Sun Prairie is tops!

The old adage goes that the only two sure things are death and taxes. For Sun Prairie, let's make that GROWTH and TAXES.

Recently, our luvable little---errr....BIG----city rose to the top of two charts:

1. Sun Prairie is the top growing city in all of Wisconsin (any surprise there?)

The article states that,

"The city, which counts artist Georgia O'Keeffe as its most famous native
daughter, has now swelled to 27,758 residents, making it Dane County's
second-largest city. A 24 percent growth rate since 2000 also makes it the
fastest-growing city in Wisconsin, with more than 10,000 new residents."

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=318899

1. Sun Prairie also ranks number one in Dane Country in terms of taxes...according to the fair tax comparison performed by the Wisconsin State Journal. (that probably doesn't come as a surprise either).

Read the article

Review or download the tax comparison table

Remember folks....a mill rate is just a number; a mill rate alone is like toast without butter. The Senior Partners love to quote mill rates and use them to their advantage. "Hey....look at us! We're nowhere NEAR the awful mill rate people face in the town of Montrose!". But in the end, it's all about the benjamins....YOUR benjamins. You have to look at a mill rate relative to the assessed value of your home. And THEN, you have to consider that assessed value relative to what a fair market value would be. THAT converts something that aspires to BE a number into a real cash liability...your property tax bill.

Taking Stock: State of the District

As another calendar year passes, it's time to reflect on the school district and how our school board is doing. Are we better one year down the road? Those suffering from pollyannaism may indeed believe so.

What have we really accomplished? Let's take a look back. Is this really what we expect from our elected officials???

Long tenured school board member and past president Mary Ellen Havel-Lang was ousted during the April 2008 elections. Has the school board changed as a result? Sadly, no. The status is most definitely quo.

We have opened the 7th elementary school, Creekside. Alas, the school is only half full, yet 3 other schools are nearly filled to the brim.

The high school is on its way to completion, but it may take some additional money to build an access road on Marshview road to the back side of the existing high school. It seems the DNR has some issues with paving over a wetland. How dare they? Funny hat no one investigated this earlier.

The fighting is still happening at the high school, so nothing new there. Does anyone really think that will change with a new high school?

For two consecutive years we've replaced a school board member mid-term. Hmmmm.

The school board unveiled a brand new $50,000 system to hold school board meetings on-line. Board Docs is up, but the jury remains out as to whether this represents an improvement, or a costlier widget. One good thing is that --so far--the PDF files appear to be text rather than image-based. Hoorah!!! That is a huge step forward. Just remember that we had that capability long before BoardDocs....we just didn't utilize it.

The district WKCE scores weren't anything to write home about. Good, but not stellar.

A month-by-month review of key issues is as follows:

JANUARY 2008

• Teachers picket School Board meeting.

FEBRUARY 2008

• Jim Carrel shakes up board meeting, claims to be ashamed of other board members
• 1st Community Engagement Task Force mtg
• Boundary wars begin as final recommendations presented to public

MARCH 2008

• Taxpayers get the bill for a $339 steak dinner ($42/person) as 6 school board members attend annual school board conference and treat themslves to a nice dinner
• Board discards Boundary Tasl Force recommendations and makes major changes causing a huge community ruckus.

APRIL 2008

• Election surprise: Boylen and Havel Lang ousted, Camber-Davidson & Shimek in , Stasckhouse re-elected
• Expulsions up 400% over previous year
• School Board decides to pay for District Admin Tim Culver's Rotary Club membership in addition to two memberships allowed by his contract.

MAY 2008

• The importance of checking one's work- the SPHS honor roll fiasco
• School Board meets to re-consider March Boundary decision, then reaffirms ealier boundary decision by split vote.
  

JUNE 2008

• High school graduation ceremony; students completely out-of-control. Neitrher school board or adminstration takes any action.
• SPHS makes the list, but it's not a good thing. SPHS failed to make adequate yearly progress

JULY 2008

• Communiuty learns that board president Stackhouse is 3-years delinquent on property taxes. (Hey...doesn't money for schools come from property taxes???). Later pays full $15K in arrears.
• Board votes (amazing!) NOT to spend $45-50 K to move school board mtgs from municipal bldg to district office.
  

AUGUST 2008

• Administration proposes $5.00/hr raise (from $32/hr) for Bus. Services Manager. Board sees the error in its ways and only gives a raise of $2.50 per hr (geee...that's awful!) but commits to doing a market comparison study (thereby telegraphing hope to 'justify' the rest later on).
• 9 adminstrators now in the $100K salary club
• SPASD debt now at $170M, 2nd in state only to MKE. (+ 4M more due to the pool vote in Nov)
  

SEPTEMBER 2008

• District Administrator Culver gets a B- on his performance evaluation (8.0 out of 10) despite meeting only 19 out of 56 metrics. (Math challenge question: How on earth does 19/56 = 0.8?) Translates to a 4.5% salaryt increase. How much of a raise did YOU get this year?
  

OCTOBER 2008

• The annual electors meeting was held. Once again, the 40 or so folks that came out to the meeting to vote was heavily weighted by District employees and spouses and/or school board members. . "We" voted to approve a tx levy of over $40M.
• Questions over "finder's fees" associated with naming rights for various "pieces" of the new high school gets approved.
  electors mtg
  

NOVEMBER 2008

• Fueled by a huge presidential election turnout, the Community approves (53.4%, 9715-8464)construction of a pool for the new high school AND allows the school board to permananently exceed the state-imposed revenue cap (51.1% (9189-8782)by $288K each year to cover pool maintenance costs beginning in 2010.
• SAGE program compliance is questioned. Will the school board back Culver's interpretation of what constitutes compliance?

Candidiate Update: Whalen in

Despite reports from numerous sources that John Whalen was NOT going to run for re-election, it seems that he now IS running to retain his board seat.

He was circulating nomination papers at the Special School Board work session on Tuesday Dec. 2.

The current buzz is that his employer likes the prospect of Mr. Whalen serving as a board member.

Hmmmm.

Stay tuned. This means that Whalen, Shimek, and Slane all plan to retain their seats. Several folks have been asking the question: "Will Mary Ellen Havel-Land submit candidacy papers?" SP-EYE has not heard anything along the lines, but we'll keep you posted as information comes available.

Diss. Engine. You. Us.

What's that mean? Exactly!
And that's exactly what we thought when we read the article in the 12-4-08 edition of the Sun Prairie Star regarding the District's SAGE program compliance. What does that mean?

Sound out the words "Diss. Engine You. Us" and you get: disingenuous. And that's exactly what that article presented to the community. A disingenuous monologue by District Administrator Tim Culver designed to discredit the question asked by district resident John Welke at a recent joint meeting of the school board's Education & Policy and Finance committees.
Look up "disingenuous" in your favorite dictionary and you'll find that it means:

Lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness.
Generally, it means "insincere" and often represents a synonym of
cynical or calculating.

Check your handy thesaurus and you'll find:

Not being what one purports to be. Marked by treachery or deceit.

