Welcome to "Dis-connectedness"

Letters! We get letters!
SP-EYE: We received an open letter to the school board/district administration/community pointing out once again the complete lack of common sense of the school board's boundary decision.

In this follow-up, we learn that there are at least 15 open seat at Bird school. 4 parents applied to allow their younger child to stay at Bird with their older sibling who was "grandfathered". 1 was accepted. 3 were denied. THIS is connectedness?

Back in March the school board made a decision to change a school boundary that affected about 38 children attending CH Bird Elementary. This was a very contentious issue that created a significant amount of stress on the affected parties and created distrust in the school board and school district.

Recently interviews were conducted with a number of candidates to fill a vacated School Board Position. During the interview process the School Board President asked each candidate “Is the school boundary issue over?” All of the candidates responded, “Yes”.

Now as the school year approaches and the student’s class assignments have been made a spin off of the school boundary change has come to light and it has re-opened the wound and should leave anyone with school aged children in a state of
disbelief.

As part of the Boundary change the District has appropriately allowed students that will be entering 5th grade to remain at their former school. That makes sense since who would want any student to have three different schools in three years if you could reasonably avoid it. But what about the younger siblings of these students? Well the district has decided that these younger siblings need to go to their new school and not where their grandfathered sibling is going! Apparently this is the district’s “policy” yet no such policy exists anywhere in writing.

In the case of the students affected by the recent boundary change well, there are four grandfathered 5th grade students returning to CH Bird who have younger siblings. One of the younger siblings was allowed to return to CH Bird under the Voluntary Placement process while the other three were told that they had to go to their new school because there was room for them there. Voluntary placement requires that the “home school” be full at the needed grade before the district will consider the request. Parents of the remaining three students tried several different approaches to get the District to understand their concerns and even though there were over 15 empty classroom seats that could accommodate these three children, their requests were denied. The district defended these denials based on “policy” yet no policy exists on Grandfathered students and their siblings.

So what does this mean? Whatl I do know that there will be more school boundary changes occurring in the future. I also know that there will likely be grandfathered students who have younger siblings who will be faced with the same dilemma. So in the absence of common sense I guess there needs to be a written policy that spells out specifically how the district should address the placement of grandfathered student’s younger siblings. In the absence of that we will have to rely on the districts judgment which frankly is way off base on this issue.

I have heard the District Administrator tout the benefits of “connectedness” many times. Well, as long as the district is going to have a “policy” of separating siblings how can he ever hope to achieve the level of connectedness that he is striving for? To heck with family and sibling relationships. To heck with showing compassion to parents and children who’s requests are reasonable, attainable and in the spirit of “connectedness.” The school board made a decision and the district administration is going to implement it no matter what the cost!

Now that the school boundary wound has been reopened with this demonstrated lack of compassion I guess it’s fair to say that the “school boundary issue” is not over. This recent decision by the district to separate these three siblings clearly shows that some district officials are living in the state of “Disconnectedness”.

Name Witheld to protect them from retribution

6 Coffee Drinks Per Year, Huh???

In his STAR editorial this week, Chris Mertes says that the school board should go forward with a $3.9M referendum for a pool, equating the $20 per year property tax hike on a $200,000 home to "about six of your favorite coffee drinks".

First---and we have to get this out of the way-- Who in the HELL is buying coffee drinks that cost $3.33 a piece???? Some of have no interest in that mocha venti latte happy crappy. A wise old man, when I asked for cream and sugar for in my coffee asked, "Then why did you order coffee?" Webster's defines coffee as "a beverage made by percolation, infusion, or decoction from the roasted and ground seeds of a coffee plant ". That's it. Boiling water passing over ground coffee beans. And you can get $20 oz. at any Stop N' Go for $1.29 or less.

