Braun backtracks assurances on IU trustees.

Indiana begins the process of reinstating A through F ratings, plus a venture capital fund and more from the television studios at WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending June 6th, 2025.

Indiana Week In Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

Governor Mike Braun terminated three elected IU trustees this week, exercising his new authority from a last minute change to the state budget.

He did so despite recent assurances that he planned to keep them, to let them serve until the end of their term.

Braun said Tuesday the trustees were close to finishing their terms anyway, and lots of candidates had applied to replace them.

With that kind of enthusiasm and the fact that it really didn't make a lot of difference one way or the other, did make the decision to go ahead and do it.

One former trustee, Vivian Winston, was a month away from finishing her term, but two others had one and two years, respectively, left in their terms.

One of Braun's picks is conservative lawyer James Bopp Jr.

He gained notoriety for his opposition to same sex marriage, abortion, and the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The Board of Trustees will meet next Thursday to approve next year's university budget.

Braun has called for a tuition freeze.

What does Brauns flip on removing Indiana University's trustees signal for the university?

It's the first question for Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Elise Schrock.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Kaitlin Lange, government and politics editor for the Indianapolis Star.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting digital editor Lauren Chapman in for Brandon this week, who is celebrating his 89th birthday.

Jon is Governor Braun's backtrack more notable than the people that he appointed.

I'm still stuck on the birthday.

sorry.

Okay.

there's enough concern to go around.

I think, you can look at this several ways, and there's all sort of troubling or disappointing.

if you look at going back on ones that wasn't.

I don't think it was written anywhere.

He didn't pledge it to open a vein and put Blood Oath out anywhere.

But I mean, you like, especially if you're in the public eye and you're the chief, officer, executive officer of the state.

When you say something, you want it to carry weight.

So that's a little troubling.

And the notion that there's enthusiasm, surrounding the position and that triggers, you know, an expedition of the, of the whole process, I mean, if that's the bar, you know, there are a lot of things that can trigger emotion and responses.

and I'm sure people wanting to get free tickets to you, football games and basketball games is a good motivator.

on a more serious, level, the the the identities of the individuals, two of them are fairly high profile.

No offense to, Brian Eagle, who's an attorney, deals with estates and real estate.

Seems like fine, accomplished attorney here in Indianapolis.

The other two certainly do have high profiles.

Jim Bob has, you know, counted among his clients Citizens United, various pro-life groups.

He's been a very much a national leader, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on some of the highest profile cases of the past couple of decades.

Very outspoken.

And then Sage Steele, who certainly a prominent, member of the, the graduate, a graduate, proud graduate of the institution.

but, you know, had some difficulties with ESPN where she was employed when her own way.

But, was a surrogate for Donald Trump on the last campaign, had but some had rumored, spread rumor that she might even be the press secretary.

although I think she sort of Pooh poohed that.

So there are people with strong, opinions about how the university should run, and it seems to fall in line with this notion that starts in the white House, in the Oval Office and goes on down that, that these somehow, research institutions are bastions of liberalism that have somehow, or worse, those are the kind of ways to put it and need to somehow be brought into line.

So I yeah, like I say, enough concern to go around.

Yeah.

Kaitlin you know, what should especially folks who, you know, didn't attend are you don't have kids who are attending IU.

Like, what does this mean for who should they like?

Is this a step?

you know, over some imaginary line?

Yeah.

I think, I actually wasn't as interested in Braun's backtracking as the fact that lawmakers added this provision in last minute anyways.

I mean, you know, sure, Braun made that promise, but it was after or not promise.

He made that sort of, a commitment.

Yes.

After the bill had already been passed, you know, after lawmakers had already inserted this language and, you know, the final days of session.

So I think that, to me was kind of more interesting about this whole thing is that's part of this broader, scope of trying to insert more influence over these universities.

Because in addition to this IU provision, we also had a provision in there making it easier to sort of remove tenured professors.

and also to, you know, sort of give the Commissioner for higher education the ability to nix hundreds of bachelor degree programs across the state if they don't have enough people in these programs.

And, you know, obviously, the higher the Commission for Higher Education can choose, you know, whether they want to allow some programs to continue or not.

So I think it's this broader, sort of emphasis of trying to insert a little bit more influence on these higher education institutions.

I would say it's not even just insert influence on higher ed.

It's specific things that happen in, some of these universities, because this goes back with state House Republicans.

It goes back before this session.

You can track it back even to 2023 when they tried to defund the Kinsey Institute, where, there's been groundbreaking, research over many years, over sexuality, gender, gender identity, reproductive health.

so it is really concerning to see folks, like Jim Bob appointed who have very specific, ideologies when it comes to those who have made very specific harmful policies when it comes to this type of ideology, who are now inserted into that decision making.