We all thought we were done with the constant barrage of double-speak in the form of presidential blitzkrieg ads. Not so. This article is full of double-speak.

Culver keeps asserting that Sun Prairie is in compliance. He's right...for this year (2008-09). As of the 3rd Friday count, none of the SAGE classrooms exceeded 15 kids. This year. That statement cannot be made for years 2006 and 2007, however. (For argument sake, let's even get past the SAGE program "changes" prior to 2006.

Rules are rules and the law is the law. Dr. Culver can rationalize things all he wants, but in the end, statutes and administrative code drive the system.

Ch. 118, Wis. Stats., "General School Operations":

118.43(1) Definitions. In this section:
(a) "Class size" means the number of pupils assigned to a regular classroom teacher on the 3rd Friday of September.
[That means 15.0 PER class,period.]

118.43 Achievement guarantee contracts; state aid.
(3) Contract requirements. Except as provided in pars. (am) and (ar), an achievement guarantee contract shall require the school board to do all of the following in each participating school:

(ar) Class size; additional contracts. For contracts that begin in the 2000-01 school year, reduce each class size to 15 in the following manner:
3. In the 2002-03 to 2004-05 school years, in at least grades kindergarten to 3.

s. PI 24.03, Wis. Admin. Code, "STATE AID FOR ACHIEVEMENT GUARANTEE CONTRACTS AND PARTIAL DEBT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT"(4) The department may not pay aid to school districts under this subchapter if the school district does not comply with the requirements under this subchapter.

So, Yes, Virginia, Dr. Culver is correct that Sun Prairie is in compliance with SAGE requirements...THIS YEAR. But that is not completely truthful in previous years. Remember the old "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth" thing? DPI may not have consistently enforced the provisions of the law in years past, but that does NOT mean that we were in compliance. The fact that DPI may be "looking the other way" does not give us carte blanche authority to disregard the law. Read between the lines of the DPI representative's statements in the article, and you'll see there's waffle room in what was stated.

Also read the letter from DPI. You decide what it means or does not mean.

"Higher ups" at DPI were contacted by members of the public to ask VERY SPECIFIC questions regarding the compliance issues. Here are the answers that were obtained:

"To my knowledge, there is no specific State Statue or Administrative Code that
exempts a school district from filing for a waiver when out of compliance with
SAGE requirements prior to 2006.

The district files the waiver. A waiver could be "initiated" in a myriad of ways - a teacher asking his/her principal to request one, a citizen could ask the school board to file one, a school principal could ask his superintendent to file one after consulting DPI folks, etc. The bottom line is the district files it.

if a district is not in compliance, the contract may be terminated, which means the district would not be in the program, which means funding would cease."

Perhaps what's most alarming here is Dr. Culver's venomous attempt to malign the credibility of a citizen that brought forward a valid concern. Ulterior motives? How about, the citizen (John Welke) truly embraces the value of the SAGE program (Geee...Dr. Culver forgot to mention the accolades that Welke had for SAGE and Director of Instruction, Alice Murphy). He was concerned that Sun Prairie was not in complete compliance with the law and feared that SAGE aid funds were in jeopardy.

Dr. Culver and the School Board: Why must you choose to tear down a resident instead of just doing the very simple task of following the law? If you have even ONE K-3 classroom with more that 15 kids on the 3rd Friday, then file a waiver! You may not WANT to do the extra work, but that's what the law says. It's kind of like paying taxes...none of us love paying them every year, but we do. Wait...to be completely accurate here, we really should say that MOST of us pay our taxes on time.

Our apologies Mr. Welke for having been treated as you were at the Finance/ Ed& Policy meeting, and then again for how this article suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about. You were right then, and still are today. Take solace in knowing that there ARE members of this community that aren't so easily snowed by those that are masters of doublespeak.

---

Policies, policies everywhere...

...but how the heck does one find them?

Over the last several years, what have we learned about the Sun Prairie school board? We've learned that they like to talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk. They TALK and TALK about Community Engagement, but they only LISTEN if you come to the microphone to sing their praises or to support their decisions.

They TALK about Community Engagement. They even established a Community Engagement Task Force. More talk. Even less action.

This board of seven elected representatives --key word there--- was elected to LISTEN to WE the people, and support OUR wishes. Well, if they wont listen to us the easy way, then perhaps it's time to get their attention via a mechanism they better understand: their own policies.

Our buddy Webster defines policy as:

1 a: prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs b: management or procedure based primarily on material interest

2 a: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body

We suggest that more of the community needs to (A) familiarize themselves with the school board policies and then (B) hold the board's collective feet to the fire when they violate them (which seems to occur more frequently than situations in which they STICK to their policy. And, if we find policies to be inadequate, unacceptable, or just plain non-existent, then we need to speak up and demand that they be changed.

Wait. Hold the phone there, Zippy. How exactly does one even find school board policies of interest? The board has developed an alien language construct with which to catalog their policies. Making matters worse, their seemingly web-friendly "search our policies" feature actually doesn't limit its search to JUST policies. It searches pretty darn near everything, even pulling up meeting minutes from 5 or more year. How frustrating is it when you want to search on policies using a phrase like "public record" only to find hundreds of matches, none of which is what you seek?

So we need a road map to their policies, don't we? Other schools have clear transparency of their policy manual. SP-EYE checked out several local school district websites as well as districts that are of similar size to Sun Prairie for the comparative ease of finding policies. Surprise! Nearly all had a link to the entire manual on the home page of the district website! Most had a simple numerical system and a complete listing of all policies by section with hyperlinks to the actual policy. For a school district that likes to pat itself on the back for its technology prowess, Sun Prairie falls shamefully far from the mark. Check it out:

Here's Sun Prairie''s system for reviewing policy:



Beloit
http://www.sdb.k12.wi.us/
http://www.sdb.k12.wi.us/boardpolicy/


Madison
http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/
http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/policies/



Middleton-Cross Plains
http://www.mcpasd.k12.wi.us/
http://www.mcpasd.k12.wi.us/proceduremanual.admin.cfm


Stevens Point
http://www.wisp.k12.wi.us/
http://www.wisp.k12.wi.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=4580


Waunakee
http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/
http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/Policies.cfm


Wauwatosa
http://www.wauwatosa.k12.wi.us/
http://www.wauwatosa.k12.wi.us/policies.cfm\

YOU BE THE JUDGE. Do we measure up?

If you think our website needs some work, give a schoolboard member a call or e-mail --or even tell them at a meeting--and let them know.

---

3 School Board slots- Time to get signatures!

It's that time again, folks! As of Monday December 1, candidates for spring elections can begin to circulate nomination papers.

There are 3 school board seats up this April. The two candidates with the highest number of votes will each be awarded a 3-year term; the candidate coming in 3rd will be awarded a 1-year term, serving the last year of Jim Carrel's slot:
School board seats up for grabs:

John Whalen
Terry Shimek
Al Slane

The buzz is that John Whalen has had enough and will be saying "When"; our sources suggest he will NOT be running for re-election. It's likely, however, that Shimek and Slane will want to make their temporary positions more permanent.