Chris is a decent guy...but he's either nuts or must make a pretty fat salary to support that kind of coffee jones. SP-EYE spoke frequently with Kaitlin Warriner, who used to write the Lifestyle and school columns. I guarantee you SHE couldn't afford to drink $3.33 cups of coffee. Now the $100K club? They most certainly can afford to drink high priced coffee to wash down their taxpayer funded pizza or Cousins' sub lunches.


Drowning in coffee

So...over the past 10-11 years, the community has gorged on coffees for:

• $ 188,760,000 in total building costs


• That's 216 of "your favorite coffee drinks" per year FOR 20 YEARS


• @3.33 piece = $722 of additional property taxes /year FOR 20 YEARS

...and THAT is why some people aren't jumping for joy about a pool that costs "only $3.9M" or "6 of your favorite coffee drinks per year".

Sure...a pool would be nice. And $20 doesn't seem like all that much...a movie (matinee) for 2 and a small bucket of popcorn. But that's really being disingenuous to the point here isn't it? The point is that for some folks, the camel's back has been broken.

SP-EYE: The school board has been quick to point out whenever they come in under budget on these building projects. Why don't they scale down the pool a little bit (The original Pool Task Force worked out a design with Bray that would meet WIAA standards and only cost $2.4M). Then, they could work with Bray and Findorff to slightly modify the high school design such that a pool could be included and still be UNDER the original $96M. Finally, with that in their pocket, they could go for a referendum to add the pool at NO ADDITIONAL construction cost.

...but THAT would be thinking outside the box.

Culver : The "adults in charge" have spoken

The Boundary Wars began as an attempt to (A) populate the new Creekside Elementary, and then (B) an ancillary concept was to achieve better socioeconomic balance in the elementary schools. This latter objective was later tabled in favor of creating another one of those dreaded Task Forces.

The ultimate game of musical chairs that ensued ended up with identifying 53 children from the northern edge of the district (developments within the town of Bristol) to be relocated from Bird school to Westside. SP-EYE is awaiting final numbers, but all reports indicate that the actual number of students involved is far less than the original number--as little as 8-10 students. Subsequently 4 parents have asked the question, "...if space exists in Bird, and my older child is 'grandfathered' to remain at Bird, could you please allow my child's younger sibling to be with their sibling--at least for this year?" One of these parents, who was told "NO", shared the message that she received from Dr. Culver when she asked how she should explain the rationale for this inexplicable ruling to her younger child. Dr. Culver responded:

The parent responds
Excerpts from the parent's response to this extremely frustrating and inconceivable nonsense are provided below:
I think I will tell my daughter that sometimes there are circumstances in which people make rules and policies in life that do nothing to make positive change. In this case, some adults who forgot they are elected officials, are trying to mask a crisis in our community by randomly busing children all over town.

It is easier for [the school board/district] to ignore the true issues of the district and separate you from your family and middle school peers. I will encourage her to deal with this change by reassuring that no one in the community will allow for such incompetence to continue.

One important skill my children will learn is to have integrity. I will teach them to hold true to their principles and values. I will tell her how many adults would rather hide behind inaccurate data and incomplete information than admit when they have made a mistake. I will tell her to never be afraid to admit if you are wrong.

Finally, I reminded her that if the school board/district thinks this is over, they have under estimated the people of Sun Prairie. Thanks for your suggestions but I prefer to be honest with my children.

---

SP-EYE: The board loves to prattle on about the importance of "neighborhood schools" and connectedness. How connected can you be if your older sibling is allowed to stay at one school whole the younger ones are left to try to make sense out of being carted away past not one, but TWO elementary schools to their new 'home'? Is that any way to emphasize family? Culver and others have been quick to offer, "well....you could have your 5th grade student choose to move to Westside with their younger sibling."

Once again, where is the logic in that? A 5th grader needs to continue to build on connections and relationships with their student support base in preparation for entering middle school next year. This is NOT the time to throw these kids into a new school! It's apparent that the board will not reconsider its bad decision--despite the message about accountability and taking responsibility for one's actions that their decisions have sent across the city. One would hope however, that if space is available, the board demands that the district allow siblings in these cases to remain with their brother/sister at Bird.

