Quid Pro QEO

As we get closer to post-QEO life, school finance and the QEO are hot political topics. We've talked about the QEO in generic terms, but the devil is always in the details. How does the QEO work (or not)? That's the question we hear a great deal. A good beginning to such a discussion, is an informal comment from board member Terry Shimek, who said, "The fate of the QEO is really a non-issue for Sun Prairie because we [the board] have never issued a QEO-based offer."

Mr. Shimek is correct. Since the QEO was established, Sun Prairie educators have not had to come face to face with what the QEO means. Some people see the QEO as simply a means to cut or rigidly control the rising cost of salaries an benefits. Can it do that? Sure. But the QEO is merely a tool, not a panacea. And issuing a QEO-based offer has far reaching long-term ramifications.

To better understand the QEO, we have to first look at the rules behind it (that are not simple, by any means). Then we need to look at an example. First off, why have the QEO? The answer was stem the rising costs of salaries and benefits that were occurring in the late 80's and early 90's. According to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, average annual raises for teachers dropped from 6.5% for salaries and fringe benefits in 1991-1992 to 3.6% for 1996-1997. The Wisconsin Education Council claims that since the QEO was first applied in 1993, salary increases have averaged just 1.6% per year. ( http://www.mtalliance.org/faq.htm). The QEO is/was a means to basically make the infamous offer that could not be refused. Making a QEO offer eliminated the threat/concern of going to binding arbitration. Under law, if the two sides can not reach agreement on a contract, negotiations go to binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is scary for both sides because the two sides basically turn in their final offers and an independent arbitrator decides which one is "it". (S)he who hath brought forth the fairest proposal wins. That, mes ami, is a high stakes game of chicken.

Once again, fair warning, we're providing a stripped down approach to facilitate understanding.

So...what are the rules of the QEO?
1. Fringe benefits and contribution percentages must be maintained.
The district must maintain both the existing employee fringe benefits package and the district's percentage contribution effort to that package. So...benefits cannot be reduced, and if the district is trying to increase the percentage of employee contributions to things like health care, then the QEO is NOT an option.

2. The typical "step" increases that result from another year of teaching experience must be funded, to the extent possible based on the rules below. Sun Prairie includes step progressions of 3.0%, 3.3%, or 3.6% increases, depending on whether a teacher is in the "Bachelors", "Masters", or "PhD" lane of the funding highway.

3. The 3.8% rule. For a QEO offer to be valid, step one is that the offer must result in a 3.8% increase to the "total package" (the total cost of salaries + fringe benefits). A QEO offer has two components, the fringe benefit component, and the salary component. Fringe benefits must be increased at least 1.7% and salaries must increase at least 2.1%.

4. The 1.7% rule: fringe benefits. The district must provide for a benefit package increase which is at least 1.7% of the "total package". If the cost of maintaining current fringe benefit package is LESS than 1.7%, then the "savings" must be reflected in an increase to the salary portion of the offer. The 3.8% must always be maintained. So....switching to a different health care provider may make sense logically, but the district doesn't really save any money, as the savings are passed on to the other component of the QEO offer. For example, if switching health are providers actually results in a net 1% decrease in the cost of fringe benefits as a %age of the total package, then the salary component of a QEO offer would have to be 4.8% (-1.0% + 4.8% = 3.8%).

Conversely, if the cost of maintaining fringe benefits rises above 1.7% of the total package, then the salary portion begins to be gnawed away. If increasing health care costs mean that the cost of maintaining fringe benefits results in an increase of 2.5% to the total package, then the required salary increase component drops to 1.3%. Maintaining fringe benefits always comes first.

In a worst case scenario, if the cost of maintaining fringes exceeds the magic 3.8% mark, then the law allows the district to adjust the salary "grid" --for a 12-month period--to reflect a salary reduction for teachers. The amount of the reduction would be the amount necessary to offset the fringe benefit cost increase in excess of 3.8%. Just as those teachers with more tenure and in the higher "lanes" earn progressively more in salary, they stand to lose more (dollar-wise) in this worst-case scenario.

