School Board election season begins

Besides snow and the holidays, December marks that time of year when campaigning for school board seats begins. Nomination papers can be picked up at the school District office. This is a great services and allows the school board to know who exactly might be campaigning to replace one of them or an open seat so they can find their own candidate to maintain the status quo.

Of course, if you'd rather run "under the radar", you do NOT have to get the forms at the School District. You can obtain the necessary forms at: http://elections.state.wi.us/subcategory.asp?linksubcatid=412&linkcatid=526&linkid=295&locid=47

There are 3 seats up this year:
- Mary Ellen Havel-Lang (3 yr)
- David Stackhouse (3 yr)
- Timothy Boylen (note this will only be for 1-year)

This is YOUR chance to change the direction of the board. Please consider running for one of these seats.

The forms you will need to file (due in the school district office by 5:00 January 2) are:

• EB-162 (Declaration of candidacy)
• EB-169 (Nomination Paper for Non-Partisan Office)...requires 100 signatures
• EB-1 (Campaign Registration statement)

School Board sweeping Culver contract issue under the carpet?

It's now been nearly 2 months since it was raised to the School Board's Finance Committee and the School Board that District Administrator Tim Culver exceeded the limits of his contract by charging the school district for his membership to the Sun Prairie Rotary Club.

see: http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/10/school-board-cant-even-make-simple.html

We were told that they'd be "looking into it". Well how long does it take to look? The facts are clear.

• Culver is limited to 2 paid memberships (which he already receives)
• The Rotary Club is a great service organization, but it doesn't meet the specifications of the contract.

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/08/district-administrator-tim-culvers.html

• Culver gets paid close to $150,000 per year including some nice monthly per diem expenses! You'd think he could afford to open his wallet and let the dead presidents see the light of day!
• The School Board approves quarterly checks to pay for his dues and meals at meetings (despite the fact that the meals should be covered out of his per diem pay).

Why hasn't this question from the public been answered?

Our crystal ball is clear on this one. We figure that once the Board figures enough heat has been generated on the issue, they'll discuss it at a meeting and agree to approve the additional expense--and once again violate their own policy--or in this case, an employment contract. We're holding out hope, however, that this might be an instance where at least Caren Diedrich votes against such a decision, citing the taxpayers.

Let the bus aides rule!

As predicted, the FTT vote was 4-1 in favor of hiring bus aides....or rather have Kobussen hire bus aides and charge us $17.00 per hour. The school board on Monday December 3, then voted unanimously (Diedrich and Boylen absent) to seal the deal.

It's so easy to say, "It's for the kid's safety", and therefore who could possibly argue with the decision. Of course, that's the prevailing tactic of our school board and administration. They toss out feel-good buzz phrases to support their decisions in a manner designed to make people think that to disagree would mean that you don't care about the welfare of our children. It's a great tactic, actually. They are to be lauded for their ingenuity.

Our problems with this whole situation is that this is yet another knee-jerk reaction to solve a problem by throwing money at it instead of holding people accountable for their actions. We were told that it's not a good idea to suspend bus privileges of offending students because "if they're not on the bus, they're not in school". True. But there's a word for that. It's called truancy, and it's a legal issue. The school administration cannot serve as surrogate parents, and the taxpayers cannot--should not--bear the fiscal responsibility of the district administration doing so. Parents have an obligation to get their children to school. And if they're suspended from riding the bus, maybe the parents need to spend some quality time with their children pursuing behavior modification techniques.

Another problem is that the school board talks a good game about setting policy, but then they frequently disregard their own policies....unless of course sticking to their policies serves their purpose. Now we have a policy that simply states that the Administration can hire bus aides as needed. This leaves a lot of unanswered questions:

• Why wasn't some other solution considered such as using volunteers--perhaps senior citizens or at-home parents--- and providing property tax breaks in return?
• Since all bus routes have an assigned driver, and the behavior problems affected only 3 of 28 bus routes, did we consider switching bus drivers? Could it be that there are a few bus drivers that have better sills in the discipline management area?
• Who monitors the decisions that bus aides are needed?
• How will we even know if the bus aides are being effective?
• What if we decide that the problem is temporary? Who will make sure that we stop using bus aides when they are not necessary?
• Is one bus aide enough for a bus of 70 kids? Jim Carrel noted that when traveling with the HS band, there are often 3 or more chaperons per bus. Does this open the door for more than one bus aide per bus?
• How soon will it be that, in the name of safety, a bus aide is placed on all 28 routes (at a cost to the taxpayer of $3,000 per route per trip)
• When will this school board as a whole consider the taxpayer?

SP School Board: Let's spend MORE money!!!!!

The school board is looking to enter into an "energy performance contract". This will be in addition to the 4-year contract already in effect for $9000 per month to Energy Education Inc.


A man who was introduced only as "Chuck McGinnis" made a presentation to the School Board's FTT Committee on November 12, 2007. It was interesting to note that Mr. McGinnis never mentioned who he represented. Even his slide presentation contained only his name. Thanks to my good buddy, Yahoo, however, one can quickly discern that Mr. McGinnis works for none other than Johnson Controls. Yes, the very same Johnson Controls that is the employer of School Board member Jim Carrel. To his credit, Mr. Carrel left the meeting during McGinnis' presentation, and no action was taken by the FTT Committee. It is, however, yet another one of those things that makes you scratch your head and ask...who brought this forward as an agenda item? And, why didn't Mr. McGinnis indicate that he worked for and represented Johnson Controls?



What does our $108,000 per year to E2I buy us? Pretty much:

• They required us to hire an "Energy Manager" at about $50K per year+ benefits.
• They tell us that we should turn off lights to save money.
• They tell us to lower our thermostats in the winter and raise them in the summer.
• They tell us to reduce heating and cooling to unused areas.

WOW! I'm definitely in the wrong line of work! If they can charge over $100K per year to a school district...hell, I'll give the same advice for , say, $75K. Nice!

So, now what is an Energy Performance Contract (EPC)? It's a contract for "comprehensive energy efficiency improvements". Entering into an Energy Performance Contract MAY indeed make sense financially for the district. We are concerned however, that such decisions usually come in hindsight, rather than foresight. Sure we could save more money through loan programs and getting professional assitance in terms of what equipment to purchase. But on the other hand, an EPC would cover many of the things the E2I contract already covers, which makes our spending $9000/month (under a binding contract for 2 more years!) seem like a less than stellar move. Why weren't we considering an EPC back then???? And why did we hire an Energy Manager and , recently, an HVAC technician if these folks aren't capable of providing knowledgeable advice on purchasing decisions such as "green" lighting or "on-demand" hot water system vs. hot water heater.

For more about Energy Performance Contracting

• http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/resources/index.html



• http://asbointl.org/ASBO/files/CCPAGECONTENT/docfilename/0000003168/Performance_Contracting_in_K-12_Schools.pdf


• http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/plan/financing/contracts.html

Bus aides?

At a special meeting on Monday November 19, the School Board's FTT Committee will discuss Administration's desire to change policy to allow the use of bus aides and then approve an addendum to the Kobussen contract to allow for Kobussen to hire bus aides for selected routes and charge the District.

