IBJNews

Area school district claims fraud by ex-superintendent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A suburban Indianapolis school district is suing its former superintendent, claiming that he schemed to defraud it of millions of dollars for himself.

The lawsuit filed in Marion County court by the Wayne Township school district says Terry Thompson deceived school board members into approving more salary and compensation than he knew they would approve in contract negotiations.

In its complaint filed Tuesday in Marion Superior Court Civil Division, the district said Terry Thompson used complex contractual changes to increase his annual income from $218,000 in 2003 to $2.2 million in 2010, WIBC-FM 93.1 reported.

School district attorney Linda Pence told WTHR-TV that the board trusted the recommendations Thompson made.

A law firm representing Thompson called the lawsuit inappropriate and said it was the school board's duty to review contracts for all employees.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • WAYNE TWP. SUPT. SLICK; BOARD; NO OVERSIGHT
    I agree with the comments about the school board. Good old boy-ism with women included. Board was challenged (by some) back when bond issue was passed to build the elite sports campus WT now has and when hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on vainglorious (to the school system) unnecessary electronic signs at all 10 schools (one got TWO of them); all to no avail. Time to vote them out, but gotta wait for election time when less than 30% of REGISTERED (don't even mention NOT-registered) voters come out and most of them have no clue about who's running in any office. You get the government you deserve.
  • Board at Fault
    By law, the school board has the direct authority to hire/fire 1 person -- the superintendent. The Wayne Twp. School Board failed completely in its responsibility to their school community.

    This is NOT a good school board and many, many other Boards - faced with the same situation - would have handled it much differently.

    Looking at their Board, one of their members has served for some 40 years - WAY TOO LONG.

    Thompson is not blameless; he and his attorney knew what they were doing.

    BUT, at the end of the day, it is the Board that is legally responsible for accepting/signing the contracts and approving them.

    If I were in their district, I'd go find some new people to serve on that board.

    The hundreds of thousands of dollars WASTED in all of this could have been used in the classroom to help students. No excuse.
  • Unbelievable
    So the school board charged with oversight, admits they were to lazy, stupdid or ignorant to do any oversight and now wants to sue? The school board should be sued for negligence by taxpayers. Seems to me like fresh fuel for the drive to change school governance. Also, go ahead and take away the license of the school board's "smart" attorney for filing this piece of garbage.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT