Mary Ann Sullivan

Mary Ann Sullivan

Democratic Party

Prior offices

Indiana House of Representatives District 97

---

Indianapolis Public Schools school board At-large

---

Report an officeholder change

Elections and appointments

Last election

November 6, 2018

Education

Bachelor's

Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

Graduate

Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

Personal

Profession

Education consultant

Contact

Personal website

Mary Ann Sullivan was an at-large member of the Indianapolis Public Schools school board. Sullivan assumed office in 2014. Sullivan left office in 2018.

Sullivan ran for re-election for an at-large seat of the Indianapolis Public Schools school board. Sullivan lost in the general election on November 6, 2018.

Sullivan also formerly served as a Democratic member of the Indiana House of Representatives. She represented District 97 from 2008 to 2012. In 2012, she ran unsuccessfully for the District 36 seat in the Indiana State Senate.

Biography

Email editor@ballotpedia.org to notify us of updates to this biography.

Mary Ann Sullivan is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana. Sullivan earned her B.A. degree in philosophy and her master's degree in public affairs from Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis. She has worked for the Christel DeHaan Family Foundation, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and the Key Renaissance School. Sullivan is employed as an education consultant with the Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning at the University of Indianapolis.

Elections

2018

See also: Indianapolis Public Schools elections (2018)

General election

General election for Indianapolis Public Schools school board At-large

Susan Collins defeated incumbent Mary Ann Sullivan and Joanna Elizabeth Krumel in the general election for Indianapolis Public Schools school board At-large on November 6, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Susan Collins (Nonpartisan)	43.8	25,421
		Mary Ann Sullivan (Nonpartisan)	42.5	24,677
		Joanna Elizabeth Krumel (Nonpartisan)	13.8	7,993

---

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 58,091 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

2014

See also: Indianapolis Public Schools elections (2014)

The election in Indianapolis featured three seats up for general election on November 4, 2014. At-large incumbent Andrea J. Roof ran against challengers Ramon Batts, David Hampton, Josh Owens and Mary Ann Sullivan. Kelly Bentley and James Turner competed with board member Samantha Adair-White for the District 3 seat, and District 5 incumbent Michael D. Brown faced a challenge from LaNier L. Echols. Challengers Mary Ann Sullivan, Kelly Bentley and LaNier L. Echols won the three seats.

Results

Indianapolis Public Schools, At-Large General Election, 4-year term, 2014

Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Nonpartisan	Mary Ann Sullivan	45.6%	14,000
	Nonpartisan	Andrea J. Roof Incumbent	19.9%	6,115
	Nonpartisan	David Hampton	17.7%	5,431
	Nonpartisan	Ramon Batts	9.4%	2,879
	Nonpartisan	Josh Owens	7.5%	2,295
Total Votes				30,720
Source: Marion County Election Board, "2014 General Election Results for Marion County," accessed December 29, 2014

Funding

Sullivan reported $53,977.00 in contributions and $30,724.38 in expenditures during the election, which left her with $23,252.62 on hand according to the Marion County Election Board.

Sullivan received contributions from several notable individuals, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Hoffman's wife Michelle Yee and former Bain Capital managing director Mark Nunnelly. She also received contributions from the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce's PAC, Democrats for Education Reform and Education Reform Now.

Endorsements

Sullivan received endorsements from the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and Stand for Children Indiana.

2012

See also: Indiana State Senate elections, 2012

Sullivan ran in the 2012 election for Indiana State Senate District 36. She ran unopposed in the Democratic primary on May 8, 2012, and was defeated by incumbent Brent Waltz (R) in the general election, which took place on November 6, 2012.

Indiana State Senate, District 36, General Election, 2012

Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Mary Ann Sullivan	46.8%	19,333
	Republican	Brent Waltz Incumbent	53.2%	21,969
Total Votes				41,302

2010

See also: Indiana House of Representatives elections, 2010

Sullivan defeated Republican candidate Wesley Robinson by a margin of 5,172 to 3,717 to win re-election. The general election took place on November 2, 2010.

