Election '08: Is Havel-Lang vulnerable?

Conversation in Sun Prairie suggests that 13 (as in a 13th year on the school board) may prove to be an unlucky number for Mary Ellen Havel-Lang. Her recent positions regarding Boundary changes, the high school issue, open meetings concerns, and community engagement have raised the hackles of a growing number of folks. The overwhelming comments being heard include such things as:

• "12 years is too long."
• "Havel-Lang is all about writing policy, yet doesn't follow policy."
• "Too many personal attacks."
• "A master in the art of deception and controlling the information the public receives."
• "Havel-Lang is too controlling; she has to have her fingers in every pie."
• "It's Mary Ellen's way or no way"
• "The Sun Prairie school board needs a change in management."

Whether you support Mary Ellen, or support change, PLEASE get out and vote this Tuesday, April 1.

Havel-Lang controls Community Engagement Task Force

SP-EYE: Monte Couch, a member of the Sun Prairie school board's Community Engagement Task Force offered the following comments on this week's meeting

The question on the meeting notice handed out at the start of 3-25-08 the meeting of the Community Engagement Task Force was:

"What can the School Board do to better communicate with the community?"

Ignoring the question on the meeting agenda, the chair (Mary Ellen Havel-Lang) suddenly adopted a members' interpretation of the basic question. The objective before the committee did not state "help the school board to do a better job of communicating." BUT the chair suddenly adopted that phrase, which was offered by one committee member. This then served as justification to avoid a logical step by step analysis and allowed the chair to make unilateral decisions.

As the meeting continued, the chair stated that "they" [the School Board] follow Robert's Rules Modified. That is not correct. There is no such publication. The district policies state, "Robert's Rules of Order will be observed except when modified by the board"--which means an individual chair or board member cannot deviate from Robert's Rules, without the board voting to do so. [SP-EYE Note: THAT never happens!!!]

"It seems the chair of these communication meetings, Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, has adopted the ideas in the book, "BREAKING ROBERT'S RULES" by Lawrence E. Susskind and Jeffrey L. Cruikshank, Oxford University Press, copyright 2006."

How else to explain the chair's actions? Rather than hand the gavel over to someone else, the chair offered her opinion, direction, and conclusions on communication subjects being discussed. That violated Robert's Rules of Order, big time. It also raises the issue of conflict of interest?

The chair inserted her opinions and conclusions, attempting to release the board of their specific responsibilities defined in State Statutes, DPI Administrative codes etc. It seemed to me, as a board member she should have been listening, not trying to lead to pre-determined conclusions.

No wonder her ground rules for this committee on communication between the board and the community included no discussion. She could start any discussion she wanted to, and cut it off once she offered her conclusions.

I can accept rulings of a majority, but I do not accept conclusions based on changing the objective the committee is being asked to address without a discussion and taking a vote.

Unless the board adopts and follows required procedures, there will be no clear communication.

Read the recent minutes of this group at:
http://lms.spasd.k12.wi.us/gems/home/Minutes21908.pdf

"Superintendent" Tim Culver stayed awake...

...at Monday's School Board meeting--but maybe that's because his own wallet was under attack.

Culver tends to slump down in his chair, and was observed to nod off at recent meetings related to Boundary Task Force issues (let's hope it was from lack of sleep. The alternative--that he might find the voices of concerned residents and parents to be tedious monotony--- doesn't sit well.). Personal anecdotes from some current school board members also indicate that Culver can drift off at long meetings. Perhaps he should be sitting at the side table, where his nodding off would be less of a distraction. Oh, wait...that's a whole separate issue.

When the issue of exceeding Culver's contract for paid memberships was AGAIN raised at the school board meeting, Culver chose his "District Administrator's Report" as a forum to refute the allegations....weak that it was. Of course the school board does nothing. Off the record, one current school board member has at least acknowledged the issue warrants resolution... suggesting that the board simply amend the contract to allow the 3rd membership.