I think this is, you know, like Kaitlin said, this is broad and, history doesn't necessarily speak well to folks that insert kind of an authoritarian, mentality to academic, spaces or research spaces.

And so, you know, if they can do this to one institution, they can do it to many.

And so Hoosiers should be looking at this with some concern.

Michael, Brian, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

But I think it would have been weird if he kept them, if he hadn't replaced them with using this authority.

It's like, you know, it's like your employer walks into your office and says, we don't like the direction you're taking the company.

You're fired.

But not until 2027.

It's like, that doesn't make any sense.

Just like if you regardless what you think of whatever the agenda might be from a process standpoint, it's like, well, you won the election.

He's got this authority.

He's in charge.

Go do it.

You know, go execute the authority you got.

You got to live with it.

You know, you got to live with whatever the, you know, the changes that you're, that you're going to make.

And it's and this isn't a Donald Trump the Harvard situation.

It's the university's been entirely still on this.

And the presumption at the statehouse is this is what they want and asked for.

and so it's not, you know, if this wasn't, you know, the governor breathing down the neck of Indiana University, it's it's it seems like they're partners in this.

I think, though, people tend to forget that usually in government, in these kinds of arenas, people fulfill the obligations to which they commit and are elected.

So, for instance, we used to have an elected state superintendent of public instruction here.

it was and it and clearly the Republicans didn't like that.

They felt that.

It should be done either by the right.

Well, whoever was in control of the governor's office didn't like it, is what it came down to.

But the argument was because education is such a big component of the state's agenda that the governor should have the say, but that and that was enacted.

But it didn't mean that, the old superintendent, what are you doing here?

You know, you're still in your office.

Clear out.

Get out of here.

Is plan a, that was a political decision.

Was made to let her fulfill the rest of her term.

Well, I think that that was the only logical thing was to say this person was elected by the voters.

Let's let this person fulfill.

That was her philosophical decision.

That was a politically driven one.

So wouldn't this have been the same thing that's been politically driven and let them stay?

Not when the politics support you.

Know, that's I mean, the issue here, it's it's not going to affect students, undergraduates.

The problem, as I've said before, is with recruiting, with the reputation of the institution, maybe with grad students and others and the scholars who care about such things.

and the problem is insidious because you don't know when you've said when things have gone south until all of a sudden you're not being able to attract the best and brightest, you're not, spewing forth the kinds of breakthrough developments and scholarship that that institution is known for.

we already saw a New York Times piece this week that, which I'm sure was read by a few people across the country that called into question some of the decisions here.

So it's insidious, but it's a bad path to be on.

It seems to me.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we posed an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question, are Governor Brauns changes good for Indiana University.

Vote A for yes or B for no.

Last week's question is the sale of U.S. steel to a Japanese company good for Indiana steelworkers?

32% of you voted yes and 68% voted no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to wfyi.org/iwir and look for the poll.

This week, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported the Indiana Department of Education unveiled its first draft of a sweeping new school accountability proposal.

It marks a major step forward toward replacing the state's previous Eigth grading system with a model that instead values the unique skills and strengths of each student.

The proposal, shared at the Indiana State Board of Education's June meeting, outlines a point based system designed to measure a broader range of student outcomes, from academic proficiency to work based learning and attendance, as well as soft skills like communication and collaboration.

The school performance model is still in development and must undergo a months long rulemaking process that includes multiple rounds of public comment and revisions.

Ideally, Chief Innovation Officer Ron Sandlin says the new model moves away from evaluation based on a single assessment.

The proposed.

Model.

Is intentionally designed to encourage schools to support and nurture the unique skills and strengths of each student.

A final version is expected to be adopted by the state board by December.

State law now requires the first round of school grades under the new system to be issued in fall 2026.

Katelyn.

Given how many states have walked away from these ratings, what's the motivation for bringing them back?

I think, proponents would argue it just makes it easier for parents to be able to look at, you know, what schools do I want to send my child to?

I'm in the process of moving, actually, and I did go and look for all those lists that exist out there of which schools are ranked where, and I actually used it, and it kind of would have been nice to have something a little bit more concrete.

but I can also see the other side as well.

The concern that, you know, these ratings don't always take into a fact that students are coming to the schools from different backgrounds, different socioeconomic backgrounds, and that you can't necessarily put one letter grade for, you know, everything about what a school does.

and then there's also just the concern that this is just kind of free advertising for some of these schools.

and, you know, some argue that perhaps a better indicator would be, you know, do the school pass or did it fail?

Just two options.

but again, that doesn't make it as easy for parents when they're trying to decide, okay, where do I want to move so I can decide where my kids should go to school someday?

Yeah.

Jon is the A to F ratings, in a very weird way have become interestingly Partizan.

so just a few years ago, there were 11 or 12 states.