In the primary election on May 4, 2010, Sullivan defeated Kristopher Owens by a margin of 1,305 to 180.

Indiana House of Representatives, District 97 General Election (2010)
Candidates		Votes
Mary Ann Sullivan (D)		5,172
Wesley Robinson (R)		3,717

2008

On November 4, 2008, Democrat Mary Ann Sullivan won election to the Indiana House of Representatives District 97 seat after receiving 9,430 votes. She defeated Republican, Jon Elrod who received 7,552 votes.

Indiana House of Representatives, District 97 (2008)
Candidates		Votes
Mary Ann Sullivan (D)		9,430
Jon Elrod (R)		7,552

Campaign themes

2014

Sullivan provided the following responses to a survey conducted by Chalkbeat:

“	1. Do you support the direction of the school district under Superintendent Lewis Ferebee? Maybe. What, if anything, do you like about Ferebee’s leadership of the district? What would you change? My experience with Dr. Ferebee has been limited, but my impression is that he is a thoughtful, collaborative, optimistic and strategic leader. I hope that he continues to keep an open-mind to new ideas and not fall back into a more conventional posture as superintendent. 2. Do you believe the operation of IPS’ central office is efficient? No. What is your opinion of the efficiency of IPS’ central office operations? How much money should be spent outside the classroom on high-level district operations? My personal experience has been that the IPS central office does not operate efficiently. The recent Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce/IPS report, 2013 Operational Analysis, makes several recommendations aimed at improving real estate, information technology, human resources and financial management efficiency. I support a central office designed to be responsive to school needs, rather than to manage schools from downtown. The amount of money spent outside the classroom should be driven by school needs, and should not be limited to direct services from central administration. 3. Should the school district partner with charter schools? Yes. Do you support the House Bill 1321 “innovation network” law? What is the ideal relationship between the district and a charter school operator? Yes, I testified in support of House Bill 1321 during the last legislative session. Any relationship between the district and a charter operator would be entered into first and foremost to benefit students. It would be a true partnership, with clear roles, responsibilities, expectations, transparency and accountability on all sides. Ideally, successful practices developed in such a relationship would be shared with other interested schools. 4. Do you support the state’s voucher program? No. If yes, why do you support vouchers? If not, would you propose ending it? Although I voted against establishing the state’s voucher program as a state legislator, I would not work to end it as an IPS board member. My focus on the IPS board will be to improve the district and create more high-quality IPS schools. I will direct my time and energy to ensuring that IPS provides the right conditions for school success: adequate resources from the state, autonomous schools, strong school leaders and effective teachers, healthier environments for children, better family and community engagement, more efficient operations, a culture of collaboration, support for innovation, etc. 5. The district is moving toward more partnerships with outside groups like The Mind Trust and Stand for Children. Do you support stronger partnerships with school reform organizations? Yes. If not, why not? If yes, what would you envision those partnerships with charter school organizations look like? I would welcome partnerships with any outside groups dedicated to improving educational opportunities for children in IPS. I would support real partnerships, where all parties have a stake and a role in decision-making. We need to come to an understanding that we are all working toward the goal of providing students with the best educational opportunities possible. I believe those opportunities can and should be in IPS, but we cannot reach that goal if we are more worried about a school type than serving students. 6. Teachers haven’t received a pay raise in several years. What budget changes, if any, would you support to make this happen? Good teachers deserve to be paid well or we will continue to lose them. We need to restructure the compensation model to expand the impact of our best teachers. Since teacher salaries and benefits make up about 90 percent of the IPS general fund expenditures, it is clear that options for increasing pay are limited under current conditions. In the near term, I would make sure the district is operating at peak efficiency in all other budget areas and apply any savings towards the classroom. I would advocate for increased education funding from the state, and I would engage teaches in developing new models for compensation. 7. What percentage of a teacher’s performance evaluation score should be based on student test score growth? I am a proponent of adopting the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) or a TAP-like system in IPS. TAP is a system that improves teacher quality by providing educators with multiple career paths, and aligns professional development with instructional practice informed by data on student performance. Teachers are compensated based on their performance within that system. In this type of system, the exact percentage that student growth should play in teacher performance evaluations should be determined by the teachers, but should be significant enough to drive informed instructional practice focused on student achievement. 8. The state takeover process has been scrutinized recently. What’s your proposal for how to improve schools that have been rated an F for six straight years? I don’t believe in one-size fits all solutions, but I would say that any efforts to turnaround, restart or otherwise address persistently failing schools must involve better family and community engagement from the start. Within the school, there must be strong leadership, a clear mission and purpose, shared values, high expectations and a no-excuses attitude toward student success. 9. Ferebee has identified 11 low-performing priority schools to receive extra support and resources. What is your vision for how to improve IPS’ low-performing schools? As a proponent of autonomous schools, I do not have a single vision for improvement. Rather, I believe that certain conditions need to exist at the school level in order for low-performers to improve. Extra support and resources must be responsive to the needs of the adults and children in buildings, and not imposed upon them from the central administration. 10. What is your vision for how schools within the district should be governed? What role should principals and their assistants have in leading schools? I support maximum autonomy and flexibility at the school level, in return for accountability for results — a more charter-like relationship between individual schools and the district administration. 11. What didn’t we ask? Tell us about your platform, or another issue you’re passionate about. I firmly believe that IPS could be the best urban district in the country, if the board and superintendent can take full advantage of the positive education synergies the Indianapolis community has to offer. This is a historic time for the district. The board needs individuals who have the experience, understanding and courage to make this happen.	”
—Chalkbeat survey (2014)

