedly back in the classroom after a paid suspension. The IDOE ISTEP+ Manual clearly declares these abuses of ISTEP protocol are most serious ethical violations. Yet, seemingly, no serious consequences were enacted. WHY???  Friendships? Political correctness?

The IDOE implies severe discipline is the responsibility of the local school, and the local school says it is the responsibility of the IDOE. Thus, the buck is passed back and forth, and the offender receives an unexpected paid vacation with a hand slap, while our students and entire educational community, including tax payers, suffer the consequences of these serious ISTEP violations.

This inequitable treatment  is especially troublesome when other former PCS employees (believed to be about 20 in number)-- the past few years have been pressured  to resign or been fired for minor or imagined infractions by the same Superintendent who now turns his head to this particular teacher’s serious wrong. These teachers-techies-coaches-custodians’ violations typically violated no PCS policy or any  law, Unlike the still-employed female teacher who committed this far-reaching ISTEP violation, these prior PCS employees’ alleged infractions typically involved no students and cost taxpayers nothing--not even a paid vacation! Their wrong was to dare to question or disagree with the superintendent’s wishes. Public schools are to model democracy, not dictatorships, to our students. That is not happening in Plymouth.

Why would a teacher choose to cheat on ISTEP?  Merit pay has a huge impact...Sadly, some school personnel chose to gain MERIT by believing they are bigger than the rules!  All parents want their children to do their best. Should we  not expect—even demand—the best from our children’s adult leaders? Of course!  Should these teachers be sent to the principal?  No, they should be sent home with no pay.