Mo' Money! Mo' Money! Mo' Money!

You gotta love the STAR's home delivery. Why? Because that means you get a one day head start on what the school district is up to next. In this evening's STAR, the agenda for the Monday August 25th school board meeting includes:

• The pool referendum (as expected)
• Discussion about creating a "4 year old Kindergarten Task Force"

Note that the agenda item does NOT mean that they will be discussing a task force on kindergarten which has been in operation for 4 years. Rather, this will be the district's foray into developing ANOTHER money pit: kindergarten for 4-year olds (think pre-school on steroids...or maybe preschool in Pull-Ups). Remember that scene in Jurassic Park 2 when Jeff Goldblum's character, noting the group was so awe-stricken by the sight of dinosaurs, said, "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh....that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming." Similarly, everything school board starts with a nice Task Force. Then comes the referendum and we have to empty our wallets.

District Administration and the board (in its various incarnations) have been quietly planning on a 4-yr kindergarten program for a number of years. Let see: 7th elementary school? Check. $100M for a new high school and 8-9 quasi junior high school? Check. Pool? Firmly on the radar; referendum imminent. That must mean its time to focus on the next item on the district wish list: a 4-yr kindergarten (4yrKG) program.

Frankly, SP-EYE sees the potential value in a 4yrKG program, particularly for socioeconomically affected kids. That being said, it always comes down to money....and decisions about what a community needs rather than what a district WANTS.

You'll hear the words, "amazing"and "wonderful" to describe the many benefits that 4yrKG programs POTENTIALLY offer kids. School board members will practice their speeches about what an incredible opportunity this is for kids.

But, you should also know that many people refer to 4yrKG programs as taxpayer funded daycare. And isn't the goal of 4yrKG what HeadStart is all about? And don't we have that already? Many other people feel that kids have enough of school to look forward to: 13 years from KG through high school. Add another 4 years for college, which many feel jobs of the future will absolutely require. That's 17 years. Do we REALLY need to add an 18th? Is there some benefit to letting a kid be a kid for a few years? And how many 4 year olds are really socially mature enough for a school environment? Yet state rules don't provide an option for which kids are or are not ready for 4yrKG. If you're 4 on or before September 1, you're in.

The "experts" talk about the potential for 4yrKG to improve learning. Sure. And a rock poised on the edge of a cliff is loaded wth potential energy....but it has to actually be set in motion for that energy to be realized. We have a SAGE program here at 2 schools already, and the WKCE scores don't indicate significant improvement from it. In fact, eliminating the SAGE program at Bird elementary would have opened up the spaces to accommodate that handful of kids from the Bristol neighborhood. You want to improve connectedness? Then focus your energies on keeping siblings and neighborhoods together rather than making boneheaded decisions that ultimately that don't meet the original goals of the Boundary Task Force yet create gaping wounds and polarize a community.

Ladies & Gentlemen, place your wallets on the table and step back.

What does all this cost?
In 2006, districts reported setting aside between $4,000 to $10,000 per room for purchasing classroom materials and equipment. Elmbrook is considering 4yrKG, and recently estimated costs for the 2011-'12 school year would mean a tax levy of 22 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or an additional $44 a year for the owner of a $200,000 house.

That's double the amount of coffee drinks Chris Mertes says the pool referendum will cost you in his latest editorial. You know? You CAN drink too much coffee.

Read more about 4yrKG:
Tomah Journal article, December 2007

Wisconsin DPI 4yrKG page
Does Wisconsin's 4K program positively impact children's development? Yes. Wisconsin does not have data to correlate student performance on statewide tests with past 4K participation. We can, however, explore the impact by reviewing data from the National SWEEP study and from several Wisconsin school districts.

DPI Factsheet

$50K to move board meetings?

The Sun Prairie school board is inching ever closer to its targeted goal line - to move the location of its meetings from the City Municipal building to the District Office.