This school district is sorely in need of candidiates that will speak freely, ask tough questions, and NOT rubber stamp approval of each and every district administration desire.

How does one go about running for office?
You can pick up a package of required forms at the District office. But...in doing so, you will be declaring your intent to the school district administration. They will likely size you up and if you are perceived as a threat to the continued status quo, board members will just as likely actively seek out a more "like-minded" candidate to run.

Alternatively, you can "fly under the radar" by obtaining papers on your own and file your completed paperwork at the very last minute. You'll need 100 signatures of school district residents age 18 years or older. You'll also need an official "Declaration of Candidacy" form, which must be notarized) and a "Campaign Registration Statement" form. This last form is pretty easy....sign that you will spend less than $1000 on your campaign, and no filing of campaign finances is required. It's tough to run a campaign that cost more than a couple of hundred dollars--and you can even run without spending a dime.

Nomination papers (Form EB-169, 10 signatures per page).
Form EB-169

Declaration of Candidacy (Form EB-162)
Form EB-162

Campaign Registration statement (Form EB-1)
Form EB-1

More information on how to run for local elected office in Wisconsin:
UW Extension Guide: How To Run For Office

SAGE Compliance Questioned

Culver: "I'm accountable; I'm responsible for SAGE compliance"

A review of the district's SAGE program was on the agenda for a joint meeting of the school board's Finance and Education & Policy committees this past Monday evening. Alice Murphy and her staff presented a nice report detailing the accomplishments of the SAGE program including metrics they have devised to evaluate the program.

District resident John Welke, who requested the agenda item, spoke about the value of the program as he has experienced it through his own children's participation in SAGE classes at Bird elementary. Mr. Welke had high praise for Murphy and the SAGE program. His only concern was that, based on 3rd Friday counts over the past 6 years, Sun Prairie has not been in compliance with SAGE program guidelines. Welke expressed concern that non-compliance could jeopardize the nearly $500K annual state aid which the district receives for participation in SAGE. He asked for accountability, and he asked for responsible management of the program.

That's when a visibly angered Culver stepped to the microphone and tried to wave off Welke's data and statements, claiming that Welke had requested the SAGE program agenda item with "ulterior motives". Culver went on to state that he had had discussions and e-mail correspondence with DPI staffers and he assured the audience that "Sun Prairie is in perfect compliance".

Now that is an absolutely clear example of the district's philosophy of "community engagement". (You see, of course how many of the recommendations that came out of the Community Engagement Task Force have been enacted...NONE!) Sure...Culver and the school board are all sunshine and roses when someone agrees with them or supports their private agenda...but just try to raise an issue of concern, and their fangs come out. Then they use their wonderful "We get the last word" policy and tell the listening and viewing audience that the speaker is in error, has ulterior motives, or in some other way attempts to malign their character.

When is the school board going to stop circling the wagons around Culver and start realizing that you can jam dirty laundry into some back closet, but eventually it starts to stink up the whole joint? Is there even ONE board member with sufficient vertebral structure to stand up and say, "We have some dirty laundry, and it's time to get it to cleaned up before stains set in"?


Welke's data is both real and accurate (Just look at the number of exceedances (in red) in the graphic summary.) And it requires a strong response from the school board. And we don't mean one of their typical, "the citizen is wrong and we fully support Dr. Culver and all his faux pas" responses.

The definition of "Class Size" under state law....SAGE LAW – s.118.43, Wisconsin Statutes – says, " In this section:(a) "Class size" means the number of pupils assigned to a regular classroom teacher on the 3rd Friday of September."

The law doesn't say that you are in compliance if the average of class size is 15 or less--although that's an "interpretation" that other school districts, perhaps including Sun Prairie, have tried. Hey...that's an idea! If you ever get pulled over for speeding, just say, "But...officer, on AVERAGE my speed is under the posted limit." See what that line of reasoning gets you.

In fact, when you look at the average class sizes for each grade in the data above, it doesn't take a genius to realize that if the average is above 15.0, then AT LEAST 1 class at each grader level had to be above 15. That's called non-compliance. In fact, you could have 2 classes of 15, 1 class of 14, and a 4th classd of 16, and THAT would average out to 15.0. But you would STILL have one class that violates the INTENT of the law. And nowhere does the law say "on average" class sizes must be 15:1.

Culver and Frei both indicated that they have "had discussions with DPI" and that "Sun Prairie is in compliance. Please note folks, that even IF the DPI has chosen not to enforce the law (as Culver and Frei allege) , it doesn't mean that non-compliance is acceptable. Compliance with the law and enforcement of the law are two mutually exclusive issues. Just as one naturally slows down upon sight of a state trooper in the median, whether or not DPI is enforcing the law, Sun Prairie needs to remain in compliance with it.

The law is the law, and our school board and district administration need to comply with the law TO THE LETTER. What kind of a message does it send to our children when the adults in authority use weasel words and twisted logic to rationalize that they are in compliance with law when they are not?

And...it's not like complying with the law is so difficult. If a district exceeds even ONE SAGE classroom size limit on the 3rd Friday in September, a request for waiver must be filed. The school board will have to hold a public hearing on the matter, and following the hearing, they signify approval and the waiver gets submitted. As long as the district, in the waiver request, indicates to DPI that it has a plan for dealing with the class sizes greater than 15:1, certainly the waiver will get approved.

The DPI sent a letter to all school districts recently to clarify what class size compliance means:
DPI letter to all school districts on SAGE class size compliance

A key excerpt of this letter states,

Dear District Administrator:
Recently, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received several requests for information and clarification in relation to the SAGE class size requirement. The intent of this correspondence is to clarify the class size requirement.

State law requires schools in the SAGE program to maintain [emphasis
added] class sizes of 15:1 in grades K-3. SAGE funding is intended to
supplement, not supplant, the local cost of maintaining these class sizes. This
requires a significant local commitment to the educational value of small class
sizes including the allocation of local and federal funds necessary to meet the
SAGE class size requirement.

Given the current economic pressures, as well as classroom space limitations facing many schools, some SAGE class sizes may have gradually increased over time. If your district is not in compliance with the class size requirement, your district must submit a SAGE waiver request to the DPI. This also includes schools that reduce class sizes in core subject areas only (reading/language arts and
mathematics.

So...will the school board be like Spike Lee and do the right thing? Or will they simply circle the wagons and establish a perimeter of defense around Tim Culver? Where are the sanctions when the district administrator violates board policy?

Is Board Docs a Board duck?

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

On Tuesday of this week, school board members sat down from some training on the new "BoardDocs", web-based, electronic school board meeting and documentation system.

The decision to use BoardDocs was an idea hatched by former school board member Jim Carrel after seeing a demonstration at an annual school board conference. The school board voted to purchase the software, licensing, lap top computers---at significant cost to the district--in December 2007. The plan was to launch the system this past September. Obviously, that has not transpired.

