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?