Sunday, March 16, 2008

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.