Why SP-EYE?

In his STAR editorial, school board member Jim Carrel states (not alleges) that this blog is "filled with hatred for the School Board". Webster's defines hatred as "Strong aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil. " Mr. Carrel does not understand; in fact, Carrel mimself sat down with SP-EYE back in January for a quite candid, amiable discussion over soft drinks. On a personal level, SP-EYE harbors no malice or ill will towards any board member. There is concern however, that these same people take on very different characteristics when they settle into their board seats. Sometimes the change is so startling, it seems that a call to Buffy the Vampire Slayer is in order.

Board members were each elected to manage the school district from a fiscal and policy angle, while adhering to the voices of the community. Yet, they only listen when droves of people come to meetings to speak out...and sometimes not even then. Community residents are very busy with their own lives and families, and frequently only think about the board when property tax bills arrive or prior to referendum elections. These folks need access to more complete information more regularly. Perhaps if they have ALL the information, they will communicate their feelings to board members directly or at meetings. Change starts small.

Reading this blog represents a choice, just as choosing to disregard some residents is a choice of the school board. Free will and democracy are indeed wonderful things. People have the right to read the information presented here and look further into it (trust but verify) as they see fit. If they don't like the tone or the information, they can choose to read no further. Life is but a series of choices.

While SP-EYE has a number of concerns regarding actions (or inaction) of the school board, fiscal responsibility concerns are firmly ensconced in the top slot. Some folks and board members feel that the issues raised involve petty amounts. Isn't that up to the community to decide? Relative to a $65M budget, some amounts might seem small, but they all add up...and quickly. More importantly, loose control over fiscal matter can lead to fiscal abuse. What are some of the issues?

Fast food expenditures. Last year over $5,000 for fast food at Milio's, Cousins, Pizza Hiut and others. This year (to date) over $3600 has been spent.

Flowers. Over $370.00 has been spent this year(to date), and over $500 last year. We all share thoughts of grief, convalescence, or joy for co-workers, but not on the taxpayers' dime).

Attorney's fees. We pay at least $230/hour to a fiorm on retainer. Do we really need to consult an attorney over whether to release the resumes and applications of candidates for a vacant school board seat? For the release of names and e-mail addresses of citizens serving on a committee? On one bill alone over $2,800 was spent in response to the basketball coach fiasco.
Contract Compliance. Failure to monitor contract limitations and hold the line on reimbursements allowable by contract (Tim Culver). If Culver wanted the Rotary membership and expenses to be covered under his contract, he and the board should have negotiated it. He gets paid plenty. I'm almost surprised we didn't include a monthly Starbucks allotment.

Competitive Bidding. Choosing not to use competitive bidding to award major work such as the architect for Creekside and the new high school. Competition can help get quality AND the best price.

Conference costs. Sending 6 school board members to the annual state school board conference (the infamous $42/person steak dinner; not to mention total conference costs) when 1-2 could have gone and brought back key information represents nothing more than taxpayer waste. Having 6 board members dining with the Administrator (without public notice) could also be viewed as a violation of Open Meetings laws.

Other expensditures. Approving $2,226 for the Academic Decathlon team to spend 1? 2? nights at the Concourse hotel) exactly 11 miles away from SPHS is really a questionable expense. Yes, this team did an awesome job. But we have other sports teams that perform equally gruelling tasks (on a physical level) yet they come home on a long bus ride late at night. Check #85470 $2226 Concourse Hotel 3/11/08 . Lodging for HS Acadec state competition for six students and their advisor. The students paid for half of the hotel cost and the district paid for the other half. $2,226 for 7 people = $318/person. Location : 1 W Dayton St. Madison; 11.64 miles Time: 26 mins from SPHS.

This case in particular begs further review. In theory, a request was made (and approved) by the high school principal. From there, approval (or approvals) was (were) obtained from district administration. Someone should have said "I'm sorry, but we can't approve this". The problem is that once it got to the school board's Finance Committee, the charges had already been made. What were they going to do, deny the check? So, instead of taking formal action to ensure that such a deicison does not occur again, they rationalized approval. Someone must be held accountable. Has this step now set a precedent? When our sports teams travel to Janeville or Beloit, much further away, and finish up late at night prior to a school day, do we put them up in a hotel?

These are arguably merely the tip of the iceberg. But we'll never know what else is going on until people start looking at financial data and administrative decisions in detail, and then taking the difficult, but necessary, corrective action to change the status quo.

It's time to make fiscal responsibility a higher priority in this school district. No more glossing over the checks written twice each month.