Of course, making such a move is going to cost money: at least $45-50,000.

Alternative 1: Cost: $50,,000 + Cable connection to library for TV broadcasting. Move School Board meetings to Room 100 at the District Office, and duplicate the equipment at City Hall

Alternative 2: Cost: $34,000 + Cable connection to library for TV broadcasting. Move School Board meetings to Room 100 at the District Office, but with less equipment than is at City Hall.

Alternative 3: Cost: $ 350. Install wireless network access at City Hall for School Board meetings.

Why they'll tell you it won't cost this much.
The Partial Truth police are on full alert. The costs of various items are not all incorporated into the original figures on the FTT Situation report.

Concerns that neither the board nor the FTT committee has adequately addressed.

• Given the economy and the projected rise in budget as is, why move meetings from City Hall? $50,000 would pay for a position or a lot of textbooks.


• Aren't we supposed to have a "partnering relationship" with the City and City Council? Why would we NOT want to share a facility?


• The board keeps preaching streaming video over the Internet for its meetings rather than cable, and the fact that many residents don't have access to KSUN-TV. Great. But how many people have a slower Internet connection...like, say, a phone modem...and will never be able to watch streaming video coherently.


• This whole proposal is linked to the board's previous purchase of BoardDocs software and laptop computers for all board members. The school district has demonstrated a less than stellar comprehension of Internet technology. Do we REALLY want to sink more $$$ into this project before we really see how it works?


• District staff lack technological savvy. The District currently pays someone to scan existing documents (which are nearly always created with Microsoft Office software) and put them into an Adobe Acrobat Reader file (PDF) as IMAGES..rather than searchable test. Not only does this make board packages phenomenally large ( have you tried to download one?) but it is completely user UNfriendly because one cannot search through the documents to find the information one seeks.


• The BoardDocs software is only a tool. The end user has to make the tool effective. Currently the School Board's website lacks any sense of organization. Sure...you can find minutes from school board meeting from the 1990's. But how does one find contracts like those for to find out what we are paying personnel? How does one find information associated with past decisions...particularly contentious ones? If we can't organize files on the existing website, it won't happen with BoardDocs either.
• Has anyone given any thought to how this BoardDocs and meetings over the web will work for people with accessibility problems: hearing impaired? visual impaired?

Technology is great. But technology opens up a whole new set of doors behind which are a whole host of issues that need to be addressed. All that costs more money.

Is Anyone Watching our Long Term Debt?

The long-term debt (LTD) picture is not the easiest figure to discern from either a school district or the DPI. One can, however, come up with a pretty accurate picture by looking at the most recent report of Long Term Debt for all districts and then factoring in any new successful debt referenda plus any payments made against a district's LTD balance.

District Long-Term Debt Calculation (% of Legal Limit)

History of School District Referenda Results

If one goes through this exercise for Sun Prairie, one would find that:
♦ Sun Prairie, with $170M in LTD ranks 2nd only to Milwaukee ($390M), coming in 3rd with $149M is Kenosha.

♦ Sun Prairie is one of only 3 districts statewide with LTD exceeding $100M.

♦ With LTD at just under 48% of the legal maximum, Sun Prairie ranks 10th in terms of the %age of legal debt limit. Of course, we are the only district in the top 10 with debt in excess of $28M.

♦ Sun Prairie ranks 20th of all districts statewide in terms of the legal debt maximum $356M).

♦ Statewide, of over 400 school districts, the mean district LTD as a %age of the legal maximum is 14.5%.

♦ Statewide, of over 400 school districts, the median district LTD as a %age of the legal maximum is 12.0%.

Mom? Dad? Is it time to take Junior's credit card away?

---

*** SP-EYE: This marks the 100th post on this blog! Thanks to the many readers who come here to get the cold hard facts the school board and administration would prefer that you not know. ***

---

Pool Referendum for November?