5. The 2.1% rule: salaries. This rule is to a large extent governed by the fringe benefit rule as outlined above. Barring an huge increase related to the cost of maintaining fringe benefits, the salary component of a QEO offer must reflect at least a 2.1% increase to the "total package". If the 2.1% cannot be offered due to fringe increases, then the first priority defaults to funding the annual step increases according to the rules established by the existing contract.

6. Pay the step increases, then provide "raises". If there is insufficient salary funding generated under the QEO to provide a full single step increase for each eligible employee, the amount of the required step increase must be prorated. The salary funds generated under the QEO that remain once the employer has provided for all step costs must then be used to fund general salary increases for all eligible employees in the bargaining unit.

7. The QEO means status quo; no lane reductions, no cutting steps . The salary range structure, number of steps, requirements for attaining a step, or assignment of a position to a salary range may not be modified unilaterally under a QEO. However, a school district employer and its represented professional employees may, by mutual agreement, decide to alter the existing salary range structure, number of steps, requirements for attaining a step, or the assignment of a position to a salary range. So, basically, if you want to change the grid, the QEO is not an option.

8. No penalty for changing lanes. Since July 1, 2001, the costs associated with any salary increases to eligible employees due to a promotion or the attaining of additional professional qualifications (generally referred to as "lane" progression) are no longer included under the salary component that must be funded within the QEO. As a result, any such amounts represent additional costs to the employer that are funded outside the QEO. This means that any teacher that has attained the necessary credits or degree to "change lanes" within a salary grid must be provided with the additional compensation associated with that move, and the cost of funding that increase is NOT a part of the QEO offer. That remains additional cost born by the district (and taxpayers).

In reality, most school districts do not stay within the QEO, agreeing to settlements in excess of the 3.8 percent limit. The WASB (Wisconsin Association of School Boards)reports that the average total package of salaries and benefits was 4.29% during 2006-07, 4.25% during 2005-06, and 4.31% during 2004-05. The percentages are higher than the rate of inflation, and more than likely are greater than increases provided in the private sector. (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen28/news/Press/2007/col2007-001.htm )

School Board Elections 2009: You DO have a Choice!

The school board' may NOT to desire to be engaged with the community, but thankfully, district resident John Welke wishes to be more formally engaged with the school board. Welke, a Town of Bristol resident, submitted his official papers declaring his intent to run as a "Write-In" candidate for school board.

Welke issued the following press release, which he has shared with SP-EYE. Welke touches on some very important issues for his platform:

• transparency of school district operations
• incorporate community residents' perspectives in decision-making
• incorporate teachers and support staff input in decision making
• a commitment to return half of his school board stipend to local school PTOs

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 23, 2009

Town of Bristol Resident announces write-in campaign for Sun Prairie School Board seat.

Town of Bristol Resident John Welke announced today that he will be running for one of the three available school board seats in the Sun Prairie Area School District. Welke, a 9 year resident of the school district filed his declaration paperwork today with the Filing Officer to make it official.

“I know that running for any office as a write-in candidate can be extremely challenging but I think that I have some great support and a good plan,” stated Welke. “Originally I was considering running for the School Board next year but at the urging of district residents I decided to run this year. Some may wonder why Welke did not fill out and submit nomination papers so that his name would be on the ballot. “Originally I thought that there were going to be one or two other qualified candidates but when that did not happen I starter looking into a write-in campaign” he responded. “Residents of this district deserve a choice and I think the most important thing that I bring to the table is a different perspective and an option when it comes time to vote” Welke added.

Welke who was very outspoken and active during the recent boundary changes feels that the time has come for change. “I believe that the Board should be looking for ways to actually incorporate the communities' input into decision making.” he stated. “They also should be seeking out ideas from teachers and support staff in the school district. In order to do this effectively the Board needs to create and environment where employees feel safe and that they are being listened to”, stated Welke. “Teachers and support staff have a front-line perspective on school district operations and I am disappointed that their ideas have not been sought more frequently” he added.