The history of "bus aides" goes back to at least to this past September when Human Resources worked out an agreement with Local 60 to create a position entitled "Bus Aide" and a salary schedule. The issue was discussed at the October 1 HR meeting and then again at the November 5 HR meeting. At that meeting, the item was tabled pending review by the FTT.

Why bus aides? The District has been quiet about the issue, but WISC-TV picked up on it and posted an item on their Channel3000.com website on November 14.

www.channel3000.com/education/14589344/detail.html

That item indicated that both District Business Manager Phil Frei and Horizon elementary principal Kathi Klaas were both interviewed and reported that bus aides would be hired for at least 3 routes.

Again, why bus aides? Phil Frei was quoted as saying,

"We've had some issues of horsing around. Sometimes that horsing around gets more serious where kids are bringing a paper clip and threatening kids with a paper clip. So, mostly it's horsing around, but we wouldn't allow that behavior in a classroom, and we don't allow that on a bus."

So all this relates to 6-12 year olds wielding paper-clips? That reminds us of the old Monty Python sketch about teaching self defense against attackers wielding different varieties of fruit.

Instead of just throwing money at an issue, this District needs to settle back and look at what policy, procedures, and the bus contract offer to resolve the situation.

According to the bus contract, the bus driver has complete responsibility for discipline on the bus. He can stop the bus and call Administration or even the police if kids get unduly unruly. By contract, these buses are supposed to have video recorders on board, so we should know who the offenders are and deal with them appropriately. Bus drivers are also required to report any discipline problems to the school principle via a District form. Our policies clearly provide multiple steps, both pro-active and reactive to maintaining discipline on buses. Let's use them!

The big concern here is that this issue has all the earmarks of being a back-door done deal. WISC-TV reported that they received calls from parents who received a letter indicating that bus aides WOULD be placed on buses. Human Resources has been working to hiring bus aides for the district since early September. Phil Frei was quoted on Channel 3000 as saying bus aides WILL be hired. That was later edited to say "MAY" be hired (but only after SP-EYE complained about this FTT meeting being a sham and the decision had already been made.) Both Kathi Klaas and Phil Frei refuted quotes attributed to them by WISC-TV. So the bottom line here is that someone's not telling the whole truth: is it the parents who reported the issue to WISC-TV and "the letter sent home" or is it administration? We don't like to ask these kind of questions, but it seems that the question needs to be asked.

The media may not always get it right...but they never get it all wrong either. Usually the truth lies somewhere in between.

With all apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, "How do I hate this proposal? Let me count the ways."

1. This issue reeks of closed door decision making and done deals.
2. If one reads the bus company contract and our own school district policies, the bus driver is responsbile for discipline on buses...much like the captain of an airplane has authority over discipline of its passengers. Why are we paying extra for responsibilities that the bus company is already contractually obligated to provide?
3. Bus aides' will cost the District over $3000 per school year per route ($6000 for both morning and afternoon trips)...which brings us to ...
4. All the information points to using bus aides "to ensure a safe ride home"...okay...so the kids are only exhibiting bad behavior in the afternoon?
5. It's clear that already a "maximum" of 3 routes have been identified out of 28 total routes. That's a pretty isolated issue.
6. At least one of the routes of "bad behaved students" is elementary school kids (6-12 years old!). Are these kids really behaving badly to THIS degree? Whatever happened to those good old days when a bus driver shot you a look in his mirror and you instantly folded your hands in your lap and zipped your lip???
7. Sure paper clips can be a weapon...but so can anything these kids have: pencils, pens, rulers, backpacks. Come on! Let's stop sensationalizing the issue and hiding behind student safety. What's next....metal detectors before boarding a bus?
8. What is the purpose of video recorders that are by contract supposed to be on each bus? Or are they really there? If they are, then what purpose do the serve?
9. Who's to say these kids will behave just because a bus company provided "aide" is present? If they won't behave for the bus driver, why are we so sure this will work?
10. The school district outlined 14 responses to disciplinary problems on buses last February. Are you telling us that all 14 steps have been tried without succcess and now this "last resort" is necessary?
11. Current policy already provides for suspending bus privileges for bad bus behavior both short and long term. Have we even tried that? When fighting was an issue at the high school, all it took was for Administration to crack done and expel a few offenders to resolve that issue.
12. Why are two separate Administrators talking to the media about this issue and then claiming they were misquoted? Didn't we hire a "Communications Specialist" for this very role? Didn't we just increase this position from 0.5 to 1.0 FTE? Shouldn't all media inquiries have been directed to that person?
13. Why aren't FTT Committee members provided with ALL the information to make an informed decision at their meeting? There's a lot of information that is out there but was not made available to them.

District residents tabbed for legal expenses to defend School Board members

In previous episodes:

• A complaint , alleging violations of Open Meetings Laws, was filed with the District Attorney against school board members Jim Carrel, John Whalen, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang back in early June.
• The District Attorney began reviewing the issue and requested formal response from the School District records custodian, Tim Culver.
• The matter remains open.

District resident Roger Fetterly has monitored the costs incurred for legal expenses. At the October 22nd School Board meeting, he noted that --based on open records requests--the School District has racked up over $14,000 in legal fees, including 27 separate billings related to preparing responses for the school board members named in the violation of Open Meetings law complaint.

Fetterly also correctly notes that these same school board members who serve to benefit from this legal aid provided at tax payer expense have voted to approve the very checks used to pay for their legal defense! That seems to be a question of ethics.

Why is the District automatically paying for the defense of 3 school board members who should know their responsibilities as elected officials?

Section 895.35 of Wisconsin Statutes specifies that

(1) Whenever in any city, town, village, school district, technical college district or county charges of any kind are filed or an action is brought against any officer thereof in the officer’s official capacity, or to subject any such officer, whether or not the officer is being compensated on a salary basis, to a personal liability growing out of the performance of official duties, and such charges or such action is discontinued or dismissed or such matter is determined favorably to such officer, or such officer is reinstated, or in case such officer, without fault on the officer’s part, is subjected to a personal liability as aforesaid, such city, town, village, school district, technical college district or county may pay all reasonable expenses which such officer necessarily expended by reason thereof.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0895.pdf

Why has the school district jumped the gun and paid for all these expenses before a decision has even been rendered?

Why are school board members voting to approve of checks to pay for services from which they will directly benefit?

STAR says: Vote 1. NO 2.yes 3.NO on Sun Prairie High School Referendum

SEE: http://www.sunprairiestar.com/editorial/editorial.html

Question 1 (new 10-12 High School; remodel HS to an 8-9 school)

The remodeling of the high school into a middle school will allow for construction of a larger high school, which we still think could be constructed for 2,400 students (that’s 600 students per grade) until space demands require construction of a second high school in roughly 10 years. That was always part of the district’s long-range planning for its west side piece of land – and our proposal would not change that. That size is consistent with previous editorials regarding this issue – as is the phasing. Of course, west siders want their own high school and will likely turn out against this proposal because of that.

There are plenty of reasons why we think voters will reject the Nov. 6 referendum, but the failure of the district to recognize the community’s desire for one large high school is perhaps the greatest among them. For those reasons, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE NO on Question 1 to authorize borrowing $96 million.