At least one district resident attended the training session and offered the following commentary:

Individual board members are unable to type in their version of how a motion they wish to make should be worded and have it shown to all including the public. So as a discussion was carried on, various wording due to suggested changes could be lined through and new words added. to develop an understandable, acceptable and usable motion. Board members have to ignore their laptops and verbally tell one person who controls that part of the program, or send that person a note and wait for that person to type in the words, and let the one who authored the motion see if it is correct. [SP-EYE: THAT represents progress?]

The impressive terms tossed about describing in general a non detailed idea of having an electronic Board setup a year ago, was blindly approved back in December. Without the required detailed planning such activity demands, if there were solid projected budget figures set by the board, they will be exceeded big time. [ SP-EYE: Does anyone wonder how much this project has cost to-date??? ]

One huge problem: the BoardsDocs people do not convert the existing polices to the format for their program, this massive job must be done by district staff. At this late date, having already spent a ton of taxpayers money and time, there is no time line set up to complete the conversion needed to implement this so called electronic board meeting capability.

[ SP-EYE: We can see the writing on the wall...they'll want to hire more staff!!! ]

The talk back in January was training in July, up and running in September. [ SP-EYE: Talk is cheap. ]

Board members were told at this meeting they had an 800 number so any problem would be responded to 24/7 and by people who spoke English! BUT when [board member]Jill [Camber-Davidson] could not enter her password and the Board Docs rep used her cell phone, she could not contact any one to solve that problem during the "training" session!! [ SP-EYE: Oh...that sure bodes well! ]

SP-EYE: Can you say "boondoggle, boys and girls? Sure. I knew you could!

"I was amazed at the lack of flexibility coupled with the need to funnel information, ideas or changes wanted through one control person."
-Sun Prairie school district resident.

BoardDocs can certainly be a viable board meeting management system, but it requires a district and board that are very heavily tech-savvy. Compare our district website to other area districts,...or to district of similar size and judge for yourself whther we can make BoardDocs work or whether it will be another Board boondoggle. This was Jim Carrel's baby, who was very technically skilled, but he is also very gone.

More fuzzy math....

At the FTT meeting last Monday, attendees and committee members were told that the "total savings" on the Creekside Elementary construction project amounted to $718,200.

Yeah, team...right? Not so fast. We're as jazzed about cost saving as the next guys, but let's un-spin this tale and take a harder look at the numbers.

Total amount authorized by referendum........... $14,675,000
Total cost (to-date) to build/equip Creekside... $14,559,900
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual cost savings............................................... $ 115,100


Hey....we're not knocking it. ANY costs savings is a huge thing the way this school district spends money. But...but... where did they come up with this $718,200, cost saving number?

Here's the rest of the story. When they borrow money for the construction, they borrowed it all at once (unlike the high school, where the money is being borrowed in 3 equal installments of $32M each). Obviously, the whole $14.6M wasn't spent all at once. So....we--- the district ---actually earned some interest on the construction money squirrelled away. The total interest earned was $603,1000.

So the real story is:

Actual cost savings............................................... $ 115,100
Interest earned..................................................... $ 603,100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $$$ returned to the taxpayers.....................$ 718,200

So...in the inimitable style of the board/district, they want to be congratulated for a savings amount 80% of which is purely due to interest earned.

Food for thought:

1. How much of the "true" $115K savings was directly related to imput from the "Construction Manager" we hired....and paid $$7300 per month from November 2007 through September 2008. And how does that aproximately $83,000 we paid the construction manager factor into the cost savings?

2. Given that we banked/invested the $32M bond funds for the high school borrowed to-date and the state of the nation's investment structure, did we lose any of the money we have borrowed to-date?

THE HEAT IS ON!

Thanks to a very detailed, factual, citizen-submitted Situation Report outlining what precisely was achieved from last March's boundary decision, the fires are crackling once again under the school board.

"I feel the heat on me right now."

- school board member Caren Diedrich

The only question is, if Town of Bristol resident (and situation report author) John Welke saw so crystally clear that the actions taken by the board accomplished little--if not nothing, then why didn't the board? Why did it take a resident, instead of a board member, to raise this issue?

Mr. Welke's well-researched situation report identified the following problems resulting from the boundary decisions made last March:

• Only 17 Students of the District Office’s projected 53 students actually transferred from CH Bird to Westside.


• There was no significant reduction in F\R lunch percentages or balance in socio-economics at Westside as a result of the student movement from CH Bird to Westside.


• There was no significant space created at CHB to get below the schools capacity and create a long term solution to the schools attendance numbers and projected growth.


• The total number of “instructional classrooms” at CHB currently being used this school year has not been reduced.


• The District office, based on their policies and the lack of reasonable interpretation of their policies, forced younger siblings of "grandfathered" students to be separated even though there was room for them at CH Bird.


• The Free and Reduced (F&R) Lunch percentage increased at CH Bird School.


• The description of the affected area in the Town of Bristol is flawed.


• The affected area has created an island without what most people would consider a “neighborhood school”.


• Area developers report that new construction in Bristol Gardens has been slowed primarily due to the instability of the school boundaries and the lack of a true neighborhood school...NOT the economic slump that is currently occurring.


• Loss of public trust in the school district/school board and increased open- enrollments out of the school district

---

After hearing from a number of residents who supplemented Mr. Welke's facts with anecdotal evidence, the board unanimously approved the following motions:

1. Require the Policy and Education Committee to review Voluntary Placement and Extreme Circumstances policies and practices so that they are in line with the spirit of “Connectedness” and are sympathetic to student and family needs.

2. Convene a special school board work session to discuss approaches that might ensure a more permanent, successful resolution to overcrowding of particular schools.


Read the full text of Mr. Welke's Situation report in the Board package for 11-10-08.

Principal injured in accident?

Sadly, during Monday night's (Nov. 10) school board meeting, CH Bird Elementary principal Chad Wiedmeyer was tossed under the bus by Tim Culver and Phil Frei. Early reports did not indicate the extent of injuries Mr. Wiedmeyer received.

During the boundaries discussion prompted by a Situation Report offerred by Town of Bristol resident John Welke, Mr. Welke asked why a designated science room was still being used as a classroom. This had been a point of contention during the recent boundaries fiasco.

Last March, the overcrowded state of Bird elementary was emphasized by district staff statements that designated specific areas for specialized curriculum, such as the "science" room, had to be used for classrooms. The school board and district staff both favored boundary changes that would reduce overcrowding at Bird allowing these specialized instruction areas to be used for their intended purposes. Mr. Welke pointed out that the science room continues to be requisitioned for classroom space as Bird is STILL over-capacity. Mr. Welke asked who made the decision to use these specialized instruction areas for classrooms.

Tim Culver turned to Phil Frei and asked Mr. Frei for an answer. Frei then stated loudly and clearly that, "it's the principal's decision to use the science room for regular classroom space".

At that moment, Culver and Frei, who both have waxed prophetically about the importance of caring and support for their employees during discussions about spending tax dollars on flowers and memorials, carelessly tossed principal Wiedmeyer under the bus.

