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!

School Board to buy more land??

On Monday Sept. 22 at 6:00 pm, the school board will convene a closed session to deliberate the purchase of additional land associated with the high school project.

Undoubtedly, any purchase will only add to the $965M tab. We have no other details, so we don't have any information as to how much the land would cost, how it will be paid for, or why it is needed.

It would seem that any additional land needed would/should have been identified during the exhausting high school planning process.

All land acquisitions must be approved by electors at either the annual meeting (October 13) or at a special elector's meeting.

Appearances are everything

At the September 8th meeting of the School Board's Finance Committee, citizen representative Rick Mealy requested more information about check number 88669 to a local lawn care firm. Getting insufficient answers to his questions from Business Services Manager Rhonda Page, Mealy contacted Tom Brooks, the District Buildings and Grounds Manager. Brooks indicated,

"We called them for a quote and the quote seemed very reasonable for the removal and stump grinding. We were happy with the way they performed at SOAR, so when we needed two more removed at Ashley we called them again. They again responded quickly and cleaned up after themselves. I would anticipate calling them again if the need arises. "

Again, Mealy's questions were not completely answered. So...on to a little detective work. There was no website for the firm, but there was a yellow page ad in the Sun Prairie phone book. A Google search of the company's phone number revealed that the phone number was also the home phone number of someone with the same unusual name as a certain member of the SPASD District Administration.

In a pre-Finance Committee meeting discussion with board member Terry Shimek, Shimek understood the underlying concern about the district contracting out for business with family members. But he seemed to be the only one who knew of the situation and understood the potential gravity. Interestingly enough, Phil Frei, Rhonda Page, and school board member/ Finance Committee chair, Jim McCourt all indicated that they had no idea that a familial relationship existed between a school district administrator and the local lawn care firm.

What is at issue here is not the quality of the work performed or even the price of the work performed. The underlying theme that the school board and district do not seem to understand is the need to conduct business in a manner which ensures against any potential conflicts of interest.

Even for such a small amount ($1450), if the district even considered having the firm in question perform the work, they SHOULD have accepted at least two other bids and gone with the most competitive bid. Only doing business in that manner could the board and the district escape the questions that continually gnaw at the root of trust. The fact that other district staff presumably had no knowledge of any relationship only adds further fuel to a smoldering fire.

Fuzzy Math and Fudging = a B- for Culver

The school board gave Dr. Culver his annual performance review recently...to which his raise is tied. He ended up with a score of 8.0 out of 10...or a B-...and a 4.4% increase, much larger than the teachers (SPEA) or support staff (Local 60) received.

In the final scoring against 5 goals, Culver received 7.4 out of 10 points....which is clearly a "C" grade. But then under the guise of ,"Adjustment to points(+/-)[Yeah...right...like the board would ever subtract points!] by the School Board based on job description evaluation and other factors explained in the summary of that tool.", the Board added 0.6 points to Culver's evaluation to get him to 8.0 out of 10, and also pushing him up into the next tier of salary increases. This is how Culver got his 4.4%.

But...instead of accepting their "assessment" of Culver, let's look a little more closely. Yes, you would have to have taken the time to read through the whole package to obtain this perspective, but it serves to show how far the board goes to paint Dr. Culver in a positive light.

Fuzzy Math Part I: Subtract 1 from the total # of benchmarks.
Notice how the scoring for each "goal" subtracts one from the total number of benchmarks. Ancient math rule #1, kids: When you divide by a smaller number, the decimal percentage INCREASES. Nice fuzzy math way to improve the score. Why not just a simple, "# of benchmarks met divided by # of benchmarks not met"?

Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired: 8 "benchmarks. 1 "S", 3 "I", 3 "D", and 1 "U". The school board added the S+ I (4) and used 7 instead of 8 for the total. That lead to a score of 0.67, rather than a score of 0.57.

Fuzzy Math Part II: Don't count performance benchmarks that show no change (U) from the previous year.
When you reduce the denominator by removing things that are unchanged...especially when the benchmark is not met in either year(!), you INCREASE the goal score. Refer to ancient math rule #1.

Here's a great example of a benchmark from Goal 1- Improve Reading Achievement: 90% or more of SPASD 3rd-5th graders score as proficient or advanced on the WKCE. Last year: 87%. This year: 87%. Didn't meet the goal either year. Let's not count it.