Question 2 (swimming pool for the new high school)

Although [the STAR] believe[s] the vote will be a symbolic one because [the STAR] believe[s] question 1 will go down in flames, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE YES on question 2 to support borrowing $3.325 million for a swimming pool.

Question 3 (exceed revenue cap each year for swimming pool operating costs)

Did the board make the same requirement when the district’s other athletic facilities were constructed? Did it require an exceed the revenue cap question when gymnasiums were constructed to pay for heat, lights and equipment? No. So why then would the school board require taxpayers to pick up the tab associated with the operation of this facility?It’s a question the board needs to answer – and until then, [the STAR] urge[s] voters to VOTE NO on Question 3.

Construction Manager position snakes through school board.

Learned at the annual meeting (Oct. 8th) that the board had held interviews for an selected a Construction Manager for the 7th elementary school to monitor cost control. The position is a good thing. The way that the board went about it however, has a certain stench to it.

SP-EYE asked when the interview meetings were public noticed. On 10-22-07, Phil Frei responded that ,

" Administration was directed by the HR committee and School Board to bring a recommendation to the Board on a Construction Manager for the building projects. Adm. sent out RFP's and set-up interviews with three Construction managers. Adm. asked School Board members if they wanted to sit in on the interviews. This was administrative work, not a meeting of the School Board.

Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and Jim Carrel did sit in on the interviews.

The HR Committee also felt that this should not even be a "real" position, but simply an out-sourced service.

Hmmm. Let's see. When the FTT Committee was interviewing Construction firms for elementary #7 thisa spring, THOSE interviews were public noticed and held during open meetings. Even school board candidates for Jim Gibbs' vacant seat were interviewed during an open session. For such a large project, and for a new position--albeit a "temporary" one-- why was this done so quietly?

School Board can't even make a simple determination.

How many school board members does it take to screw up? Just one. Take your pick.

Over a month ago, SP-EYE asked Jim McCourt, chair of the Finance Committee why Tim Culver's paid memberships exceeded the boundaries set by his contract.

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-anyone-watching-books.html

McCourt had no answer, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang tried to shut the discussion down, crying "Point of Order!" SP-EYE pressed on and asked why the Finance Committee approved the check to pay for Culver's Rotary dues. McCourt said he would look into it and get back to us. RRRRRRRIIIIGGGGHHHTTTT!

This past Monday, Dr. James Murray asked about the status of the complaint and was told, "We're not going there." So much for open meetings, communicating with the public, and a decisive school board.

How hard is this? You were wrong. Culver over-extended his contract, and someone needs to own up to the responsibility. The dues need to be reimbursed by Culver, and the Board should be demanding it. You can even issue an empty apology for the "oversight". Again...what the hell are you teaching our children???

These "leaders" want us to approve $100M for a referendum, but can't even manage to watch these simple expenses. Gotta wonder how much Sun Prairie is being fleeced on the cost of this referendum.

The opponents of open records are at it again.

Once again some of our leaders are trying to shut down access to information. A cornerstone of open government is open records.

If you've followed any of the recent articles in the Wisconsin State Journal....
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2007/10/03/0710020450.php

...then you are aware that Assembly Bill 418 (AB 418) is an attempt to restrict access to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access system. AB 418 would restrict most people from viewing the web site, which is a repository for court records. The site - wcca.wicourts.gov - describes basic information about civil and criminal charges and convictions in courts across Wisconsin.
The website is popular because it provides regular citizens --us --with a means to obtain information about other key people they encounter and in whom they place trust. For example, just about every parent has some concern about those individuals that interact with their children, such as child-care providers and coaches. It can also aid employers in screening job applicants.

Those with daughters of dating age, knowing this site exists, will undoubtedly check the record of potential suitors to answer questions such as, "Is she safe with him? Is he a safe driver?". Who could deny that information? Others may wish to check out elected officials or those running for election. There have been numerous incidents of elected officials mishandling finances over the year, both criminally and otherwise. Wouldn't it be considered prudent to check out elected officials and political candidates BEFORE problems arise?

Can this system be abused? Yes, absolutely...as can any other system. The point is that these records are OURS. Granted if charges are dismissed, we need to understand the person is not guilty. On the other hand, if the individual is found guilty, then perhaps they shouldn't have done the deed to begin with. You do the crime, you do the time, right?

Sun Prairie is no longer a small town. With growth comes not only positive things but some not so positive ones. Now that we no longer know every face, this site is critical in providing each of us with information about those people that we rely upon to spend our tax dollars wisely or care for our children.

Check it out at:
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl

Sun Prairie School Board Quotable Quotes

Jim Carrel:

"Any complaint about the high cost of the [proposed] high school building should be first addressed to those who voted 'NO' [on the April 2006 referendum]"

Jim Carrel:

"With liberty comes vigilance......"

John Whalen:

"I can think of 96 million reasons to vote 'NO' [on 11/06/07 referendum]"

Get your facts straight!

Is anyone else growing weary of school board member Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and District Administrator Tim Culver stating mis-information with respect to the taxy levy?

At the 9/24/07 school board meeting, Tim Culver stated that "we're [Sun Prairie] one of a rare number of school districts that levy [taxes] below the state revenue limit".

Horse hockey! I honestly think they say these things because (A) they sound really impressive and (B) they believe no one has the wherewithal to check the facts.

The facts, folks, are these:

1. Over the past 3 school years, 148(2004-05), 143 (2005-06), and 82 (2006-07) out of the state's 426 school districts have levied underneath the state-imposed limits. I wouldn't call those numbers "RARE". sure, it''s getting harder to do so, but even last year, 20% of districts levied under the limit.

2. Here are Sun Prairie's rankings (out of 426) over the past 3 years:

......................................................... 2004-05 ..... 2005-06 ..... 2006-07
Revenue Limit .................................... 23rd ................. 22nd .............. 22nd
Tax levy .............................................. 23rd ................. 17th ................ 17th
Tax levy under the cap -$$ ................. OVER ............... 13th ................ 8th
Tax levy under the cap -% of limit ...... OVER ............... 22nd ................ 15th

Yes, we've been "good"....but certainly not "rare".

See for yourself here:
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sfs/revlim.html
then download "Historical Revenue Limit Information" (available by year)

School Board: 7 elected members, or a 'team of eight'?

Have you ever attended a Sun Prairie School Board meeting (or watched on TV) and asked, "Why is District Administrator Tim Culver seated at the left hand of the board president"?

If so, you're not alone. we've even asked former board president Mary Ellen Havel-Lang about it. Her response was that Dr. Culver is a critical part of the board team. Hmmm. Have you also noted that Dr. Culver gets the privilege of speaking out at the board table during meetings...a privilege that is not extended to residents? If so you may have also noted that Dr. Culver has the luxury of presenting the last word, and frequently rebuts the presentations of district residents....yet the residents do not have the right to re-but Dr. Culver's "spin" on any given issue.

It's simply not right for the District Administrator to sit at the board table or be treated as a board member. He certainly wasn't elected, and more importantly...he is an employee of the school board. We certainly believe that the board and the administrator need to have a good professional working relationship...but that does not include a seat at the "big table". He should be offered a seat at the side table, whether other members of the district's administration team sit, whether they can be available to respond to questions from the board.