What was at stake?

Issues in the election

Candidate survey answers

All 10 candidates who ran for school board answered a Chalkbeat survey regarding their positions on a range of issues in the district. These tables aggregate their responses to the five questions with "yes" or "no" answers. Click on a candidate's name in order to see that candidate's answers to all 11 questions, along with the candidate's full explanation for each answer.

At-large candidate positions
Issue	Andrea J. Roof	Ramon L. Batts	David Hampton	Josh Owens	Mary Ann Sullivan
Do you support stronger partnerships with school reform organizations?	No opinion	No	No opinion	Yes	Yes
Do you support the state’s voucher program?	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Should the school district partner with charter schools, and to what degree?	No opinion	No	No opinion	Yes	Yes
Do you believe the operation of IPS’ central office is efficient?	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No	No
Do you support the direction of the school district under Superintendent Lewis Ferebee?	Yes	No opinion	Yes	Yes	No opinion

District 3 candidate positions
Issue	Samantha Adair-White	Kelly Bentley	James Turner
Do you support stronger partnerships with school reform organizations?	No opinion	Yes	No
Do you support the state’s voucher program?	No opinion	No	Yes
Should the school district partner with charter schools, and to what degree?	No opinion	Yes	No
Do you believe the operation of IPS’ central office is efficient?	No opinion	No	No opinion
Do you support the direction of the school district under Superintendent Lewis Ferebee?	Yes	Yes	No

District 5 candidate positions
Issue	Michael D. Brown	LaNier L. Echols
Do you support stronger partnerships with school reform organizations?	No opinion	Yes
Do you support the state’s voucher program?	No opinion	Yes
Should the school district partner with charter schools, and to what degree?	Yes	Yes
Do you believe the operation of IPS’ central office is efficient?	No	Yes
Do you support the direction of the school district under Superintendent Lewis Ferebee?	Yes	Yes

New majority on the board

In 2012, three new members were elected to the seven-member Indianapolis School Board who each supported education policy shifts, such as school autonomy and charter school partnerships. The 2012 election featured the highest candidate fundraising totals of any school board election in Indianapolis history. The most raised was approximately $65,000, and some candidates received contributions from major national figures such as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

These new members were Gayle Cosby, Caitlin Hannon, and Sam Odle, and they joined the board incumbents, Andrea J. Roof, Samantha Adair-White and Diane Arnold, to create a new governing majority in favor of policy changes. Shortly after joining the board, the new majority ousted former superintendent Eugene White through a contract buyout and appointed Superintendent Lewis Ferebee as his replacement. Ferebee received praise following his appointment for discovering significant errors in the district budget. Auditors employed with the Indiana State Board of Accounts and the Council on the Great City Schools confirmed Ferebee's assessment that the district had an $8.4 million operating surplus in 2013 instead of a $30 million deficit, which was his predecessor's belief.