Fuzzy Math Part III: Even marginal improvement (I) over last year on a benchmark is scored the same as a "success" (S), or actually meeting/exceeding the benchmark.
Note that the numerator always weights any increase over last year the same as meeting a benchmark. We could maybe see giving "half credit"...but giving full credit when the gioal isn't met doesn't make much sense, does it? Perhaps this logic is at the root of grader inflation within the school district.


Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired.: The benchmark is that 90% or more of SPASD graduating seniors respond positively to the exit survey statement, " I feel fully prepared to pursue any option after high school". In 2007, 72% responded "Yes"; in 2008, 75% responded "Yes". Yet, this was scored as a "Success" because it increased by 3%.

Fuzzy Math Part IV: Regardless of how many benchmarks per goal, average all goal scores.
This has to do with weighting certain criteria...or NOT weighting, in this case. Basically this review says that improvement in Reading and Math--the top 2 goals of the school district-- are weighted as being equally important as having "Prepared & Inspired" students? "Connectedness"? How about classroom space, which Culver has NO ABILITY to impact. It's the ELECTORS who approve building referenda that should be reviewed here...not Culver.

Fuzzy Math Part V: Add a "Booster" adjustment score to improve Culver's final grade.
Last, and perhaps the most important, is the "fudge factor" applied by the school board to boost Culver's overall grade. What kind of hooey is involved with adding 0.6 "points" to raise Culver's score from an average "74" to a more proper looking "80"? This is clearly a number that the board pulled out of its collective buttocks (with proper decorum, of course!). One school board member admitted, off the record, that the adjustment was exactly what it looks like on paper...a fictitious adjustment, made arbitrarily and capriciously, with the sole purposes of looking good for appearances sake AND ensuring that Culver would reach the "80" mark, which provided him with a sweeter raise.

---

SP-EYE: If this is the kind of fuzzy logic and math that we're teaching our children, no wonder why they don't view themselves as being properly prepared for post-high school life. The lesson that the school board is presenting to the children of Sun Prairie is that the ends--regardless of how ludicrous or improper-- justify the means. Nice. How does THAT affect student achievement?

---

School Board Rubber Stamp Begins with Checks

Checks written by the school district are reviewed twice monthly at the school board's Finance Committee.

On average, 300 checks are issued and reviewed at each meeting. The number of checks ranges from 175 to 450.

Check totals average about $1,700,000 each meeting. Since January, nearly $30,000,000 of checks have been written.

The school board's Finance Committee is charged with reviewing these expenditures and approving them to be forwarded to the school board for approval and release to vendors. The school board president historically even goes so far as to place the check run under the "Consent Items" portion of the full school board agenda. "Consent Items" are deemed to be those assumed to have unanimous school board approval. This clearly indicates that the intent is to simply rubber stamp the checks.

Every other meeting, the Finance Committee meets for only 15 minutes, from 7:15 to 7:30. That means an average of 20 checks are reviewed and "approved" every minute. On average, $100,000 of school district expenditures is "reviewed and approved" per minute."

Wait! Did we say approve? Silly us! One would assume that during this "review", checks written for questionable expenditures would be "denied"....right? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

According to school board member Caren Diedrich, neither the Finance Committee nor the School Board is in a position to "deny" approval of any checks because, "...the vendor has already provided a service or goods [SP-EYE: or pizza!] to the District and we can't deny payment for something we've already received."

Using that logic, what value added benefit does either the Finance Committee or the school board provide in even looking at the checks??? Why not just let' em fly??? Why even bother putting them on an agenda and meeting to discuss them...because no matter what is brought up during the discussion, approved the checks are (as Yoda would say).

Hello! I hate to break this to you, school board members, but there have been NUMEROUS cases of misappropriation and plain abuse of taxpayer funded school district monies. This is just more of the same inane reasoning that was used to make the ludicrous boundary decision.

When are we going to have a school board member that will stand up and say, "This is not right!"?

We haven't had an advocate for such common sense since several years ago when Jim Gibbs successfully convinced the rest of the school board members that paying Bray Associates before receiving money from bonds issued for construction of Horizon elementary made absolutely NO SENSE. He successfully argued that architects are used to having to wait for payment until after the bonds have been issued and the school district actually has received referendum funds for construction of a particular project.

We need to define what constitutes an appropriate expenditure, and actually AUDIT the checks being written. In the event of an inappropriate expenditure, the district employee who authorized the purchase should be made to reimburse the taxpayers. Do you seriously think that in the real business world, you can just take the company checkbook and purchase pizza for lunch or flowers for an ill co-worker? In many (but, no, not all) businesses, that would be grounds for termination. Instead, our school board...with Caren Diedrich leading the charge...feels that there rejecting any check or checks for payment is not an option.