We've since learned that Sun Prairie is not alone in this "team of 8" practice. Read more about this issue at: http://www.peytonwolcott.com/TeamEight.html

Final Sun Prairie Pool Plan: "Damn the pool committee; we 7 get to decide things!"

At the Special School Board session on Monday September 17, the net result was "damn the efforts of the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force" and significant changes were made from the recommendations offered by the board appointed Task Force.

Out:

• The warm water exercise pool

SP-EYE note: we think this was a poor decision. A number of community members and seniors would have benefited from a warm-water exercise/rehabilitation pool. This decision virtually ensures a significant loss of potential operating cost-recouping revenue.

Significant changes:

• Increase the pool from 6 to 8 lanes
• Increase bleacher seating from 100 to 300

SP-EYE note: we think this was a poor decision, as well. The Pool Task Force thoroughly researched pools, pool operation, and pool curricula. The committee --by majority consensus-- agreed that a 6-lane pool and seating for 100 was all that was necessary, and the compromise allowed the committee to include the warm-water exercise pool at a reasonable cost.

Undecided:

• Whether or not to lump the pool in with the high school referendum

(Thanks to Mary Ellen Havel-Lang for pointing out that since this was not specifically on the official agenda, no action can be taken during a public meeting. See folks...they CAN learn! There is hope.)

Other notes from the meeting:

• The "pool people" were again out in force, and seemed to exert some influence over this new, kinder & gentler board.
• Sun Prairie resident and knowledgeable pool advocate Keith Miller implored the board and the "pool people" to stick with the plan developed by the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force. He noted that it made sense, was the result of consensus, and met the needs of both the school district and all community residents.
• Board president David Stackhouse disagreed with the final plan, correctly noting that the "pool people" had previously supported the agreement with the YMCA, which would have only afforded us with 6 of the 8 lanes in the 'Y' pool. So why need 8 lanes now?
• Keith Miller noted that most 'Big 8' schools only have 6 lanes pools, and 6 lanes is all that is required to hold WIAA swim meets. He also noted that as a former WIAA pool official, his experience is that only rarely do the number of pool meet spectators even approach 100.

Is anyone watching the books?

Why are the taxpayers paying for Sun Prairie Area School District Administrator Tim Culver's Rotary dues (and meals at Rotary Club meetings)?

Culver's contract calls for the following payments:

• annualized base salary shall be $135,454 (Contract 3.a.)
• Flat monthly payment for the use of personal automobile of $325 per month for use in district and in Dane County (Contract 4.j.)
• $125 per month to defray miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses (Contract 4.l.) [...in lieu of other expense reimbursement for miscellaneous costs incurred carrying out official duties...]

That's a total of about $11,750 per month, or $141,000 per year!

His contract states that the board (that means us, the taxpayers) will pay the cost of:

...required annual dues for one state and one national professional association whose primary missions are to improve education and the professional competence of District Administrator.

1. The state association we pay for is: the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators.
2. The national association is: the American Association of School Administrators (Cost = $1192, check # 80158)

OK...those make good sense and conform to the contract specifications. But what about the Rotary club? In the past year we paid for Culver's Rotary Club membership, which I understand is $25/quarter + the meal cost at meetings. This year we have paid the following:

• Check# 72592 $101.65
• Check# 74541 $116.00
• Check# 76931 $109.00
• Check# 78245 $116.00

Seeing as (A) we already pay him $325/mo for travel and $125/month for misc meals and expenses (B) given that the Rotary---while an excellent service organization--does not fit the contract requirements of an association "whose primary missions are to improve education and the professional competence of District Administrator". ...why is this not coming out of his healthily lined pocket?

Rotary International Mission Statement:

"The mission of Rotary International, a worldwide association of Rotary clubs, is to provide service to others, to promote high ethical standards, and to advance world understanding, goodwill, and peace through its fellowship of business, professional, and community leaders."

...or check the local chapter goals at: http://www.rotary6250.org/downloads/Rotary%20District%206250%20Goals%20for%202007-08.pdf

Let me make this clear: I believe the Rotary Club is an excellent service organization. This is also not an indictment of Dr. Culver. This is simply about who should be paying for the membership. If the school board wanted to cover this cost, it should have been in his contract. WHO is watching out for finances and contract compliance? The board talks a good game about its role to enact policy, but the board also is responsible for proper fiscal management of a $65M business.

Why shouldn't Culver use some of his personal salary or "monthly stipends" for his membership????

Don't we, at some point, have to say "enough is enough" with respect to perks for Dr. Culver?

And why is no one watching for compliance of his contract?

Pool plan puts the damper on high school referendum

At last night's (9/10/07) school board meeting, girl's swim coach Nancy Harms, a number of girls swim team members, and Piranha club members spoke out about the pool plan being proposed alongside the high school referendum poised for November 6th.

The major issues cited were:

1. The pool exists as a separate referendum question, yet the field house and performing arts center were bundled into the high school plan.

2. Proponents felt that an 8-lane pool offered more to the school and the community than the proposed 6-lane pool.

3. Pool proponents believe that bleacher seating capacity of 100 is insufficient.

Board president David Stackhouse reminded the public that the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force was convened in the spring/summer of 2006 to draw up a plan for a pool and a curriculum. That effort involved at least 16 hours of Task Force members' time and effort. The Task Force was comprised of a number of pool managers, swim team coaches, and Bob Hollings, SP Director of Parks and Recreation (who also oversees the Aquatic Center). The final plan recommended by the Task Force represented a consensus of the group.

Board member Tim Boylen cautioned the public that ignoring the work of committees such as the Pool Task Force will not bode well for enlisting future involvement of community member volunteers for committees.

The school board voted to table any action on the referendum pending some re-evaluation of pool options. A meeting on the pool issue has been scheduled for next Monday 9/17/07. The final vote for the entire referendum must be completed at the 9/24/07 school board meeting in order to hold a Nov. 6th referendum.

"It is what it is" - The Sun Prairie High School Plan

At the August 2oth high school plan team meeting, school board member Mary Ellen Havel-Lang noted the estimated effect the plan would have on the mill rate and simply said,
"It is what it is."

What is it? $97M and $1.24 to $1.31 increase to the mill rate.

At the August 27th school board meeting, Rick Mealy cited the April 30th CRT results which showed that 90% of the CRT could only support a maximum mill rate increase of $1.00. District Administrator Tim Culver then offered a rebuttal and "corrected" Mr. Mealy's statement regarding the CRT. Culver stated that on May 21, the CRT voted 78% in favor of supporting "the plan" at a cost of $87.7 to $97M.

Most taxpayers care less about the total cost of something as they do about how it will affect them: i.e., the mill rate and a project's effect on property taxes. What the CRT actually voted for on May 21st was this:



This slide shows that the 78% supported a plan that would not cost more than $1.11 on the mill rate...which was far more generous than the CRT agreed to at the April 30th meeting. Note, however, that while the final plan came out at exactly the maximum of the range shown to the CRT, the final mill rate estimate at $1.24 (without a pool) is about 12% higher than the CRT agreed to support.