Now we've whittled down to, I believe, eight.

and there are a lot of specifically Republican proponents that say that these eight through F ratings, much to Caitlin's point, are a tool for parental choice, given what the that first draft looks like, you know, is Indiana, you know, creating another tool to make it a little bit easier for parental choice.

Or is this a little bit too in the weeds for partizanship?

Well, it seems to me you can't have too much information if you're a parent or a student.

and you want to know how schools are performing and as far as accountability and, and taking schools to task, that goes back and forth.

And, and the partizanship aspect of it flips, you know, Common Core started as a, as a Republican initiative nationally until it wasn't until it was the hated, you know, the boogeyman of Republicans and who knows?

It goes back and forth depending on circumstance.

But more information, it seems to me, is better.

and because it's more nuanced and, and there is, now allowance and allowance for individuals who are showing progress, they may never, you know, hit whatever the perfect score is.

I don't it's been so long since I took either the act or the 1600 or whatever.

but still, they're getting, some credit for, you know, doing what they can do and, and, and improving.

So, I mean, there's a huge question that needs to be answered still, which is what happens even once this is finalized and put in place what happens to schools that are chronically failing.

That's, you know, just the school before in the old set up, the state, was, obliged to or at least had the opportunity to take them over that I don't think that's been determined yet, Mike.

I mean, again, there seems to be a lot of interesting Partizan, undercurrents to to these ratings.

There's Partizan undercurrents to every single part of education.

It's just a Partizan set of, you know, debate.

my guess is, I don't know, this for a fact, but, my guess is Democrats tend to represent urban and urban centers that are going to have poorer performing schools, or Republicans are representing rich suburban schools that are probably going to better, you know, more resourced and get better grades.

I understand the controversy behind it.

I understand the debate of how do we arrive at the grade?

because what what baked into that and what grade and why is that grade kicking out?

so that's totally fair.

And I think that's, that's the, the meaningful debate here, which is like, okay, what is going into that grade having transparent C on and it's and the reason it's popular is because it's easy to understand, you know, it's we could rate it by emoji.

We could rate it by, you know, whatever.

It's like what is baking into that score or the complexity of that school, the challenges that are beyond, you know, your wealthy area cannot, shouldn't be graded the same as a, as a complex urban area where you have a, you know, lower, lower income.

So it's all.

That I would say it's even more than suburban and urban it it's rural and urban, have a lot in common with, underserved, being underserved and, you know, again, like we've talked about this before on the show, if we're going to talk about truancy rates in attendance, we're also going to have to talk about if folks have enough food, you know, if if kids are have enough nutrition, if their families can get them to school, how many jobs their families are working, because right now families are working one, two and three jobs just to make ends meet.

And at the same time, you know, the the at the state House, Republicans are cutting on my way, pre-K programs.

So students are entering the school system, without those benefits that we know come from, early education, cause they're not going to have access to that early education.

so there are just so many factors that go into this.

And one thing I will say is so many of these topics that we talk about around this desk have already been done with, you know, the they've already been signed, but there is still opportunity for public comment.

The first draft came out, for the next 30 days, they're taking public comment.

There's going to be a second draft.

There's opportunity for public comment again.

So this is a time where, you know, people who are watching this now, folks should have, should be providing that public input because this is a local issue.

This is your neighbors, this is your community.

So I really hope people take up, that, public comment time because it's, it's it's a local issue.

And I would just close in saying, you know, these accountability assessments should be applied to anyone that receives state funding.

The Indianapolis Business Journal reported on a fund created a year ago managed by Elevate Ventures, the Indianapolis based nonprofit that invests federal and state money into companies on behalf of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.

Governor Mike Braun has frozen funding earmarked for Elevate Ventures with little explanation about why or how the move will impact the nonprofit's ability to invest in new startups.

The growth fund would target growth stage companies, and at least $50 million of the ultimate fund would be invested in companies with a significant presence in Indiana.

The $25 million the state planned to use to seed the fund is already in and elevate Ventures account.

The money came from returns earned on investments in early startups.

Elevate, made on behalf of the state and an IED see committee has approved its use for the Growth fund.

But elevate leaders can't spend any of that money until the organization raises at least some money from outside investors.

Mike O'Brien is this fund getting caught up unfairly?

We're going to find out.

I mean, that's why the governor ordered the audit, and I don't I don't know that they thought anything illicit was happening other than it's just a lot of money and that and and that kind of program, no matter what it is, it's been around for, what, 16 years?

15 years.

And with that much money flowing through it and, you know, there's been, you know, suggestions and criticism from lawmakers that the IDC isn't as transparent as they like it, with the amount of money flowing through it.

you know, you should be taking a look at this, you know, that these, these things from time to time, regardless of whether you think everything is going great or maybe there's maybe there's a problems, I don't think it's caught up unfairly.

I think it's just, you know, we just need need it, need eyes on us.

If it's if we're spending taxpayer money.