It's plain and simply poor fiscal management practice to take the attitude that all checks must be approved for release because the "goods have been received". We're not saying that the vendors shouldn't be paid...we're saying that it's a question of WHO should be responsible for paying the vendor....and it may not be the taxpayers.

We also need accountability at the district administration level. Instead of loosey goosey policies with bigger loopholes than Dumbo's ears, we need clear written policy outlining what constitutes an appropriate purchase and the consequences associated with a district employee making an inappropriate purchase on behalf of the district.

There's Partial Truths and Then There's...

At the September 8th school board meeting, during the public input portion of the pool referendum discussion---which was approved, by the way---the issue of school board president David Stackhouse's tax delinquency earlier this summer came up once again.

Roger Fetterly had just finished trying to get the board to understand that these are difficult times in which to ask residents for more money. Fetterly commented the following:

"I don't think you realize the financial pain you're causing to the residents of the school district. We answered this question not that long ago. You had a referendum, and it failed. No swimming pool and no increase to the revenue limits. You want to increase borrowing by $3.9 million. We are already overtaxed."

Fetterly added that the Sun Prairie Area School District has a debt ($170M) higher than any other district in Wisconsin, except Milwaukee. "And you want to add more to it....You're overtaxing us." Fetterly said.

Fetterly reminded the board of the number of Sun Prairie Business that closed recently, including Herman's and Heckels. Noting that these businesses pay property taxes that the schools depend on, Fetterly commented to Stackhouse, "You understand about not paying taxes, right Dave?"

Stackhouse responded angrily that he "...had some financial difficulties but I corrected [the tax delinquency] as soon as I learned of it."

Actually, Mr. Stackhouse, that's not true...and you know it. SP-EYE received copies of Stackhouse's delinquent taxes on June 20, 2008. This information, secured directly from the Dane County Treasurer's office, shows a 3 year delinquency, with accumulated penalties and interest.

Certainly, Mr. Stackhouse knew about the tax delinquency LONG before he paid the full amount due in two installments this past July. I mean...seriously, folks....like it or not we all get in line to pay our property taxes every December. And NOT paying them means you don't get a tax credit on your income taxes, so it's not something one would just forget to do for 3 years.

It's exactly this kind of inaccuracy in public statements that underscores the lack of trust the public has for the school board. You want to get a referendum passed? You might want to start by telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

$1,500,000 Surplus in 2007-08 Budget!!!!

Whether it be by over-budgeting, or underspending, the proposed budget presented to the school board on Monday September 8, 2008 shows that just under $1.5M is in "Un-Designated" Fund Balance account 933 000.

Funny this figure has not been widely publicized. In fact, at the August 25 Finance Committee meeting, Phil Frei announced that $500,000 was "leftover" from "dock days and utilities savings. He never indicated that the TOTAL surplus was 3 times as much.

Neither did board member/Finance committee chair Jim McCourt:

"There is one item in here that is very good news. We didn't use all of last year's funds, and there's about a half a million dollars that's left that we are going to be taking as an advisory item at the annual meeting and asking at the annual meeting if we want to use it to pay down the debt or use it to reduce the tax levy, or some combination there of."

[SP-EYE: Are you looking at the same "budget" sheet as us, Jim? Because we see $1.5M...not just $500K.]

Roger Fetterly commented that DPI rules and opinion offered by the Attorney General do not allow a school district to plan on (and includes as a line budget item) a surplus in the Ending Fund Balance, Unappropriated (Acct. 933 000).

Stackhouse Steams

Fetterly exceeded his 3-minute time limit and thus quickly summarized: "I think you get the message: your budget isn't very good." Before Fetterly returned to his seat, board president David Stackhouse asked Frei point-blank, "Mr. Frei, has the district violated the law?" Fetterly remained at the podium in order to hear Frei's response even after being told several times by Stackhouse to take a seat. "You don't tell me when to stand and when to sit down," Fetterly said." After a very pregnant pause, Phil Frei gave the classic defendant's response to Stackhouse's question: "Not to my knowledge."

So what about that $$500K??

District Administration and the school board would LIKE to apply that $500,000 against future Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) loan payments. However, Finance Committee citizen representative Rick Mealy suggested that the $500K should be used to reduce the tax levy and the mill rate, and that the decision should be made by the electors at the annual meeting.

Now Jim McCourt is says that while the board may ask the electors what their preference is for the $500K, that is advisory only...and the board can do whatever it chooses.