So...while Dr. Culver was technically correct in his "correction", he was without a doubt being disingenuous as to what the CRT requested. And in case there is any doubt about the CRT's priorities, here they are from the May 21st meeting: #1: One high school, #2 cost.

Co-Bball head coaches it will be. A school board boo-boo?

On Monday night (8/27/07) the school board voted 5-1-1 (No vote: Caren Diedrich; Abstaining: David Stackhouse) to approve a settlement agreement to resolve the grievance filed by basketball coach Jeff Boos.


The vote was preceded by statements made by three residents/basketball program supporters each of whom respectfully counselled the board to review the detail of the agreement and only vote to approve it if there was sufficient "teeth" included to ensure compliance with provisions of the agreement and ensure equity of treatment to anyone who wishes to be a part of the basketball program.


Following a motion from David Stackhouse (2nd: Havel-Lang) to table the agreement pending a more extensive closed session discussion, a lengthy discussion ensued between board members. I guess the $900 that the board spent recently for a short course from attorney Mike Julka on Robert's Rules of Order didn't take. A motion to table ("lay on the table) an item cannot be debated. It must instantly go to vote. A simple majority is all that is needed.

Robert's Rules of Order online: http://www.rulesonline.com/start.html

During the discussion, Jims Carrel and McCourt whittled the issue down to being about approving an agreement with which both district administration and Mr. Boos were comfortable.

Caren Diedrich most eloquently framed her concern that co-head coaches was not a viable solution when she asked board president David Stackhouse how he would feel if he were suddenly forced to be co-president with Mary Ellen Havel-Lang. Caren...that comment was a 3-pointer with nothing but net!

Perhaps we don't have all the information, but we sure have questions...starting with these:

1. How can the school district essentially take a teacher or coach to task, all the way up to a "Level III grievance", and NOT know that they had perhaps over-stepped their authority with respect to the SPEA contract?
2. Where is the accountability here? If this Pandora's box was all or in any part due to administration over-stepping their bounds, does that not reflect negatively on Dr. Culver's performance as a manager?
3. And shouldn't the board be taking issue with how all this was handled?
4. Board member Jim Carrel loves to talk about the need for "metrics" against which to evaluate contracts or performance, yet the "agreement" doesn't appear to contain any such benchmarks.
5. We always hear Dr. Culver and the board saying "it's all about the kids", but this seems to be all about doing something that will please Mr. Boos. What about the kids who want to be part of the basketball program? How will they fare with all this drama hanging overhead like a Sword of Damocles?
6. And what about recently appointed varsity basketball coach Jay Swanson....did anybody give a thought to how he felt about all this? Granted, sources indicate that Mr. Swanson is a great, stand-up guy....not the type that would want to "rock the boat"...even if he did feel uncomfortable.

Bray sharpens its pencil...at least on the pool cost.

At last night's (8/27) school board meeting, Administrator Tim Culver announced that in response to questions about the proposed $4.5M cost for the pool, Bray architects has apparently re-checked their figures and the new cost is slated to be $3.75M. That a 17% error.

Hmmmm......I wonder if a similar error might have been made in figuring the high school costs!
But I doubt that either Culver or the board are posing that question to Larry Bray of Bray Architects.

How much "fluff" is there in the Sun Prairie High School Plan?

At the 8/20/07 High School Planning Team meeting, Architect Larry Bray was asked to explain why the pool cost was estimated at $4.5M when plans his firm developed for the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force in July 2006 showed designs ranging from $2.5M to $3.6M.

Mr. Bray's response was " ...we had to add in site costs and materials cost increases. That brought us to about $4.2M. From there, we rounded it to $4.5M."

A quick calculation shows that this rounding results in a "fluff factor" of over 7%. How much fluff is in the $97M school construction plan? A similar 7% , or $7M?

Is this just a slick way that the school board and the district can later come back and want us to kiss their feet because they didn't have to spend all the money that was borrowed? Is this a means of artificially creating a construction slush fund to be used later to cover staffing costs so the board/district can say, "see...we didn't have to go to referendum to exceed the revenue cap???

It is information and statements such as these that are the root of public distrust in the school board and district administration. David Stackhouse may be right....there is no need to a "Community Engagement Task Force"...just stop the shenanigans !

More pizza and subs for District Adminsitrators

In this edition of the B.A.F.F.L.E (Biweekly Administration Fast Food Lovers' Expense) Report:

The school board package for the August 27th 2007 meeting, Biweekly Check Register reflects two more recent purchases of lunch on the taxpayer's dime.

• Check #80470 to COUSIN'S SUBS 07/16/2007 $85.04 for "Multiple Invoices"
  
• Check #80564 PIZZA HUT 07/27/2007 $58.62 for "DO STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUPPLIES"

No one seems to care that we now pay for lunch for these people. Board members have publicly supported this. What's next? making their mortgage payments for them? How about assigning a district vehicle to each?

See for yourself.

For details, download the file ,"Finance Committee - August 27, 2007 " and at:
http://www.spasd.k12.wi.us/web/glking/stories/storyReader$26

There is no "Check Detail" file posted as yet, but if that is done, that file will help explain what "Multiple Invoices" means.

CO-Head coaches for SPHS Boy's Basketball?

After first voting to approve the non-voluntary transfer of varsity basketball coach Jeff Boos to the Freshman Boys BBall coach for the 2007-08 school year, and then voting to approve the hire of Jay Swanson as the new Varsity Boys BBall coach for the 2007-08 school year, the school board and the district have come to an agreement to resolve a grievance filed by Boos.

In the school board package this week, there is a copy of the agreement which the board will vote to ratify at the Monday August 27, 2007 Board meeting.

For details, download the file ,"School Board - August 27, 2007" and see pages 75-77at:

http://www.spasd.k12.wi.us/web/glking/stories/storyReader$26

The agreement calls for Boos to either take a year of leave from coaching or coach Freshman Boys BBall for the upcoming school year. For the 2008-09 school year, Boos would then be moved to Co-Head Coach of the Varsity Boys BBall team.

Boos will also be subject to an Improvement Plan through the 2008-09 school year. Unless he elects to take an unpaid year off from coaching, Boos retains the varsity Head Coach pay grade for 10 years service.

High School Plan Set...on agenda for Mon. 8/27/07 Board meeting

It's a done deal. At Monday night's (8/20) High School Planning Team meeting, the final plan (at least for referendum purposes) and numbers were rolled out. The meeting concluded with the disbanding of the Team. Their job is complete.

The information is slated to be a informational/discussion item only ---NO DECISION---at this coming Monday's School Board meeting (7:30 pm on K-SUN or at the Municipal Bldg).