The school board is edging ever closer to setting up a November 4, 2008 referendum to add a pool to the high school construction project. The FTT discussed the project at its Monday August 11 meeting, and an informational update was provided during the full school board meeting.

Fast Facts on the Pool, Take 2.



The projected cost is $3,892,500.

Annual operating costs (1st year only) are projected to be an additional $397,000.

It is estimated that $96,000 of annual operating costs could be offset by public user fees.

Estimates assume 51,750 public "user visits" per year.

Initial estimates suggest that a referendum to exceed the annual Revenue Cap of $288,205 is required.

For a Nov. 4 2008 referendum, school board must vote to go to referendum by 9/8/08. That leaves 2 school board meetings (where the public may comment on the idea): 8/25/08 and 9/8/08.

Partial Truths - The Root of the Problem

Having both observed and participated in the "Recess for Citizen Presentations" segment of school board meetings for some time now, here are our observations:

1. If you praise the board or the district, they'll beam at you and give you extra time to speak.


2. If you are raising a concern or discussing something on which the board didn't quite get an "A" for effort, they time you, and prompt you to hurry up. While you speak they either glower at you or stare off as if they are seriously contemplating your issue, while actually filtering you out like white noise.


3. If you say something nice, your comments will be printed in full in the meeting minutes.


4. If you address a real concern, like say, you point out flaws in the budget process, then the minutes will reflect only that "Joe Blow spoke about the budget".


5. Last, but, most important. If you speak about something which casts aspersions on the board or their actions, one or more board members --or Tim Culver--will rebut your statements with one or more partial truths that, taken as complete fact, appear to cut your presentation off at the knees. Of course, you NEVER get a chance to respond to their rebuttal. Heaven forbid that the school board actually engage the public in dialog.

The rules of the school board are quite simple: "Speak only when spoken to" and "The school board shall always have the last word".

Let's look at a prime example of partial truths in rebuttal comments board member Caren Diedrich made at the Monday August 11 school board meeting in response to comments about the sizable administration raises relative to those of Local 60 support staff.

Rick Mealy pointed out that while the Local 60 folks got 3.25% raises, Administrative Support staff got 3.6% and Dr. Culver got 3.7%. In addition, they were proposing a $5.00 per hour raise for the Business Services Manager position, which is currently paid over $30.00 per hour. He went on to point out that the Local 60 contracts included a "poison pill"provision that if health insurance costs rise by 10% or more, their raises would drop to 2.75%. That provision was NOT put into either the Admin Support or Tim Culver's contracts.

Partial Truth #1

Caren Diedrich wanted to make it clear that the Local 60 folks were a pleasure to work with and that the Local 60 folks were very happy with the agreement.

Reality Bites
Mealy asked the sequence of contract negotiations. Of course, we learn that the negotiations were simultaneous, and the Local 60 team was not aware when they reached their agreement that they ---the lowest paid employees--received the lowest raises. We wonder how happy the Local 60 people are now that they see what the other groups received.


Partial Truth #2
Caren Diedrich also wanted to clarify that the reason why the Local 60 people got a lower raise is that they weren't asked to pay more of their health insurance.

Reality Bites
On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable explanation---until you get the rest of the story. The local 60 folks are already paying at least TRIPLE what the other groups pay. for health insurance. In addition, Local 60 pays just under 15% of the cost of dental insurance, while the taxpayers foot 100% of the cost for the other groups. See the contract excerpts below.

Culver earns more than Governor Doyle!

At the Monday, August 11, school board meeting, the school board is anticipated to unanimously approve a new 2-year contract extension for District Administrator Tim Culver. The new agreement gives Culver a total salary and benefit increase of 4.4%. 3.7% of that 4.4% raise is in salary alone or $4,957 per year. This raises Culver's salary to $140,786. On top of this, Culver is paid an additional $450/month to cover out of pocket expenses and travel within Dane County. That brings his total pay to $146,186, not including benefits.

Governor Doyle makes $136,268.