What about the other $1M surplus???
When asked about the other $1M in surplus, Phil Frei indicated that it would be used for "cash flow" during the 2008-09 school year. Cash Flow Accounts are kind of like a home equity loan...you use them as you need them but the intent is to return the money to where it came from. Note however that in the budget, the $1.5M disappears. The only thing projected to be left at the end of the 2008-09 school year is $100,000...the intent of which is to add that to the existing "Fund Balance". (Think of it as a "rainy day" fund).

Since that $1M never reappears as an addition to the fund balance, that means that it is intended to be consumed/spent during the 2008-09 school year. And that means that the amount of money needed for the 2008-09 budget is really $1M higher than it appears to be.

Banks have to follow "truth in lending" rules. Why don't school districts have to follow "truth in budgeting" rules???

THIS is what it's all about...

In the end, folks, this is what it's all about:

Patrick Marsh Middle School reading specialist Sandra Kowalczyk has been named Wisconsin’s Middle School Teacher of the Year. Only 100 Wisconsin teachers received the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Fellowship Award for 2008. But only ONE of those 100, Ms. Kowalczyk ,was named Wisconsin’s Middle School Teacher of the Year. She is indeed the best of the best.

...and she did it by teaching.
Congratulations to Ms. Kowalczyk for just doing it.

Some of the highlights of her work:

• Her inclusion of international experiences in the curriculum has excited and engaged students in reading as well as in global literacy.
• Her “Wear in the World,” program , combining art, reading, writing, and geography, received a Bridge to Understanding Award from the United States Board on Books for Young People.
• Her “Breakfast with Books” program, supported by the Sun Prairie Education Foundation focused on reading achievement of at-risk students and students of color by involving them in book talks and other literature-related activities while enjoying nutritious breakfasts.

How Does This Affect Student Achievement?

...is on the back of each school board member's nameplate at each school board meeting. They like to think that it is THEIR actions that affect student outcomes. But they're wrong. Quietly, without fanfare, Ms. Kowalczyk delivered. She didn't pontificate. She did it without a soapbox. She used her own creativity to inspire kids to read and learn. We are correct to focus on reading, because reading opens so many doors to learning. But talking about it and doing it are quite different things. While others "talked the talk", Sandra Kowalczyk has been walking the walk.

Our hats are off to Ms. Kowalczyk. Many schools and schools districts produce educational "buds", but Ms. Kowalczyk nurtured her "buds" until they blossomed brilliantly. And for that she has earned this most distinctive honor. Her efforts are a shining bright light on Sun Prairie, and serve as a model for what can be achieved.

School board members....get your pens and pencils out and take note. THIS is how you affect student achievement. In the trenches. Working directly with the students. In a classroom, not a board room. Using innovation, creativity, and thinking outside the box. You could learn a lesson here.

Its not about constructing palatial buildings, or arranging administrative meetings over lunch so you can buy pizza on the taxpayer's dime. It's not about boondoggle retreats. It's not about boneheaded boundary decisions. It's not about $400 steak dinners (although Dr. Culver should use some of his $425/month "miscellaneous income" and buy Ms. Kowalczyk a $50 steak dinner--this one is worth it).

It's about good teachers. And this one is a gem.

Sun Prairie Today.com article

On the Sun Prairie Area School District website

Don't sweat the small stuff, eh???

How many times has the board been told to crack down on abusive expensives on things such as flowers, pizza, abd sub sandwiches? And each time, board members remind us that even spending $5,000 per year on pizza and subs represents a miniscule amount relative to a $65M (general fund only) budget.

They try to make the taxpayers that point these out look like penny pinching rabid dogs.

Well, maybe they need to think again. The Milwaukee Public School District has a budget that far eclipses ours, but that district currently has a school distritc employee under DA investiogation for illegitimnate expenses and possible fraud charges. The amount? $2,000.

WISN News: DA To Investigate Milwaukee School Board Member
$2,000 Philadelphia Trip Prompts Investigation

A summary of the case is provided below:

On August 26, 2008, the district attorney decided to move ahead with an investigation into Milwaukee School Board Member Charlene Hardin's trip to a three-day Philadelphia conference last month.

Hardin and another Milwaukee Public Schools employee spent an estimated $2,000 of the district’s and taxpayers' money to go, but organizers of the conference said Hardin spent only a few minutes there.

Peter Pochowski, executive director of the conference and head for security for MPS, said, “This is corruption. This is abuse of power. I've seen this from her before, and it has to end.”

Pochowski alleges that Hardin only went to the conference on the second day, but he says she didn't attend any sessions; she just picked up refreshments.