The Grand Plan call for:

• a November "special" referendum ("its the only way it will be done by Sept 2010") despite the fact that there's nothing else on the ballot and a presidential primary occurs in February.
• 3 referendum questions:


Question 1: $97M total ($80M for HS, $17M for 8/9 Jr HS)

Question 2: Do we want a pool? Pool will cost $4.5M (NOTE: the Pool Task Force last fall presented 5 options ranging from $3.0 to $3.6M)

Question 3: Authorize District to exceed the revenue cap "on a recurring basis" $290K/yr to operate the pool

Note 1: Additional staffing costs are estimated to be $1M /yr(to start)
Additional utilities cost (new school) estimated at $350K/yr
Dr. Culver suggested that, for the referendum, they say something like, "we're going to do our best not to exceed the revenue cap to cover these costs, but we won't know for certain until the school opens".

Why did the existing high school renovation decrease from $22M to $17M?
We were told that Bray did a full walkthrough of the high school and decided less was needed; plus they would not upgrade the auditorium (about $340K)

Why did the new high school cost increase to $80M?
1. it includes a 31,000 sq. ft. fieldhouse with a 150M indoor track

2. it includes the flyloft for the perfoming arts center (Dr. Culver indicated that after discussions with his staff, they feel that (A) it has been hard to explain it [people didnt really understand it] and (B) it was not worth building this size an auditorium without it.

How much will it affect property taxes?
The mill rate impact is projected to be:

• $1.24 per $1000 assessed value for the $97M construction
• $0.06 per $1000 assessed value for the $4.57M pool
• $0.05 per $1000 assessed value for the pool operating expense revenue cap exceedance
• For a total of $1.35 for all 3 questions or $270.00 per year for a $200,000 home

High School Plan Set...on agenda for Monday 8/27/07 Board meeting

It's a done deal. At last night's High School Planning Team meeting, the final plan (at least for referendum purposes) and numbers were rolled out. The meeting concluded with the disbanding of the Team. Their job is complete.

The plan is slated to be an informational/discussion item only ---NO DECISION---at this coming Monday's School Board meeting (7:30 pm on K-SUN or at the Municipal Bldg).

The Grand Plan calls for:

• a November "special" referendum ("its the only way it will be done by Sept 2010") despite the fact that there's nothing else on the ballot and a presidential primary occurs in February.


• 3 referendum questions:




• Question 1: $97M total ($80M for HS, $17M for 8/9 Jr HS)
  
  
• Question 2: Do we want a pool? Pool will cost $4.5M (NOTE: the Pool Task Force last fall presented 5 options ranging from $3.0 to $3.6M)
  
  
• Question 3: Authorize District to exceed the revenue cap "on a recurring basis" $290K/yr to operate the pool

Note: Additional staffing costs are estimated to be $1M /yr(to start)
Additional utilities cost (new school) estimated at $350K/yr


Dr. Culver suggested that, for the referendum, they say something like, "we're going to do our best not to exceed the revenue cap to cover these costs, but we won't know for certain until the school opens".

Why did the existing high school renovation decrease from $22M to $17M?
We were told that Bray did a full walkthrough of the high school and decided less was needed; plus they would not upgrade the auditorium (about $340K)

Why did the new high school cost increase to $80M?
1. it includes a 31,000 sq. ft. fieldhouse with a 150M indoor track

2. it includes the flyloft for the perfoming arts center (Dr. Culver indicated that after discussions with his staff, they feel that (A) it has been hard to explain it [people didnt really understand it] and (B) it was not worth building this size an auditorium without it.

How much will it affect property taxes?
The mill rate impact is projected to be:

• $1.24 per $1000 assessed value for the $97M construction


• $0.06 per $1000 assessed value for the $4.57M pool


• $0.05 per $1000 assessed value for the pool operating expense revenue cap exceedance


• For a total of $1.35 for all 3 questions or $270.00 per year for a $200,000 home

Administrator Tim Culver's contract is renewed

At the August 13, 2007 School Board meeting, board members unanimously voted to approve Tim Culver's contract extention through June 2009. Key excerpts of the contract, which is part of the 8-13-07 School Board package are provided below:

Section 1. Term.
The Board hereby employs the District Administrator and the District Administrator herebyaccepts employment for a term commencing July 1, 2007, and ending on June 30, 2009. This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2009-2010 school year unless eitherthe Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2008.

Section 3. Compensation.
a. Salary and Deferred Compensation.
In consideration for services rendered, the initial annualized base salary shall be $135,454. In
following years, the DistrictAdministrators base salary shall be increased by at least the average of any salary increaseprovided for district certified employees, if authorized and allowed by law, subject to the termsand conditions set forth below under Salary Increases Based Upon Performance. The salary will be paid monthly ($11,287.83)

4.District Administrator Benefits.
j. The Board will pay required annual dues for one state and one national professional association whose primary missions are to improve education and the professional competence of District Administrator.

k. Flat monthly payment for the use of personal automobile of $325 per month for use in district and in Dane County. Reimbursement will be made for out-of-county travel and other actual expenses per policy DLC and DLC-R. Out-of-county travel reimbursement will be at the IRS allowable rate.

l. In lieu of other expense reimbursement for miscellaneous costs incurred carrying out official duties, District Administrator shall receive $125 per month to defray miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses.

That totals to $11,737.83 per month or $140,853/year

Data from comparably sized districts 2006-07
AVERAGE $130,400.87

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

Who Voted
Who Didn't

B4SPIN.com

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

"Citizens, we want your input!" [School Board 8/13/07]

...but only if you'll sing the Board's praises?!!!?

Get Ripley's Believe It Or NOT on the phone... stat; because they'll never believe this one.

At Monday's Board meeting, district resident Roger Fetterly chastised the school board for spending District tax dollars to pay their attorney to help fight an existing complaint alleging Open Meetings Law violations. Then Board President David Stackhouse insisted on responding to Mr. Fetterly's statement, but would he allow Mr. Fetterly to counter HIS comments? NO! In fact, Stackhouse became downright rude in in his own tongue-lashing of Mr. Fetterly and the un-named plaintiff involved in filing the Open Meetings Law violation.

The presidency and Board composition may have changed but it's business as usual at board meetings. Oh...they'll listen to public comment. The problem is that their body language (rolling eyes, staring off into space, disgusted looks) speaks volumes. They suffer at the whim of each resident for their allotted 3 minutes and then they just shrug off any concerns, criticisms, or issues raised. Their body language says it all, and does so loud and clear: "Thanks for sharing; now sit down. We don't agree with you and we're not going to do anything about it." Compare that response to the response given to anyone who speaks out in praise of the Board or the District. They glow with pride.

So...why is this so unbelievable? because not 10 minutes later as an agenda item, was the issue of convening an Ad Hoc Task Group for "Community Engagement", which passed 6-1 (with Stackhouse voting against). So here the Board tells the public that they're really interested in listening to them, immediately after blasting a resident who expresses a legitimate concern over how the Board is handling another current issue. Talk about sending mixed messages. No wonder the board pushed so hard to hire a Communications Manager for the District! This board would fail Comm 101.

The message we seem to be getting is:

The Sun Prairie school board is not open to criticism of any kind, even that designed to be constructive in nature. They welcome praise, but will get cranky with anyone that doesn't see things their way.

Rushing towards Number 2

A $100M referendum.
That would put Sun Prairie #2 all-time behind only Milwaukee and their beyond belief $366M failed attempt in 1993. If this passes, we would have the top spot secured for successful referenda. The next in line is the New Richmond School District which passed (!) a $92M referendum this past April.