See the School Board Package for 8-11-08 (Refer to Appendix "F")

Economy Down but Admin Salaries Soar!

Ever notice that no public official will ever declare that we're in the "R" word...recession....until after the economy gets back on its feet? Well...many believe we are in a recession. Jobs are being lost (Janesville, Wausau); paper mills are closing--among others. But in the Sun Prairie School District, life is good if you're in the "Administrator" classification.

In light of the $5.00/hr raise being proposed for the "Business Services Manager", we thought we'd review Administration pay progression over the past 5 years. We've subsequently decided that we're in the wrong line of work.


The 6-Figure Salary Club
In the 2002-03 school year, only one administrator (Tim Culver) earned a "6 figure salary". That number climbed to 4 in the 2006-07 year, and then shot to 9 in 2007-08. That's 9 administrators EACH making over $100,000 per year in salary alone! What will that number be in 2008-09??? Giving the Business Services manager a $10,400 annual increase should get that position primed for the 100K club as well.



We looked closely at the salaries of 8 administrators who have been with the District for the past 5 years. Tim Culver's salary increased 18% over those 5 years, but his contract is separate from the other administrators. The salaries for the other 7 administrators ON AVERAGE have increased by 29% over the past 5 years. That represents an average increase---salary alone---of 5.2% per year. We're not even talking the added value of benefits!!! For comparison, the salary for an average state employee, who typically sees raises of 0-3% per year, raised about 13-15% over the same time period.


Increase in administrator pay from the 2002-03 school year to the 2007-08 school year
Culver up 18% Frei up 25% Mikula up 35%
Dawes up 26% Luessman up 32% Klaas up 25%
Ackley up 28%

No wonder why no one has a problem increasing the Business Services Manager's salary by $10,400 for next year. Gotta get the Business Services Manager in to the club!


Dealing with the rising cost of living
We always hear complaints that salaries are not rising as fast as inflation or the cost of living. Well...first of all, the cost of living has certainly not risen at a 5.2% per year pace. Second, all 5.2% raises are not created equally. Let's say groceries cost your family $500 per month. If the cost of groceries increases by 20%, your family grocery budget now costs $600/mo. or an extra $1,200 per year.


The struggling single parent
Let's say you're a single parent earning a decent (but not great) wage of $33,333 per year (or 1/3 of $100K). You are thrilled to have your boss award you a 5% raise. That translates to an addition $1,667 of gross earnings to cover the added $1,200 cost of groceries. Oh...wait...we have to consider taxes. About 1/3 of that raise goes to taxes. That actually leaves our struggling single parent with only a net increase in pocket pay of about $1117, or not enough to even cover the increased cost of groceries.


The well-compensated school administrator
Now let's look at the impact of our $1,200 increased grocery bill on our administrator, earning a nice, fat $100,000 per year. You too are thrilled to have your the school board award you a 5% raise. That translates to an addition $5,000 of gross earnings to cover the added $1,200 cost of groceries. Even after losing 1/3 to taxes, you're still left with a net increase in pocket pay of about $3,300. Not only does that cover the increased cost of groceries, but you can still afford that week-long vacation at a northern Wisconsin resort.

Our school board needs to start considering that giving administrators a smaller percentage increase still leaves them with plenty of money in their pocket to cover cost of living adjustments. In fact, using our examples above, in order to feel the same pain as our struggling single parent, the raise for our $100K administrator would have had to have been only 1.67%

Funny thing about how math works. Our administrator makes 3 times what our struggling single parent does. In order to give them each a raise to cover the cost of groceries, the percentage increase given to the $33,000 worker needs to be THREE TIMES the increase given to our $100K Club administrator! Any of you get a 15% raise this year? That, ladies and gentlemen, is how the rich get richer. In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that the Sun Prairie School District doesn't fare as well as other area districts in WKCE Math scores. If the school board doesn't understand basic math...how will they ever pass it on to students?