Gee....so THAT's how we show that we care about the district employees? Isn't Culver the one who's ultimately responsible for all district decisions? If Culver and Frei disagreed with Mr. Wiedmeyer's decision to use the science room as needed classroom space, why didn't they direct him not to do so? If Culver and Frei were unaware of the situation, shouldn't they have simply said, "We'll have to check into that and get back to you" (as is usually the case)? Couldn't they have simply taken Mr. Wiedmeyer (if allegations are tue) to the woodshed privately? Or were they more interested in saving their own derrieres in front of the school board? As they say in the wastewater treatment business..."stuff" rolls downhill. Guess the hill stopped at Mr. Wiedmeyer.

Poor form, Misters Culver and Frei.


Oh, yeah...and Mr. Wiedmeyer turned 40 last weekend! Happy Birthday, Mr. Wiedmeyer. We hope you got a "Get Out of the Woodshed Free" card as a gift.

See? Sometimes the board/district CAN listen and act quickly!!!

Rick Mealy reports receiving this invoice (see below)in Thursday's mail. Mealy has waged a battle against the forces of fiscal irresponsibility for sometime. First at the Finance Committee and then at the October 27th school board meeting, Mealy implored the board to cease using taxpayer dollars to pay for memorials/floral arrangements when a family member of a school district employee passes.

Seeing the board about to adopt its usual attituide towards anyone that challenges it, Mealy threw up a Hail Mary and asked that if the board was "hell bent to spend the taxpayers' money uinappropriately", then Mealy offerred to pay for the memorials out of his own pocket.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have a first. The board/district acted both quickly and decisively, and proceeded to send the following invoice to Mealy.



SP-EYE caught up with Mealy, who had the following to say about the whole sordid affair,

"Al Slane talked about how he contacted the WASB [WI Association of School Boards] and WASB indicated that memorials could certainly be considered costs associated with operating schools. Good one, Al! That's like asking John McCain if he thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. Geeez....what's next? Asking the students if they think they should be given homework?"


For pity sake...stop trying so hard to justify a bad decision. Two weeks ago, Business Services Manager Rhonda Page said that if the taxpayers want to stop using tax funds for memorials then the school board needs to change the policy. HELLO! I see that the lights are on, but is anybody really home?? The policy says that the District Administrator MAY purchase flowers or memorials. It doesnt say he HAS to. It's a choice.

They say it's only a small amount of money, but you know what? What REALLY does sending a $30 plant do for someone that's lost a loved one? If it's the thought that counts, then send a personal note and skip the plant. Use the money to pay for books or something that will DIRECTLY aid in the education of our kids.

Is this retribution? Mealy was asked.

"Several people have suggested that it might be, but I'd like to think the board and district administration are above that kind of behavior. But who knows?" I said I'd pay for them and I will....better me than the entire community have to be part of this mess. Gee...now not only do I get to pay my own taxes, but parts of other people's as well!", Mealy responded.

Sometimes it has to be done.

Former NFL MVP and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had to do it. And may have to do it gain. According to reports, Colts QB Peyton Manning also had to do it....several times. Neither one of them really wanted to do it. But it had to be done. What did they do? Why did they do it? And what in tarnation does this have to do with the Sun Prairie School Board?

What both QBs had to do was undergo surgery to clean out an infection that developed following recent surgical procedures on their knees. Their doctors were the highest paid and most qualified in their field. Yet, infection developed nonetheless. Failure to go back in and clear the infection could have led to permanent damage to their knees.

As Hawkeye Pierce would say, the Sun Prairie school board performed the equivalent of meatball surgery using a rusty machete when they implemented boundary changes this past spring. Infection is running rampant, and the whole goal of performing the surgery has not and will not be achieved. It's time that our school board of boundary surgeons gets back into the OR and perform corrective surgery to address the situation. We're afraid that the patient's "finger" needs to be amputated.

1. Only about 19 Students of the District Office’s projected 53 students transferred from CH Bird to Westside.

2. There was no significant space created at CHB to get below the schools capacity and create a long term solution to the schools attendance numbers and projected growth. Bird remains OVERcapacity. To compound this issue there are currently at least 4 elementary shuttles that transfer students from school to school because their home school did not have room for them.

3. The total number of "instructional classrooms" at CHB currently being used this school year has not been reduced. The DO staff indicated in a presentation to the board and the community that CHB was only designed and built for 24 "instructional classrooms". The DO asserted negatively that "rooms originally designed for Science (Room #21) and Special Ed (Room #38) have been converted to instructional classrooms". Despite this stated concern Room #21 is still being used as an instructional classroom housing a 2nd grade class and Room #38 is also still being used as an instructional classroom housing a 3rd grade class. Meanwhile instructional classroom #15, one of the largest and newest classrooms in the building, is only being used intermittently for specialized classes and instruction. Eastside elementary ALSO continues to use non-instructional space for classrooms.

Meanwhile....

• at least 8 classrooms at the lovely new Creekside elementary sit gathering dust. There is only a single 5th grade class!
• Creekside is barely half full and somehow is being allowed to operate as if it were a 3rd SAGE school with less than 15 students per class on average in grades K-2.
• Northside, Eastside and Bird schools are either over capacity or within a handful of students of being at capacity.
• Westside sits at 70% capacity.
• the socio-economic balance between schools has not changed.
• a neighborhood had been torn apart...despite rallying cries of the school board that all their boundary decisions are made to retain "neighborhood" schools
• the approval rating of the school board is lower that President Bush's

With the economic slow-down, projected to last through 2009, it's clear that the build-out of Smith's Crossing is not going to populate Creekside significantly for years.

School Board members, take a memo: It's long past time to prep the patient for another surgery on the boundaries. Don't let this infection fester any further. Prep "the finger" for amputation.

Kids being shuttled OUT of brand new school?

This is a tale of two lists. One list was provided with the school board packets for 10-27-08. The other was requested of the District on 10/24/08.

The reason for the request was that several individuals reported to SP-EYE that students were being shuttled OUT of the brand new Creekside elementary.

Ludicrous, you say! Creekside is a brand new school that is barely half-full! There's no WAY the district would be shuttling students OUT of Creekside. Or is there? Stranger things have happened in this school district. When you get less than 40 residents of voting age to attend the annual elector's meeting, it can look pretty easy to slide one by the goalie.

That sounds like one of those political ads that can only be deciphered after a visit to FactCheck.org.

The list below is taken directly from the "Sun Prairie Area School District Enrollment Breakdown" Reported dated 10-1-08:

THEN, we have the OTHER list received on 11-1-08 in response to an open records request:

---

Can't you just see Tom Cruise grilling Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men",

"Why the two lists, colonel?"

Simple error? Sure. Could be. But the list actually gives bus names associated for the Creekside to Westside run. That seems a tad less error-y, doesn't it?