Let us be perfectly clear. SP-EYE has no objection to Culver's Rotary Club membership. In fact, it's a good thing for Sun Prairie and the school district. But his contract states that the District will pay for TWO memberships (see contract excerpt)...not three. The Rotary Club also does not meet the specifications of memberships outlined in the contract either. The Rotary---while an excellent service organization--does not fit the contract requirements of an association "whose primary missions are to improve education and the professional competence of District Administrator".

The state association we pay for is: the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators. The national association is: the American Association of School Administrators

At Monday's meeting, Culver offered a very weak rebuttal, suggesting something along the lines of "my contract doesn't say exactly two". Once again, here is a purported role model, who is only serving to teach students that it's acceptable to try to weasel out of a tough situation.

Man up, Tim! You're clearing over $145,000 from district residents. We already pay you $325/mo for travel and $125/month for misc meals and expenses! Your contract is clear. Until it changes, open up your wallet...let the presidents see the light of day. Do the right thing. Or...are we going to spend another $1,000 on legal fees as you consult with Mike Julka who'll undoubtedly offer his legal opinion that it's all good.

See previous post for further detail:

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

Let them eat steak!

From an interested resident who reviewed District credit card receipts recently:

The total M&I (SP-EYE note: the bank for which candidate Terry Shimek works) credit card bill for January was $6,097.31. Except for a very small amount, it was for travel to conventions (hotels, food and parking). The Westin Hotel in Boston billed the district on January 17 (which was paided in the January bill) for a stay on April 2nd. Why would we pay that far in advance?

The joint WASB convention in Milwaukee, January 22 to January 24 (2008), was the real party at a total cost of $4,676.25 to the district. The attendees were school board members Tim Boylen, Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, David Stackhouse, Caren Diedrich, Jim Carrel, and John Whalen. (SP-EYE note: only Jim McCourt was absent; in the past they have limited attendance to only 2 board members). In addition, District Administration was represented by Tim Culver, Phil Frei, and Rhonda Page.

The room rate was $137/night for single rooms and Whalen had a room for 2 adults at $154/night. (SP-EYE hopes the taxpayers didnt pay for two!). I didn't ask and I don't know who his roommate was, but I don't think it was a school board member because the rest all had single rooms. On January 24th they all, except Phil) went to Butch's Old Casino Steakhouse, where most of them had 12 ounce steaks. The bill for dinner was $339, including a $45 tip, which turns out to be more than $42 per person, which I assume they would claim was reasonable and necessary.

(SP-EYE note: The school board recently revised a policy setting maximum amounts for meals and per diems for Local 60 and SPEA (teachers) unions. When asked to impose the same restrictions on themselves, most refused and gave excuses such as "we don't get paid enough for what we do", or "we have to use personal vacation time to attend conferences". Both are pretty much "do what we say, not as we do" arguments. In the end they felt that they would all be responsible enough to spend only what is "reasonable and customary". It is noted that Caren Diedrich was one of the lone board members who stated that board members should be held to the same standards. Wonder what she had???. )



See Butch's Old Casin &amp $teakhouse menu (and pricing) at: http://www.butchssteakhouse.com/files/28289950.pdf

School Board candidiates - Summary

Here is SP-EYE's perhaps overly simplified summary of the 5 candidates' perceived strengths and weaknesses. Summaries are offere here in ballot order. The election is April 1, 2008. Don't be a fool, VOTE!


JILL CAMBER-DAVIDSON
Positives:

• Experience: served on Finance and now Education & Policy Committees


• Fiscal awareness demonstrated during Finance committee tenure


• Not a member of the Board-Admin "club"

Concerns:

• Can appear shy and reserved.

