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