The following are graphs of the meteoric salary rise experienced by top administrators over the past 5 years:


Browse the DPI website area that reports school district pay and see for yourself: DPI School Staff and Salary Data Page

$5 Footlongs? How about a $5.00/hour raise??!!

How many of you received a $5.00/hr raise? How many received $5.00/hr raise TOTAL over the past 10 years??? State employees got a whopping 2.5% for FY2007 and a 1% raise for FY2008.

On Monday, the school board's Human Resources committee voted to move a contract package for Administrative Support to the full school board for approval. For all positions, a 3.6% increase was recommended, but one job title, the Business Services Manager, makes out like an NFL 1st round draft pick. Don't get us wrong---Rhonda Page is a great lady---but $5.00 per hour increase for ANYONE is insanity. That's over a 15% raise from a salary of $32.00/hr to $37.00/hr ($77,000/yr).

That $5.00/hr RAISE is 77% of the MINIMUM wage!!! Ms. Page will receive as an hourly RAISE almost as much as some folks get per hour TOTAL!

That's a $10,400 increase per year!

That's 2600 gallons of gas (at $4.00/gal) per year!

That's 2080 foot long subs at Subway.

That's 2080 Pizza Hut Pizza Mias (if bought in threes).

This goes to the full school board for approval this coming Monday, August 11. Wanna bet it's a slam dunk for unanimous approval? Here's the new **proposed ** Administrative Support salary matrix:

Appointment Process Redlines the BS Meter

On Monday night, July 28, 2008, the school board unanimously approved appointments of new citizen representatives to the Finance, FTT, Education & Policy, and Human Resources committees for one-year and two-year terms.

This was subsequently reported by Sun Prairie Today.com, the Sun Prairie STAR, and in a July 30 e-mail sent out to the School District's "Key Communicator" e-mail list.
See the Sun Prairie Today.com report
Read the Sun Prairie STAR article

School Board President Stackhouse commented,

"It's a wonderful thing when people in the community step up and ask to serve in any form," Stackhouse said. "We had some excellent candidates for various positions, they bring great things to the
table."

But...hold on a second....one of those individuals withdrew his application and declined the opportunity to interview...yet he was appointed to a position nonetheless.

How on earth, does one manage to appoint someone to something when the individual has clearly communicated that they are no interested? In the course of appointing citizen representatives for its committees, the board managed to:

• appoint a citizen representative without conducting an interview in direct violation of board policy and procedure BCE-R.
• create a requisite application form which is neither discussed nor referenced in its policy BCE-R.
• inform candidates of interview times without their consultation less than 24 hours prior to making formal appointments (in fact the e-mail message of interview times actually said that the interviews would be conducted on Monday August 28).
• clearly opt NOT to retain Finance Committee citizen representative Dr. James Murray for a 2nd term (which could have been done) and then appoint him to the Education & Policy committee.
• ignore specifics of the application submission process outlined in policy.

The Process
The SPASD website indicated that applicants had to "complete and return an application and a letter of interest" prior to Friday June 27, 2007.

NOTE: Board Policy BCE-R (sect. A.4) says nothing about an "application". Interested citizens are only required to: " All applicants shall mail, e-mail to the District Administrator's secretary and get confirmation of receipt, or deliver to the District Administrator's office a letter containing the applicant's name, address, telephone number and a concise statement not exceeding 500 words of the applicant's qualifications and interest in appointment to a specified committee. "

Applicants received no communication from board President Stackhouse (or any board representative) until an e-mail from Stackhouse was sent Sunday July 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM informing all candidates of their interview time slots.
SP-EYE: Weird? Isn't it common practice to call candidates and offer them several options for an interview time?