Conspiracy theorists might suggest that there is some value in trucking kids over to Westside because it is a SAGE school. For every child (as of the 3rd Friday count), grades K-3, in a SAGE school that is eligible for free or reduced price lunch ("F/R"), the school district receives $2,250 in state aids. But no one would actually believe such a thing. We're just sayin'.

Whatever the reasons, be this a simple error....or something else, do you hear something? That voice coming from the other room? "Luuuuuccccyyyyy...you have some 'splainin' to do!"

Gathering dust?

The Sun Prairie school board and district made a significant technological leap with the completion of Creekside elementary. Each of 24 classrooms was equipped with "Smartboards", electronic blackboards that facilitate learning.

Smartboards are part of the district's "Classroom 2010" plan. The plan is to eventually install Smartboards into every classroom.



The question of the day is:
Why do we have 8 empty classrooms at Creekside where this great technology sits and gathers dust?

What did the boundary changes accomplish?

A great letter in the the October 30th edition of the STAR asks the Sun Prairie School Board the question,

"What did you accomplish with the March 2008 Boundary changes?"

We have ONE answer ladies and gentlemen:

A number of Bird parents got "the finger"!!!!

The facts are simple:
1. The board's boundary decision was designed to reduce overcrowding at Bird.
FACT: As of this year's 3rd Friday count, Bird remains 1 over capacity. Since then, MORE students have been added.

2. The board's boundary decision was designed to populate the new Creekside Elementary.
FACT: As of this year's 3rd Friday count, Creekside has 273 students with a capacity for 516. Why are we allowing a brand new school to be HALF FULL when Bird, Eastside, and Northside elementary are each at 98% capacity or MORE? You'll be told that the projected complete Smith's crossing Development calls for 357 students in the neighborhood. HELLO! Can you say economic downturn? And the PLANNED build out was for 10 years from now! And even with 357 neighborhood students, that's still only 70-75% of capacity.

3. The board's boundary decision was designed to make the "socio-economic balance" (READ: number of students eligible for free/reduced lunch) more equitable between schools.
FACT: The number students eligible for free/reduced price has changed from:
------Westside: 44% (48% last fall)
------Bird: 28% (27% last fall)
------Royal Oaks: 11% (10% last fall)
------Creekside: 32%

All this heartache results in the move of just 19 students (not 53, as projected) from Bird to Westside.

As Jeff Probst would say, "Worth playing for?"

The 'Naming Rights' fiasco

[ SP-EYE note: The thoughts and commentary presented here are not intended to cast any aspersions on the Sun Prairie Education Foundation (SPEF) . We find the SPEF to be a group of higher profile, reputable civic and business leaders. However, SPEF has to understand how appearances can be perceived as people dissect the guts of the school district's "Naming Rights" proposals. The concerns presented herein are concerns that exist for ANY 3rd party that would be eligible for significant finder's fees related to Naming Rights.

Section 2 of the SPEF bylaws states that:" The Corporation shall seek gifts, contributions, donations and bequests ("gifts") for the purposes of the Corporation, and all assets received shall be dedicated to and invested solely for such purposes. The Corporation may accept unrestricted gifts, whose principal and/or income may be used for the Corporation’s purposes in the discretion of the Board of Directors." ]

We got a live one folks! We actually found an issue that polarized the usual lock-step, unanimous voting school board.

On the agenda for "Action" at the October 13, 2008 school board meeting was the 'Naming Rights' committee recommendation to make changes to policy KH (Public Gifts, Donations, and Grants to the School) and Procedure KH-R. It will be up for discussion...and a vote...this coming Monday, October 27.

So...what's the big hairy deal? Why would the SPEF ask for 50%? It's ludicrous, right? And the school board members of the "Naming Rights" subcommittee (McCourt, Shimek, and Whalen) all say that THEY didn't name the 50% figure. OK. So where did it come from? Another one of those Engaged & Enraged Community Members offered a very plausible explanation: perhaps the dealio is that the SPEF has already identified a major donor, and the donor is insisting that 50% of their donation go to the SPEF. THAT would fit not only the standard school board/district way of doing business, but easily explains why the 50% was "tossed" out there in the draft policy. Thanks for the valuable insight, Engaged & Enraged Community Member!

It was clear that Jill Camber-Davidson, Caren Diedrich, and Al Slane were opposed to the proposal in its current form, while it was equally clear that Jim McCourt and John Whalen supported it. Terry Shimek appeared to be on the fence, and David Stackhouse said very little. In the end, President Stackhouse made a motion to table any action until the next school board meeting (Monday 10/27/08). Voting in favor of the motion to table were: Camber-Davidson, Diedrich, Slane, and Stackhouse. Voting against were: McCourt, Shimek, and Whalen.

The elements of these changes are as follows:

• Raise the dollar limit above which any "donation" must be approved by the school board from $3,000 to $25,000.
• Naming rights (improvements/additions funded by referendum) - must be for 1/3 (33%) of the original cost.
• Naming rights (improvements/additions funded by referendum) - Only 50% of the naming rights "donation" goes back to the district (i.e., taxpayers). The other 50% goes to the Sun Prairie Education Foundation.
• Naming rights (future (unplanned) improvements/additions funded by referendum) - must be for 1/3 (33%) of the original cost.
• Naming rights (future (unplanned) improvements/additions NOT funded by referendum) - 100% of the naming rights "donation" goes back to the district (i.e., taxpayers).
• No advertising for alcoholic beverages or tobacco may be accepted or any school purpose.

So...what's at issue here?

1. A 50% 'finder's fee' is nuts.
Giving 50% of any funds associated with naming rights to anyone as a 'finder's fee' is simply outrageous. This is not about the SPEF, which we believe is an excellent service organization. Giving 50% of funds donated for naming rights to ANYONE is simply an out-of-touch idea. Board members indicated that SPEF made no demands for any particular percentage, yet discussions ranged from 5% to 98%, and the committee recommended 50%.

How about 5-10%? More importantly...how about a dollar limit for ANY finder's fee. Or perhaps deal with it like an auction: if naming rights costs a donor $1.0M, then perhaps an additional 5-10% would be due the finder (SPEF). Let's say the new high school auditorium costs $3,000,000. That means 'naming rights for the auditorium would have to mean a minimum $1,000,000 donation. At 50%, that means the SPEF gets $$500K and only $500 goes back to the taxpayers who paid for the auditorium. Even at 10% , the finder's fee would be $100K....a VERY sizable infusion of money for the SPEF. The SPEF can do some great things with even $$10-25,000. So why not establish a cap for "finder's fees" at 10% of the donation or $10-25,000, whichever is less? Remember...we're all working for education, right? Paying back the taxpayers for funding the schools to-date, will only improve the likelihood of success of future referenda.

2. Who's in charge here?
While we swallow with difficulty anytime the school board votes on an issue with any significance, the school board IS the definitive bursar for school district monies. Allowing ANY finder's fee to go to even an organization such as the SPEF poses problems. What if the board votes to increase the "gift" limit to $25,000 and then the SPEF makes a donation in the form of a grant for a program or activity which is questioned within the community.