“I think in Milwaukee sometimes we have to accept incompetence from our elected officials, but we will never accept corruption. Never." Pochowski said.

Alderman Bob Donovan said she needs to account for her time, and the money spent.
“We've got accusations that a public official essentially was ripping-off the taxpayers,” Donovan said. “As far as I'm concerned, that needs to be looked into.” [ SP-EYE: Geee...do you think OUR aldermen would even blink an eye???? ]

Donovan formally requested an investigation from the district attorney on Tuesday, and the deputy DA has confirmed that they are gathering information and plan to see if this rises to the level of criminal wrongdoing.

District Policy DUM-B

Have you ever looked at the district Policy naming structure? Does it drive you to drink? OK, that's fodder for an entirely different blog post. We have other business to attend to.

On the verge of another school year, a number of parents have been struggling to make sense of the board's decision on boundaries and try to reconcile it with policies and goals related to connectedness. This is their story.

Bird Elementary has space available. There are at least 21 spaces out of 436 total. That is a fact.

4 parents applied to allow their younger child, sibling of their child (who was grandfathered to stay at Bird due to their entry into 5th grade). TWO (2) were approved. TWO (2) others were not. This is also a fact.

We can't place these TWO kids at Bird Elementary????
This reeks of retribution an inconsistency.

Parents were told they have to ask Alice Murphy who then told them Culver makes the decision and then Culver tells them the Board makes those decisions and then back to Culver who says his staff makes those decisions. Conceptually this is how everything works, and its also how the district sweeps things under the carpet. People with a legitimate concern (like the Cardinal Parents group who were appalled at the graduation fiasco and requested action) keep shopping for answers or a response and they keep getting shuttled to someone else. You'll notice that that issue withered on the vine over the summer...just how the district likes it.

One parent summed it up as follows:

"Each party tells the complainant to contact the other to resolve it and the other refers them back to the original person. Pretty soon the complainant gets so frustrated they drop the whole issue and "go away" just like the district wants them to."

Oh, the district will tell you that their hands are tied, because SAGE rules require mandatory class sizes not to exceed 15 students per class in grades K-3. Of course, the REST of the story...what they don't tell you is that:
(A) The district has exceeded SAGE limits in each of the last 3 years, and
(B) The Department of Public Instruction is either asleep at the switch on the issue or is incorporating it's own version of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The bottom line (as is frequently the case with this district) is that they cite rules and policy when the rules and policies even remotely support their actions, but otherwise, it's Policies be Damned.

Did you get your "Thank-You" notes?

We didn't.

What 'Thank You' notes, you ask?
The ones that should have come from 16 separate purchases of flower arrangements for district employees or their families in the past year paid for with taxpayer dollars.

That's right. 16 separate purchases plus $120 for graduation flowers for a total of $617.21.

I can hear Jim McCourt, David Stackhouse, and Caren Diedrich now: "That's a very small amount of money for an employee at trying time."

Right. And I'm having a trying time right now. I'm having a trying time as I TRY to understand how on earth the taxpayer should be paying for these. I'm also having a trying time paying for gas. How about you skip the flowers and fill my gas tank on the taxpayers' dime?

Someone passes away? Yes, it can be heart-wrenching. But open up your well-padded wallets and take up a collection of your OWN money...just like the rest of the people who work in the public service sector (and many of those in the private sector) do.

And I'm SO tired of hearing the winner of the lamest excuse/rationale contest: It's a tiny sum when you consider that this is a $65M budget. Actually, it's about $80M, but I digress. So the fact that it amounts to petty (vs. grand) larceny means that we should ignore it?

The school Board even has a policy which justifies the practice (Policy GBJA):

"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."

Hmmmm...that really doesn't cover illnesses, childbirth, or general, "Don't you think the office needs some flowers" whims. Violation of policy. Par for the course in our fair school district....until enough people stand up at school board meetings, send e-mails or call school board members, or write to the STAR.

And...did anyone notice that the main offenders seem to be Horizon Elementary (HE), the High School (I see a movie in the works, " Mr. Keats Buys Flowers"), and the District Office. Are those just unlucky places to be an employee? Or are those just the places where our overpaid administrators feel free to spend the taxpayers' money????

Interesting side observation: all the purchases came from Sentry Floral Shoppe, except for the graduation flowers, which were purchased from The Flower Shop. What? Sentry is good enough for deaths and illnesses, but not good enough for televised activities????

Who thinks that District "Supplies" accounts need to be reduced in the upcoming budget?