According to a report by Chalkbeat, the board majority shifted since 2012. Arnold, Roof, Hannon and Odle constituted the majority, while Adair-White frequently joined the minority along with Michael D. Brown, who supported Eugene White as superintendent and who first joined the board in 1999. Cosby was often the swing vote on the board, although the governing majority was large enough to approve motions and resolutions without her support.

The 2014 election featured challengers to all three incumbents who supported larger changes to policies in the district. The Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce endorsed former state Representative Mary Ann Sullivan (D) in the at-large race, former board member Kelly Bentley in the District 3 race and charter school dean LaNier L. Echols in the District 5 race.

October 10 candidate forum

At a candidate forum hosted by the Greater Indianapolis chapter of the NAACP along with the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis on October 10, 2014, nine of the 10 candidates who ran for three seats on the board voiced their opinions on issues such as charter schools and graduation rates. LaNier L. Echols, a District 5 challenger, did not attend the forum.

A state law passed earlier in 2014 allowing the school district to partner with private-sector charter school operators to either operate or take over district schools sparked the former conversation. At-large incumbent Andrea J. Roof indicated that she did not support turning district schools into charter schools, but acknowledged that some low-performing schools may benefit from a partnership. Two of her challengers, Josh Owens and Mary Ann Sullivan, both proclaimed their support for the law and for charter school partnerships in the district.

The District 3 board member, Samantha Adair-White, condemned the law and stated, "Our kids are not for sale. It is a disgraceful attack. I don’t like it and I’m not with it." One of Adair-White's challengers in District 3, Kelly Bentley, indicated that she would approve of any partnership that could improve student performance.

On the subject of graduation rates, District 5 incumbent Michael D. Brown was optimistic about spreading the success of certain high-achieving schools across the district. He added, "There’s no new thing in education. [...] If you really want to improve, you have to replicate programs that are successful." At-large challenger David Hampton stated that raising graduation rates were his highest priority and that he would not support granting waivers to students who could not pass state examinations. Fellow at-large candidate Ramon L. Batts insisted that parent engagement with high school students was the primary issue driving down graduation rates. District 3 challenger James Turner claimed that outside partnerships would not remedy the problem and that only internal improvement would increase graduation rates.

Ramon Batts plagiarism

At-large candidate Ramon L. Batts underwent criticism in October 2014 following the discovery that he had plagiarized certain answers to a survey distributed by the education media outlet Chalkbeat. Internet commentators on the survey article were the first to highlight the alleged plagiarism of materials from organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Batts denied that the plagiarism was intentional and labeled it a "mistake," although he acknowledged that "Certainly, I know better." He added, "That’s what happens when you’re doing things at 1 or 2 a.m." Chalkbeat contacted his opponent, incumbent Andrea J. Roof, for comment on the story, but she declined to issue a statement on the matter.

Issues in the district

Teacher merit pay contract

The Indianapolis School Board approved a new teacher contract on September 23, 2014, for the 2014-2015 school year. Since the passage of an Indiana state law in 2011, teacher salaries must be linked to performance in some manner. In this contract, district teachers who were evaluated as either "highly effective" or "effective" during the 2013-2014 school year will receive a $1,500 bonus. In the 2012-2013 school year, only five district teachers were rated as "ineffective."

Teachers are eligible for a $5,000 stipend if new responsibilities, such as developing curriculum, are assigned. The salary for new teachers is flexible and dependent on whether they are hired to teach in a low-performing school or to teach classes in a high-need subject. Although employee health insurance premiums will rise, the district will also pay the difference between the new cost and the previous year's cost.