How does the language work if a "number" of grants just under the $25,000 mark are made? What if the SPEF obtains $200,000 as finder fees and issues grants of $20,000 to each of the 10 district schools for their use? Would that count as a single $200,000 grant requiring board approval? or 10 separate grants each of which falls under the board approval limit?
We can't have TWO separate entities responsible for education funding.

3. Open Records?
Will all the SPEF records be subject to the same open records laws as school district records? Presumably, naming rights donations are made to offset taxpayer cost of building additions/improvements. So...what if the taxpayers want to obtain a full accounting of how SPEF funds accumulated through Naming Rights donations? Will SPEF financial records be readily available for Joe the Public to inspect? We think not. Stranger things have happened. Remember what AIG executives with a significant portion of the recent bailout monies?

4. Ensure that any donations mesh with the District's wellness mission.
The language in the draft policy and procedure needs hardening.

5. Why does the SPEF want a 'finders fee', when according to their bylaws, their mission is to seek gifts, contributions, donations and bequests ("gifts") "?
Is this really the way it's supposed to work? If it's the mission of the SPEF to seek these gifts/donations, then why would they be asking for a fee to do what it is they do? Isn't it usually the donor who decides what they want done with their donation? ( e.g., Business X offers $1.0M to go to the theater arts program in exchange for naming the auditorium the "Business X auditorium".

6. The taxpayers paid for these buildings/additions, so any "naming rights" donations should go to repay the taxpayers.
We--the taxpayers-- are shouldering a HUGE debt load. We paid for these buildings with our property taxes. Shouldn't any revenue the district obtains to "name" these buildings/additions therefore be used to pay down the debt and reduce our future property taxes?

---

Check out the Sun Prairie Education Foundation's website

The mission of the SPEF is:
- Provide funds for enrichment activities
- Encourage excellence through creative teaching
- Support professional growth of teachers
- Provide grants for creative ideas and programs
- Facilitate community/school partnerships
- Promote community awareness of school programs
- Develop enrichment programs to address the needs of Sun Prairie’s community schools and the community it serves
- Provide a vehicle for individuals, businesses and organizations to share resources and gifts with the Sun Prairie school community

The biggest secret in Sun Prairie...

...and perhaps most school districts...

...is that once a year, YOU-- the residents of the Sun Prairie School District (18 yrs or more)-- get to vote on the property tax levy portion of the school district's budget. But you don't. Sadly, it's because the annual electors meeting is one of the best kept secrets in this or any other school district.

What is the annual electors meeting?
The annual electors meeting is statutorily mandated and represents the ONE crystal clear opportunity that school district residents get to determine the tax levy. Certainly, the school board gets to approve a budget, but every annual school district budget rides pretty firmly on the amount of property tax levy voted on at the annual electors meeting. If the electors vote for a lower tax levy than the district wants, then the district and school board will have to sharpen their pencils and re-work their budgeting. Sometimes when this happens, thinly veiled threats of having to cut major programs are heard.

Think the school district is spending (or budgeting) too much (like having a surplus of $1.5M last year that YOU paid for with property taxes!)? Then attend the annual elector's meeting. Sure...the school district does what it minimally must to announce the meeting. But it could do a lot more. Like publish the meeting notice for at least 6-8 weeks prior to the meeting on the website--instead of waiting for some nasty website to alert them to do so. Or perhaps sending a flyer out to all district residents. The annual electors meeting is certainly worthy of the costs for a special flyer.

Twice each month at board meetings, you get to speak your peace and have the school board either force a smile or roll their eyes at your comments before rubber stamping whatever the district wants with their votes. ONCE each year, YOU have the opportunity to take back some control over what the board and district do with your tax dollars.

But...nobody comes. Except of course for the usual suspects [ Who IS Keyser Soze?] : school board members, administrators, and many teachers and a very few residents who are keenly aware of the meeting and do what they can to have their voices heard.

What happened at this year's electors meeting?
On Monday October 13, the annual electors meeting was held at the usual place and time: high school auditorium, 7:00 PM. We get anywhere between 4000 and 8000 voters to come out for spring and fall elections, but, as is usually the case, less than 50 electors attended the meeting.

At this meeting, the electors who were present voted to:

• Freeze school board member annual 'salaries' at $3,500 (president) and $3,200 (others). This motion, interestingly enough, was made by former school board member Mary Ellen Havel Lang.
• Set the date of NEXT year's annual meeting for Monday October 12, 2009. Mark your calendars NOW.
• Voted to approve the purchase of land for the high school's home construction program, and also allow sale of the finished home. This is a great program, and, while other districts have not been so fortunate, Sun Prairie has more than covered its costs each year.
• Set the 2009 tax levy at $41,124,489 by a vote of 26 for, 11 against. This vote came after resident Rick Mealy made a motion to approve a tax levy of $40,424,489 failed by a vote of 10 to 27. Mealy's motion was based on (A) returning $500,000 of this past year's surplus to the taxpayers (instead of using it to pay down future debt) and then (B) reduce the levy by an additional $200,000 to send a message to the District that they need to curb their wasteful spending and reign in their budget in tight economic times.

Culver: Beware! There are 'nasty things' on websites.

During the Monday October 13, 2008 school board meeting held prior to the annual electors meeting, District Administrator Tim Culver gave a little plug for the Sun Prairie Education Foundation's website.

Culver noted that the SPEF was

"...doing positive things... while other people are putting nasty things on the web."

So...surf carefully, folks! Apparently there are are lot of nasty things on the web out there.

Thanks very much to Dr. Culver for his impromptu public service announcement. We'll all sleep better and surf more safely.

YOUR chance to vote!

The annual Sun Prairie Area School District elector's meeting will be held Monday October 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm in the Sun Prairie high school auditorium.

Finally, it's YOUR chance to vote. Items up for vote include:

$41,124,489.00

That's the tax levy the school district would like to set for 2008-09.

$3,500.00 / $3,300.00
That's annual "salary" we pay the school board president and other school board members. Think they deserve a raise? a paycut? This is YOUR chance to have a say and cast YOUR vote instead of just watching school board members cast theirs.

$500,000.00

That's the amount from last year's $1.5M in budget surplus that school board Finance Chair Jim McCourt would like to use to pay against future WRS loan payments due. Would you rather this $500K be used to reduce the amount of the tax levy and lower your property tax bill?

Be informed. Be a part of of the process. At this meeting, the ELECTORS (us) get to vote. Obtain a copy of the Annual Report (which coincidentally the District posted after SP-EYE noted it's distinct absence.)

$111,268,227.00
That's the net total expenditures expected for all funds for 2008-09.

24.35%

That's the total fund expenditure increase over last year.

Tax Delinquency Issue - Final Chapter

Several folks have contacted us regarding school board president David Stackhouse's repeated on-air insistence that he "dealt with [his delinquent taxes] as soon as he became aware of the problem".

Inquiring minds wanted to know....what's the dealio? What are the facts?