---

AL SLANE
Positives:

• Brings a fresh perspective


• Engineering & technology skills a plus

Concerns:

• A little too much of a Jim Carrel groupie


• No committee experience; lacks knowledge of board operations

---

TERRY SHIMEK
Positives:

• Familiarity with district operations


• Financial knowledge

Concerns:

• Professionalism a question mark. Seen on numerous occasions laughing AT fellow committee members' sincere comments


• Interest in the board seems to come and go. Ran 3 years ago


• Wife is a teacher...a potential conflict of interest?


• Too familiar with the District Administration?


• No response to League of Women Voters' candidate questionnaire

---

DAVID STACKHOUSE (I)

Positives:

• Experienced (3 yrs)


• Keeps a level head

Concerns:

• Tends to pontificate at times


• Have seen some vote reversals

---

MARY ELLEN HAVEL-LANG (I)


Positives:

• The school board is her life


• Experienced (12 yrs)


• Charming... if you agree with her


• Uses Roberts' Rules as her personal weapon

Concerns:

• The school board is her life


• Tone turns nasty...if you dont agree with her


• Too cozy with administration


• 12 years is too much; 15 years would be WAY too much

---

Sun Prairie School Boundaries Finalized

The hearings and meetings are finally over. So why are we left with a bad taste in our mouths? Is it because the finally decision was made at a meeting in which 2 school board members (Caren Diedrich, Tim Boylen) were not even present? Is it because it was only a 3-2 vote? Or was it the entire process? As the wounds from this ordeal begin to heal, a "post-mortem" needs to be initiated to determine the cause of demise of the process.

A decision made by only 5 of 7 school board members
Hell, this issue has been tabled so many times, that this process may have been a better primer on Roberts Rule of Order than the District spending almost $1000 to get a lesson from the attorney for the district, Mike Julka. It just seems to be in incredibly poor taste to make a final decision when nearly 30% of the board is absent.

3-2 is better than 10-8
There were complaints that the original Boundary Task Force's decision was problematic because it stemmed from a 10-8 vote. A majority is a majority, but changes were made and more hearing held BECAUSE of the 10-8 vote. Yet, if I do my math right...10/18 comes to about 56%. But 3/5 comes to only 60%...not a hell of a lot better. Claims were made back then that the 10-8 vote was indicative that the process wasn't complete. But now it is? By merely increasing the percentage of agreement by 4%. Where's the logic? To an observer of the whole sordid process, it seems that the board voted just be done with the issue. That's what we get with our elected "leaders". You may want to consider that when you go to the ballot box in 3 weeks.

The process is flawed
As a follower of school board activities, SP-EYE understand that boundary changes are and always will be a source of stress. What has become crystal clear through this current action is that the board's process has to change. Historically, we have convened a Boundary Task Force of citizens, school administration, and school board members. You cannot hope to improve citizen involvement in the school board's activities when the product of such a Task Force is labelled as "inferior". As a resident, SP-EYE is ashamed of having a school board that would allow such a slight to a VOLUNTEER effort.

We've also seen a series of wheels put in motion as boundary change "ideas" are
tossed out. The squeaky wheel does get the grease in this city. But more importantly, it's absolutely mind boggling to see a sudden shift to target a new neighborhood that was never up for discussion previously. If a move is appropriate for the schools, the teachers, and the affected students, then it is your job as elected leaders to stand firm. You cannot simply re-target someone else for the sake of "numbers".

As a proposed solution, SP-EYE suggests the following:

1. Convene no Boundary Task Force.
There is no need, as public hearings allow for citizen input.

2. Put the responsibility for designating DRAFT boundary change suggestions where it logically belongs: Administration.
We pay these folks hefty salaries and they retain ALL the information necessary to make informed decisions. They also will be less biased and more focused towards meshing student needs with schools, teachers, and bus routes.

3. Use real, live data. Include maps of population/neighborhood counts. Construct draft boundaries in open working meetings.

4. Once a draft is established, hold public hearings.
Based on comments received decide whether or not changes are needed. Draft a final plan.