Rhondalyn Cornett, who serves as the president of the Indianapolis Education Association, approved the final contract and said in an interview with Chalkbeat, "Teachers are stepping up and doing more things all the time,” she said. "It’s about time they get compensated for it. We wanted to see (an increase to the base salary), but the district explained it was a recurring cost." The Indianapolis School Board voted 6-1 to approve the contract, with District 2 member and former teacher Gayle Cosby casting the only vote against it. Following the vote, she criticized the removal of academic credentials from consideration in the salary schedule and stated that she supported higher teacher salaries than those in the contract. Superintendent Lewis Ferebee praised the contract and insisted, "It’s a move in the right direction."

The contract is split into two separate salary schedules, with the first being for teachers hired before October 1, 2014, and the second being for teachers hired after that date. Both schedules use "years of effectiveness" as the steps for the salary ladder. Effectiveness is determined through teacher evaluations, although every year of teaching experience prior to the 2012-2013 school year is automatically counted as effective. The first salary schedule splits the ladder into seven different lanes depending on a teacher's academic credentials, so that teachers with a bachelor's degree are in the lowest-compensated lane and teachers with a doctorate are in the highest-compensated lane. The second salary schedule does not differentiate teachers by their academic credentials. The lowest possible base salary on the first salary schedule is $35,684 and the highest is $71,042, while the lowest base salary on the second salary schedule is also $35,684 but the highest is $57,702.

Campaign finance summary

Ballotpedia currently provides campaign finance data for all federal- and state-level candidates from 2020 and later. We are continuously working to expand our data to include prior elections. That information will be published here as we acquire it. If you would like to help us provide this data, please consider donating to Ballotpedia.

Committee assignments

2011-2012

In the 2011-2012 legislative session, Sullivan served on these committees:

• Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development
• Environmental Affairs
• Government and Regulatory Reform

2009-2010

In the 2009-2010 legislative session, Sullivan served on these committees:

• Family, Children and Human Affairs
• Local Government
• Public Policy
• Small Business and Economic Development (Vice Chair)

Legislative walkout

Sullivan and 36 other Democratic representatives participated in a legislative walkout on February 22, 2011, in opposition to proposed right-to-work legislation that would have limited union powers in Indiana. The Democratic departure left the House void of a quorum, leaving only 58 of the 67 representatives needed to establish a quorum. Terri Austin, Steven Stemler and Vanessa Summers stayed behind to provide, if necessary, a motion and a seconding motion, which would enable them to stop any official business from proceeding should the Republicans try to do so.

On March 7, 2011, House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer revealed that the Democrats were staying at the Comfort Suites in Urbana, Illinois during their absence from the statehouse. According to the Indiana Constitution, Article 4, sections 11 and 14, the House may enforce fines and other methods to compel absent members to return. Beginning on March 7, 2011, each Democrat was subject to a fine of $250, to be withheld from future expense or salary payments, for each day they were not present in the statehouse. Regarding their actual pay, House Speaker Brian Bosma announced that the 37 lawmakers were required to be physically present in the chambers to receive their per diem payment of $152/day.

On March 21, 2011, Governor Mitch Daniels (R) and House Republicans increased daily fines from $250/day to $350/day. In response to the increase in fines, House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer stated that Democrats "will remain steadfast" in their opposition to the right-to-work bill. Rep. Winfield Moses, Jr. (D) called the increase "a poke in the eye," and said it would not cause the Democrats to return.

The Democrats returned to the statehouse on March 28, 2011, after the two sides had agreed to compromise on a number of issues, including shelving the controversial right-to-work bill. Although the Democrats had some of their demands met, each absent member accrued a total of $3,500 in fines.

The Legislature ended up passing right-to-work legislation on February 1, 2012, becoming the 23rd state to do so. Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed the measure into law.

See also

• Indianapolis Public Schools, Indiana
• Indianapolis Public Schools elections (2018)

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Indianapolis Public Schools
• Office website
• Legislative profile from Project Vote Smart
• Biography from Project Vote Smart
• Campaign contributions: 2008, 2010

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by -	Indiana House of Representatives District 97 2008–2012	Succeeded by Justin Moed (D)