Well, folks, I thought we had put this one to bed, but if Mr. Stackhouse wants to continue to deny the facts, then the facts will continue to rear their ugly heads.

Thanks to "Committed Community Member", SP-EYE is now in receipt of incontrovertible data obtained directly from the Dane County Treasurer's office. First let's recap:

• Mr. Stackhouse was not in arrears just for this past year. He was in arrears for the total taxes due for the past three tax years.
• Do the math: the tax bill, with interest and penalties was over $14,000. Stackhouse doesn't own mansion. The overdue taxes were certainly more than one year.
• Stackhouse paid the total amount due --arguably in response to concerns that these facts would be picked up by local media outlets--in two installments in July 2008.

Now for the rest of the story.

As indicated previously, SP-EYE has received copies of 8 separate mailings made to Mr. Stackhouse alerting him that his taxes were in arrears. The Dane County Treasurer routinely mails delinquent tax reminders showing the total amount due at least quarterly. Copies of all these mailings are retained. The mailing address matches Mr. Stackhouse's residence. Maybe ONE or TWO of these communiques could have been "lost", but EIGHT? And that's just the statements for which copies are retained. Several other reminders are mailed out for which copies are not retained.

Mr. Stackhouse...haven't we had enough of the truth being stretched in the barrage of presidential advertisements? Please...from here on out, accept responsibility for your personal transgressions. No more excuses. SP-EYE properly reported when you resolved the issue. The issue was closed until you re-opened it with your untrue claims.

Thanks very much to Committed Community Member", for the assist on this play.

Has Anyone Seen the District Annual Report?

The annual elector's meeting is scheduled for next Monday October 13 at 7:00 pm in the high school auditorium. But how would you know? Unless you noticed the little blurb in the STAR, or obtained the school board's meeting packet, or listened (yawn!) through the entire school board meeting to catch "upcoming meeting announcements".


One week away and no annual report. Certainly not on the website...or even listed as a meeting!


THIS is how the board expresses its fervent desire for community involvement?
By minimizing publicity of the annual elector's meeting? The annual meeting report booklet SHOULD have been posted by now on the website, and the elector's meeting should have been announced as an upcoming meeting for several weeks as well.

But....perhaps the board would rather you not know????

They sure have got their referendum propaganda machine in full working order...more than 30 days in advance of THAT key date. I'm certain that you could drop by the district office and, upon request, obtain a copy of the report. But you'd have to go to those lengths to get one.

The above screen shots are of the school district website as of this weekend. Maybe this posting will prompt some action.

School Board Decides to Eliminate Math!

Well....at least as it pertains to determining an objective score for the annual performance review (and did we mention raise?) for the District Administrator.

This past Monday's "special" school board working session began with about a 90-minute discussion of the process for evaluation the District Administrator, Tim Culver. It started off well with even Jim McCourt blasting out of the gate with his grave concerns that the "math" behind the scoring (as discussed in previous posts here). McCourt's sentiments were both echoed and expanded upon by most members, notably Al Slane and Terry Shimek.

Despite all the discussion and concern for an effective, equitable means of evaluating the District Administrator, the final decision was to simply abandon the existing process and replace it with a completely subjective scoring mechanism. Each board member will review Dr. Culver's performance against the 1,400 page "Monitoring Report" (OK...we exaggerate on the number of pages...but not by much). They will then come up with an individual score (out of 10 points). Then all board members will meet in closed session, discuss their individual scores and come up with a final "one voice" score.

So...there you have it, ladies and gentlemen....exposed for establishing and unanimously approving a scoring system that violated at least five basic math concepts, the board simply chose to eliminate the math---and objectivity---and go with a subjective evaluation system which better shields the board from accountability. And the vote was unanimous.

Yet another nice lesson for Sun Prairie's kids. Rather than correct a problem that you created, just switch to something different behind which you can easily hide.

School Board 3 - Citizens 2

...And you thought school board members were elected to represent YOU! HA! Yup...and Lehman Bros. were working for the people too.

At the Sept. 22 Finance Committee meeting, Board Policy GBJA (who names these things????) - Memorials was finally opened for discussion. The policy isn't a lengthy one; it says, in its entirety:

" The Sun Prairie Area School District may provide an acknowledgment at the time of a death of an employee or of a death in the immediate family of a district employee. The district administrator may use his/her discretion in determining whether to send a memorial or flowers. For purposes of this policy, "immediate family" includes parent, spouse, child, stepchild, and grandchild. "

This is really a simple issue that has nothing to do with sentiment or the amount of money involved. [SP-EYE note: Business Services Manager Rhonda Page indicates that only $308 was spent last years, yet checks totalling over $650 for flowers have been identified in check runs. And this doe not include "memorials" that may have been issued.] The reality is that the Wisconsin Statutes clearly state,

• On or before November 1, determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools of the school district and public library facilities operated by the school district under s. 43.52, if the annual meeting has not voted a tax sufficient for such purposes for the school year. s. 120.12(3) (a), Stats.


• Powers of [electors at] the annual meeting...vote a tax for operation of schools. s. 120.10(8), Stats.

Flowers and memorials, while without question a wonderful sentiment upon the passing of a loved one, have nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of schools. These "little" examples of inappropriate spending continue to add up to questionable fiscal management.

As expected, Finance Chair Jim McCourt was fully behind the memorials, saying that the school district is an employer and an employee has to take care of its people. Right behind him were Terry Shimek and Caren Diedrich. Diedrich provided another one of her classic commentaries noting that her two cents was that she insisted that the policy continue to provide for flowers in the event of the passing of a grandchild of a District employee. She added that the loss of a grandchild would be devastating...more so than even the loss of one of her own grown children.

:/

Mr. McCourt...now could you explain to the members of Local 60 how you and the board stiffed them for raises so they could give Admin and Tim Culver big fat juicy raises? Oh, and while you're at it, could you please explain exactly how your "we care about our employees" drivel meshes with how the local 60 staff are the only ones whose raise ---bottom of the barrel though it is---gets further cut if health insurance costs rise above a certain amount?

And while we have your attention, maybe you could explain how you're "caring for the employees" when the Local 60 pay 15% of their dental premiums, while other staff get theirs on the taxpayers' dime???

Stop hiding behind those tired messages of, "It's only a small amount..." and "As an employer we care about our people...". Maybe you should give some thought to the fact that the citizen portion of the Finance Committee voted to eliminate or significantly change the policy. But you and the other board members voted to keep things status quo. Can't wait to see how the full board will vote on this issue at the next meeting.

It's inappropriate. Period. Co-workers by all means should take up a collection and send flowers. Or better yet...you really want to show that the district cares? Have Tim Culver open up his wallet and use some of that $425.00 per month "walking around money" we pay him--on top of over $140K in salary-- to buy those flowers or memorials as the "CEO" of the school district business!

Read here about a recent Massachusetts Inspector General investigation into school district financial mismanagement.

When the fiscal managers adopt a lackadaisical attitude towards district finances (an $80M budget), these types of things can--and do-- happen!