5. Take the final plan directly to the full school board, not through the FTT Committee. The committee is composed of 3 school board members (who will have their say later) and 2 citizen reps. It's ludicrous to think that these folks would have any better ideas. It just becomes a breeding ground for radical plans to emerge.

The board's mantra through the high school process was that decisions should be driven by data. What happened here? Data doesn't change; opinions do. Did the many residents' voices sway the board, or was the incorrect data being used.

Answering that is your charge as we move forward.

Open Meetings shenanigans AGAIN....the case of the two agendas

On Tuesday March 4, the 2nd meeting of the "Community Engagement Task Force" was held. This group is chaired by MaryEllen Havel-Lang. School Board member Jim Carrel is also a member of the group.

The official notice to the public---which was only POSTED on the District website, not published in the STAR or journal--- is reprinted at right.

Does ANYONE have any idea what will actually be discussed at this meeting based on the agenda?? It really gives only a vague idea of what the end result of the Task Force will be, not what will be discussed/reviewed at this specific meeting.


The other --- private --- agenda.
---------------------------------
SP-EYE was able to obtain a copy of a DIFFERENT agenda, one that was apparently e-mailed to Task Force members and perhaps was in their "member packages". The bottom line is that this agenda---and who knows what other information---was NOT made available to the public. In fact....how would the public even know to ask for it? It is exactly those questions, and the concepts behind them, that resulted in the creation of Open Meetings Laws.


The Open Meetings Law Guide, which is available at www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf, says the following with respect to agenda:

"III. A. 2. Contents of notice
a. In general
Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). The notice need not contain a detailed agenda, but because the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information compatible with the conduct of governmental business, the notice should be specific. This requires that when a member of the governmental body knows in advance of the time notice is given that a matter may come before the body, that matter must be described in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 143, 144 (1977). The chief presiding officer of the governmental body is responsible for providing notice, and when he or she is aware of matters which may come before the body, those matters must be included in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 68, 70 (1977). In an informal opinion, the Attorney General opined that a chief presiding officer may not avoid liability for a legally deficient meeting notice by assigning to a non-member of the body the responsibility to create and provide a notice that complies with Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). Correspondence, October 17, 2001.

In formulating descriptions of the subject matter of a meeting, the chief presiding officer should keep in mind that the public is entitled to the best notice that can be given at the time the notice is prepared. A good rule of thumb is to ask whether a person interested in a specific subject would be aware, upon reading the meeting notice, that the subject might be discussed. "

HOUSEKEEPING???

Note the the agenda item "Housekeeping" in the 2nd, private agenda. What resident could possibly hope to understand what actions may be taken under this heading? The Open Meetings Law Guide also addresses this issue further within the same paragraph:

" Governmental bodies may not use general subject matter designations such as "miscellaneous business," or "agenda revisions," or "such other matters as are authorized by law" as a justification to raise any subject, since those designations, standing alone, identify no subjects. Correspondence, November 30, 2004. The Attorney General advised in an informal opinion that if a meeting notice contains a general subject matter designation and a subject that was not specifically noticed comes up at the meeting, a governmental body should refrain from engaging in any information gathering or discussion or from taking any action that would deprive the public of information about the conduct of governmental business. I-05-93, April 26, 1993. "

What's happening here? What does this all mean? For one thing, SP-EYE finds it ironic that in holding a meeting designed, ostensibly, to engage the community, Havel-Lang has done something which, at the very least, could be termed deceptive practices. It's precisely these deceptive practices which have led to the distrust that many community residents hold for the School Board. One could even make a case that this situation constitutes a violation of Open Meetings laws. Sure, Carrel and Havel-Lang will say that it's a subcommittee, that the agenda was harmless, or that it was all an oversight....but haven't we heard this all before?

SP-EYE can't help but see the parallels between this situation and the tense courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men", where Tom Cruise's character asks Jack Nicholson's character: "Colonel...why the two sets of orders?"