These are FACTS; check out the data on the DPI website:

https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr/all_referenda.asp

If we pass a $100M referendum, we would also rocket to the #2 slot on another chart- the
DPI District Long-Term Debt report. As of June 30, 2006 we had a total debt of $74.1M + $14.7M for elementary #7 for a total of $88.8M. Add $100M and we more than double our long-term debt to just under $190M. Second only to....guess who....Milwaukee at $389M.

These are also FACTS; check out the data on the DPI website:

http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sfs/doc/debtmax4.doc

The school board and Tim Culver will tell you that a debt of $190M isn't bad, because state law allows us to borrow up to $356M. Great. I know a few banks that will loan you more money than you can afford...to help you buy a new house. What one can afford according to formulas does not equate to what one can afford based on a reasonable budget.

The school board also says that this new $100M project will make our schools "the envy of every district across the state". Do we want other to envy our schools? Or the education we provide our kids and how we prepare them for life beyond high school? $100M schools don't improve achievement scores, and they certainly don't address the achievement gap. Shouldn't we consider spending less money on bricks and mortar and more towards educating the kids underneath those mortarboards?

Is this too much number 2 for you?

High School solution....all over but the shouting?

On Monday, July 30, 2007, the Sun Prairie School Board's High School Planning Team (HSPT) met to review updated drawing and cost estimates from Bray & Associates.

The plan is to go to referendum in November. Surprise, surprise, but the architect seems to insist that we have to go to referendum in November in order to open the school for the fall of 2010 school year.

It will be a 3-story (some rooms on 3rd floor) structure for 2000 students grades 10,11, and 12, located on highway "N" just south of Angell Park. Note that there will be no further CRT meetings to review the final project.

What happened to the June 18 CRT meeting that was scheduled during the May 21^st CRT meeting? Members of the CRT that we have spoken with were not alerted of the HSPT's decision to "disband" the CRT.

The plan calls for a building of 407,798 square feet (SF)...or about 850 SF less than projected on July 16.

Price "range" is expected to be $73.2 to $78.5 M (down $200-250K from July 16).
Add on costs (which MAY be individual referendum questions) include:

• Fieldhouse additional $1.3 to $1.5M
• Fly loft (addition to performing arts center) - $0.6M ($600K)
• 8-lane swimming pool w/ exercise pool - $4.0 to $4.5M

That means the total cost for the school (including all options) is $79.1 to $85.1M

Now come the OTHER costs we have to contend with.

• Renovation of the existing high school for 1500 grade 8&9 "junior high": $22.0M
• Payment share due for Westside "greenway" project: $0.5M ($500K)
• Operating costs : ?????????????????????

Final tally of referendum dollars needed: at least $99.6 to $107.6M.

What does this mean for taxpayers?

It's too early to have exact figures, but if $14.6M recently borrowed for elementary school #7 translated to an effective mill rate of $0.19 per $1000 assessed value, then we can do some easy math. The projection would be $1.30 to $1.40, or $325 to $350 per year for an average $250,000 home.

At the April 30th CRT meeting, CRT members overwhelming voted that they would not support a mill rate increase over $1.00. Only 10% would support a mill rate over $1.00. 46% would support a solution with a mill rate of no more than $0.81 per $1,000. 36% said they could support a mill rate increase of $0.81 to $0.99.

The HSPT has not made any mention of discussing the mill rate with the CRT. The tone of Monday's meeting and the School Board's recent taxpayer-funded catered dinner with the City Council was all about getting to referendum in November.

It's time to speak up, residents, because the CRT is no longer. The next scheduled meeting is for August 20, 2007 at the School District Office.

FACTS: See how the rest of the nation and region compare with building:

http://www.peterli.com/global/pdfs/SPMConstruction2007.pdf

A word on Open Meetings Laws

At the July 23, 2007, meeting of the Sun Prairie School Board, district resident and open government advocate Monte Couch made reference to a recent complaint made by district resident Rick Mealy to the Dane Co. District Attorney, alleging that members of the School Board violated open meetings laws.

The complaint was submitted early in June 2007 and was based on the fact that a meeting was held on May 9, 2007, by a sub-committee of the "High School Planning Team" for the purpose of devising questions to be posed to the "Community Response Team" (CRT). No public notice, as required by law, was prepared for this meeting, and the resulting questions were not made public before posing them to the CRT. At least 2 other meetings of this group had been similarly held without public notice.

Open meetings laws were enacted to ensure that government remains by the people and FOR the people. These laws require all government bodies to conduct their business in public setting. The public has to be properly notified.

This is not the first time that the Sun Prairie School Board has been the subject of complaints regarding violation of Open Meetings Law. The most recent prior incidence occurred in 2004. As a result of that complaint, the Board was required to undergo intensive re-training regarding open meetings law. Current board members Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and Caren Diedrich were on the board at that time, so they should certainly know better. That training costs the taxpayers approximately $10,000 at the time. Well, at least now, administration could pay such a bill without having to obtain school board approval first! The point is that these elected officials should know the law and abide by the law to avoid these costs to the taxpayers.

What SP-EYE finds most incredible regarding the current complaint, which was written up in the July 26, 2007 edition of the Sun Prairie STAR, is that if STAR readers check out the "Winnowings" column on page 5 of Section 2, there is a note that "10 years ago, July 24, 1997, the Sun Prairie School Board conceded that they "may have violated open meetings law" when they voted on a re-organization plan for District administration in an improperly closed session.

As President Bush was once quoted,

"There's an old saying ...that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

The Department of Justice has developed a great primer on open meetings law in Wisconsin that can be downloaded at:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf

Fiscal Responsibility: 7/23/07 School Board Meeting: ????

ADMINISTRATION GETS FULL APPROVAL AUTHORITY ON MAJOR BIDS.
Despite the Finance Committee voting to RETAIN the dollar level at which school board approval of bids is required at $10,000, the Board, behind the push of member Jim Carrel and Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt, voted to INCREASE the level to $25,000.

The rationale they cited for this change:

• the amount of time spent discussing bids between $10,000 and $25,000 at committee and Board meetings
• the Board needs to have trust in the administration and not "micro-manage" them
• the amount has not been changed in a number of years and represents only 0.068% of "non-salary/benefit" budget.

No one actually reviewed the number of bids that fall into this range to determine if a problem exists.

No one looked at what other similar size school districts do in theses cases for comparison. So, again, what value do we get for our $8700+ annual "membership" dues to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards?

The SP-EYE did the analyses that neither the Board or Administration did. In the past year, less than 2 of these $10,000-$25,000 bids per month have appeared before the FTT committee for review/approval. So, clearly, we're not spending a great deal of effort at the committee level on these bids. And at the Board level, even Board member Caren Diedrich admitted that these issues rarely become lengthy, time-consuming matters.

Other School District policies are all over the board on this issue, but few of the ones reviewed set the level for Board approval above $10,000-$15,000. Interestingly enough, Board President David Stackhouse wanted to have the level increased to $15,000 last fall and the motion failed. He said he thought $25,000 was excessive, yet voted with the gang to approve the motion less than a year later. What changed in 9 months? Maybe because Jim Gibbs was a voice of reason on these issues, and no the "governor" has been removed from this school board's engine?

