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.