Concerted Decision to not retain Murray
Board policy allows the board to re-appoint a current citizen representative to a 2nd 1-year term if that term does not coincide with the other citizen representations term. Dr. James Murray just completed his first year on the Finance committee and clearly indicated his interest in being re-appointed. Board past practice has been to re-appoint these people. Clearly, President Stackhouse made a firm decision NOT to re-appoint Dr,. Murray to the Finance committee. We assume he had reasons.How serious could Stackhouse's concerns have been if he proceeded to nominate Dr. Murray to The Education & Policy committee...despite being told that Murray was no longer interested in serving. Dr. Murray subsequently declined to appear for his interview.

The Applicants
7 people applied to fill 6 empty slots. Clearly this was a game of musical chairs and someone would be sitting out.

Finance: 4 candidates for 2 seats
FTT 2 candidates for 1 seat
E&P 2 candidates for 2 seats
HR 1 candidate for 1 seat


The Interview Process
Interviews were scheduled at 15-minute intervals Monday July 28 from 5:15 to 7:00 pm (despite e-mail message indicating the interview date to be August 28th).
The schedule was as follows:
__5:15: Patrick Anderson, (Finance, FTT)
__5:30: James Murray (Finance, E&P)
__5:45: Rick Mealy (Finance)
__6:00: Tim Boylen (Finance)
__6:15: Scott Sedlacek (FTT)
__6:30: Jan Disch (HR, E&P)
__6:45: Robert Carlson (E&P)

Appointment
Interviews concluded at 7:00 pm

Why did Stackhouse nominate Dr. James Murray to a position direct violation of section A.5. board policy/procedure BCE-R???

"The Board president and/or committee chair will interview each candidate...prior to nominating a candidate to the Board for appointment to any standing committee." ?

Why also would Stackhouse have nominated Murray after he clearly declined consideration? (Murray sent e-mail to Stackhouse and also spoke by phone to board members Stackhouse and McCourt)

Why would the board proceed to make this appointment in light of the facts...something which the board likes to tell the public that they base their decisions on? Did Stackhouse and McCourt not communicate Murray's decision to other board members? If not, why not? They certainly seem to discuss a number of other things between meetings. Certainly, they should have released this information to the media before it was published.

The board likes to talk about "the wonderful things they do for the community's children"....yet they can't get a simply thing like citizen representative assignments right without violating their own policies and making a public mess of things.

So...now what? Does Tim Boylen get offered the Education & Policty seat to minimize the magnitude of this CF? Or do we start all over again looking for a citizen to fill the empty seat? Perhaps, if the board hadn't rushed to so quickly, this mess would not have been created. Don't we counsel our children, "Don't rush...do a quality job in all that you do"???

Read board policy BCE-R

SP-EYE: Be careful! There are multiple versions of this policy out on the district's website...but that's a whole different issue that needs to be addressed!

Check out the "application" form...which does not exist according to policy

What was the hub, bub?

Is the boundary issue dead...or are the embers silently smoldering? During recent interviews for the heir to Jim Carrel's school board seat, board president David Stackhouse asked each candidate a question that wasn't on the prepared question list. Stackhouse asked of each,

"Is the boundary issue resolved?"

Logic would seem to dictate that it is in the board's best interest to keep the dead buried....so why did Stackhouse ask the question? Was he looking for another ally to rally the issue? Or was his intent to exclude from consideration any candidate that indicated the issue was not resolved?

Why were people affected by the decision so distraught? Certainly the board's way of coming to a decision had a lot to do with things, but the map also clearly points out the disconnection in a district that claims to place high value on "connectedness". Take a look at the island the board created (the purple region north of Egre road and west of Bird St). These students were leapfrogged over both Bird and Northside to be placed at Westside. Does this make sense? Shouldn't the primary rule for developing boundaries be to draw lines for any individual school to form a single polygon? Isn't THAT what facilitates development of "neighborhood" schools?

Now consider ...for a minute...just ONE alternate map (at right). Certainly, the numbers of students was not considered in creating this quick version, but logically, does it not make more sense?

This was never about allowing people to stay with a beloved school but rather about making a decision which makes no sense.

Download or view the full-size District elementary boundary maps.


......THIS?...................or THIS?