Micromanagement is generally defined as exercising excessive control of a project or group of people. The fuzziness comes in to play when we try to determine what is considered excessive.

Mark Twin is famous for the quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." The "fact" that 10,000 represents "0.068% of non-salary budget" is exactly what he was talking about. Does anyone care that the increase represents a whopping 250% above the existing policy level?

What's important here is that by increasing the point at which Board approval is required from $10,000 to $25,000 is that many big-ticket items could be purchased without the School Board's involvement. Several vehicles have been purchased for the district within that range. Shouldn't the Board approve such a capital outlay? What about high ticket items that are broken down into bite size (less than $25,000) chunks? Is there no concern that this practice could occur? Last, but certainly not least, shouldn't the public have an opportunity to comment on these purchases? It is, after all, THEIR tax dollars. It's fiscal IRresponsibility cleverly disguised as the reviled "micro-management". I wonder how Mr. McCourt would feel about allowing his personal finance manager to increase the level at which he makes his own investment decision's with McCourt's money by 250%.

What's the point of even having a Finance Committee, if you throw their recommendations to the wind? Carrel and McCourt got exactly what they want despite the committee and public input recommending otherwise. You want to save time? It makes equally as much sense to just dissolve the Finance Committee.

Sun Prairie Small Player's Theatre: "The Bungle Book"

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail submitted to the grassroots group, "One Community-One High School" by School Board member Jim Carrel (via his yahoo e-mail account) following the July 16, 2007 High School Planning Team meeting. One can't help but notice the similarity to the serpent Kaa of Jungle Book fame (the Disney version...not Rudyard's Kiplings original character!).

We have worked hard to keep 'agendas' out of the process.

[SP-EYE note: How can he possibly say this without fear of a lightning bolt from above? He was at the meeting when Planning Team members, as soon as they realized that Steve Havens' "CBA" system caused the 1-school option to rise to the top, rushed to re-evaluate scoring to elevate the 2-school option. The agendas are still very much present. ]

This really is the best solution, admitted to by even some of the most staunch two-school supporters. Please continue to stay positive in your thoughts and words. As we move forward, many will try to fault the process and lay undue (and sometimes contrived) blame at the feet of the HSPT members and the Board. Don't listen to them anymore. Their message is old and mildewed.

[SP-EYE note: Now there's a model elected official for you. "It's our way or the highway. Ignore anybody who isn't marching to our beat." It's not the message that's mildewed...it's your brains, if you follow this kind of Jim Jonesian logic. Can you bring us a round of those nice purple drinks, Mr. Carrel? ]

In fact, one very outspoken critic of our progress has filed a formal complaint with the State Attorney General's office against me. His 'civic' response to what we have done will cost me $500 in fines. Thanks.

[SP-EYE note: A complaint has been filed with the Dane Co. DA--not the Atty. General--for violations of open meetings laws. No further information can be provided as this case is still pending. Note however, that Mr. Carrel's comments suggest he was the only indivdiual named. Not true. We hope Mr. Carrel also considers changing the source of his legal advice, because statutes only allow for a minimum forfeiture (not a fine) of $25 per violation and a maximum of $300. Don't shoot the messenger, Jim. Elected officials need to be aware of the laws that govern them and not violate them.]

I'm not sure what his agenda is, but I would recommend you contact me and not others anytime you have a question about the process or progress. I promise to be honest and prompt.

[SP-EYE note: Can't you just hear Kaa singing "Trus-ss-ss-st in me" to Mowgli? Listen only to me. I'll tell you the truth. Didn't Nixon insist he would always tell the truth? SP-EYE will ALWAYS provide you with facts that you can independently verify; then YOU decide what to believe. That's the what we SHOULD expect from elected officials. ]

I also promise not to give ear to those who would try to destroy our progress just because of a few sour grapes.

[SP-EYE note: So he's not going to listen to taxpaying citizens that disgree with things? We're not sure what sour grapes he's talking about, but it seems to be more of the same, "Don't listen to anybody but me" spiel. ]

Thanks,

Jim Carrel

Like Mowgli's interactions with Kaa, citizens that place value on integrity may soon have to push this elected official's coils out of the tree. The time may be coming to change the tune from, "Trust in Me" to the familar cry of, "Ooh, this is going to slow down my s-s-slithering."

HS Planning Team moves towards High School solution

On Monday night, Bray Architects unveiled their current draft plan for the proposed 2000 student capacity high school or grades 10,11, and 12. The plan calls for the school to be located on the "East" side property south of Angell Park. While the details are still in a state of flux, what was presented last night included:

• 409,000 sq. feet(SF) (that's 204.4 SF per student at capacity vs. a national median of 156 SF/student for high schools being built for a median of students.
• 409,000 total SF comapres to a national median of 325,000 SF for buildings this size.
• Estimated cost (school alone) ranges from $73.2M to $78.75M. That amounts to $36,600 to $39.375 per student compared to a national median of schools this size of $22,861.
• A cost per SF of $ 178.97 to $192.54 as compared to a national median of schools this size of $148.86.

It should be noted that this plan increases the square footage by just under 50% when the school is being built for only an additional 10% of students at capacity. The current high school is 275,000 SF with a capacity of 1816 students. This plan calls for an additional 133,300 SF over the exisiting high school. At a cost of $178.97 to $192.54, this translates to a cost of $23.9M to $25.7M.

If the issue has mainly been lack of spacxe in corridors during passing, do we really need to spend this much? Always bear in mind that the architects get paid as a percentage of the building cost. If Letterman did a top 10 list of things you'll never hear architects say, #1 would be, "we could build it smaller and save you money".

Additional costs that could be added include the following:

• Field house: $1.295M to $1.5M
• Fly loft addition to performing arts center (included ): $600,000
• 8 lane swimming pool with exercise pool: $4.0 to $4.5M

These costs do not include costs to rennovate the existing high school for grades 8-9.

The next meeting is schedule for July 30th at the District office. Final cost figures are expected at this time.

Top 5 things to know...

1. District Administrator Tim Culver's salary is higher than that of Governor Doyle. The combined salaries of the top 4 administrators in the district exceeds one-half MILLION dollars.

check it out:
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html

2. While the rest of the world , including state employees, pays some or all of their health care costs, we, the taxpayers, covered 100% of school district employees' health benefits up until this year. Now they still pay only 2-4% of health care costs. State employes typically pay 6-8% or more.

3. During the past school year (2006-07) taxpayers paid for over $7000 worth of pizza, subs and other food for administrators and staff, typically charged to "[Department] Supplies"

4. Instead of appointing an individual who narrowly missed election in both 2006 and 2007 to a school board vacancy, the School Board appointed an individual who has lived in Sun Prairie for less than 3 years, and whose career experience is in school administration. Think we got a vote for taxpayers here?

5. It's budget time again! The annual public meeting is in October. Did you know that when the rest of us have a co-worker who loses a family member or celebrates some big event, we all chip in and buy flowers. The School District, however, has a policy that allows it to purchase flowers for its employees on these occasions on the taxpayers' dime.