Especially for this particular fund, which, I think was only launched, a year ago.

like.

Oh, I.

Thought this company was managing that.

Money.

That company was.

An IDC for.

This, but but.

Just this just.

Just this, this specific fund.

I mean, you're talking about, $25 million from the state that is currently frozen up at this point.

you know, it.

Do you think that it makes sense to while, like, getting everything else in order to just keep this money frozen?

Well, I think they're keeping it frozen while while they're looking to make sure it's been being spent appropriately.

They are looking, you know, state government wide for efficiencies and places to go find money and close funding gaps and, you know, review contracts.

And so it's not unique to this.

This is probably the highest profile call IDC has just been a high profile.

They're doing this throughout state government with, you know, all contracts and doing a comprehensive assessment.

Elise.

Basically same question.

Is this fund getting unfairly tied up in in this investigation of IDC?

Well, I mean, yeah, we are going to find out.

And I think it's for a very long time, people have been wondering what's going on behind the curtain on all of this funding, because there's so much that gets, you know, funneled this way.

And at the same time, we've been asked to cut and cut and cut for so many programs.

so I think there is a there are questions that need to be answered.

I also think when we look at this type of economic development, a lot of it tends to stay central, central Indiana focus.

And there are folks outside in the state that are trying, you know, where maybe some of, maybe there are less people with access to this capital exist that need to have, the same type of access that we could be, widening our focus.

so I think, by looking at this and having maybe a new start, it could be a great way for others, maybe not so central Indiana focus to benefit, more rural, more outside of, central Indiana, southern Indiana, north central Indiana, to, people to benefit from this.

Kaitlin, you know, especially in that broader context of the IDC, you know.

Was this a misstep for the state to invest, you know, a not insignificant chunk of change into what is essentially a venture capital fund?

Yeah, I think a lot of that just depends on your philosophy in terms of I mean, sure, there's a lot we don't know right now if anything was done, you know, incorrectly or wrongly, in this case.

But a big part of this is also just philosophical of, yeah.

How much money do you think should be going toward economic development?

How much should be going toward, you know, this this sort of set up where, you know, you are investing in, things outside of state, outside of, you know, the state, I mean, yeah.

so, yeah, I think that's that's a good question.

All that.

I do wonder what the IDC things.

I think more transparency is definitely good.

I think it's been a long time coming that's really needed.

But I do also wonder, you know, in this case, for example, will this company be able to still get outside funders because of all the uncertainty?

and, you know, I think about the leap district as well.

I do think that there's still a good amount of, uncertainty about what's going to happen there now that we have a new governor, now that we had all that water controversy.

And again, you can think the leap district is good or bad, but I do wonder if that has, you know, made some companies a little bit more wary about looking into the leap district.

So I think you can ask that question about all of these things when you have a transition from governor to a new governor, even if he is in the same political party.

Totally.

Jon, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, it is a matter I think you're right.

Caitlin of Philosophy.

And part of this is should government run like a business?

We often hear that.

And the argument for making this, having this arrangement in the first place was let's let's, you know, let these people be unfettered.

Let's not.

They need they're dealing with businesses and entrepreneurs who, you know, turn on a dime.

And we know the government tends to be plodding.

That's what the d not a t and it may not be work.

And so this is what we ended up with.

And these things tend to be a pendulum anyway and kind of settle back and forth.

So we're going through that now.

But I mean, at the core it is that notion, is there something fundamentally different about government, since they're dealing with our collective interest and our collective funds that separate it in a profound fashion from from business, maybe can't or shouldn't run at the speed of business.

Totally.

And finally, a Purdue University robotics team has created a robot named, to Purdubiks cube.

Thank you, Mike, to solve a Rubik's Cube.

It sets a Guinness World Record, solving the puzzle in just 0.013 seconds faster than the blink of an eye.

Kaitlin, should I personally be concerned that my one marketable skill, which is solving a Rubik's Cube, has been taken over by a robot?

I don't want to turn every single dark, but I just feel as journalists I'm like concern for a whole host of other reasons there.

First, yeah, coming.

Up.

Thank you.

Think you.

So going to once in my life I forget how many seconds you can show me.

I'm.

Fair.

Someone asked me to solve a Rubik's cube.

I'd probably be like, I, how do I stop that?

Are we are we losing our specialties to to robots?

Do you do with more panache than any robot?

Well, that's why.

I do it while talking now.

Yeah, I want to see it manipulate the the real virtual, not virtual cube.

Don't.

Oh, there we go.

The physical cube.

Yeah, the physical beauty.

Talk to me when it can do the physical.

Exactly.

Well, that's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Elise Schrock.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana lawmakers.

And Kaitlin Lange of the Indianapolis Star.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcast and episodes at wfyi.org/iwir or on the PBS app.

I'm Lauren Chapman of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next week because a lot can happen in Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.