Transparency is also big issue for Welke. “The district and board needs to do a better job getting information out to the public.” Wisconsin's Open Meetings and the Public Records Law promote openness in government and to provide citizens with an opportunity to observe and educate themselves about their government's operations. “The Districts Public Meeting Notices need to get out sooner than 1-2 business days prior to the meetings and I would like to see more detail on the agenda items. I would also like to see more detailed meeting minutes so that the community and future School Boards have an accurate, detailed record of their discussions and activities” Welke added.

Welke has been a regular attendee to School Board and Committee meetings and has authored several Situation and Recommendations Reports that made their way onto the Board’s Agenda. “I know that there are some who will criticize me by saying I am a “one issue” candidate but my track records speaks for itself.” In the last year Welke authored three Situation and Recommendations Reports, one on the districts SAGE program and two on the most recent Boundary Changes. “It is important to take a good close look at these things and see if the program or decision is having the desired results. If it has not, the board and the district need to be accountable to that and look at other options to achieve those objectives.”

When asked about any campaign pledges, Welke stated that other than working hard for the district residents and children he only had one. “If elected, I am planning to take my Board stipend and at the end of the year, deducting the income tax owed on it, and then evenly distributing it out to each schools Parent/Teacher organization.” he stated. “Every year that I am a board Member after that I will take half of my stipend and do the same thing. I hope the other three candidates join me with this pledge.”

Welke lives in the Town of Bristol with his wife and two elementary aged children. He has been a sworn law enforcement officer with the State of Wisconsin for the past 20 years. He is a Board Member for the Sun Prairie Lacrosse Club and is the Town of Bristol Liaison to the Sun Prairie school district.

John Welke can be contacted by telephone at 825-7960 or by e-mail at johnmwelke@gmail.com.

---

WI School Funding 101

Now that the guv's budget plan has been released, we keep hearing rumors that the QEO might be lifted, or that revenue caps might be eliminated. One thing is certain is that Gov. Doyle has spoken strongly of a commitment to education. [Has anyone ever heard of a Governor being OPPOSED to education?] The discussion of the QEO and revenue caps is always an interesting one because the average Joe (and a many school board members, we think) doesn't really understand how schools are funded. And with school funding, the devil is in the details.

Fair warning: We don't profess to be experts, but we'd at least like to take a crack at summarizing the key issues and then point out some places where you can obtain more detail. This is designed to be a view from about 20,000 feet up, not a doctoral dissertation on the subject. Phil Frei is correct when he says that there's a ton of detail involved in these calculations. We run the risk of over-simplifying by limiting the discussion to major points vs. the minutiae. But we think the risk is worth taking the plunge.

2/3 Funding
Basic premise is that the state funds 2/3 of education costs. In reality, typically amounts to a maximum of about 55% because the “2/3” includes the “School Levy Credit”
which is paid directly to property owners. In Sun Prairie, the property tax levy accounts for about 52% of the "General Fund", which actually funds tthe education process itself. That means that we obtain only about 48% of the annual education costs in the form of "equalized aid" from the state.

The 2008-09 budget for Sun Prairie is a whopping $111.3M--but about $32M is for current construction projects . Of that total, thye main piece, $65.2M, is for the "General" fund, and about $30M of that comes from equalized aid from the state. In addition to the $65M, two other principal components are: Debt Service (pay for buildings)-$8.7M, Food Service- $2.3M

Districts with lower than average property values actually can receive >2/3, while “property-rich” districts receive less. "Property rich" districts, of which Sun Prairie is one, will typically receive what is termed "negative" tertiary aid.

Revenue Limits
Designed to control property taxes by limiting the amount of the tax levied by a school district. Further broken down into primary (first $1000/pupil funding), secondary (funding per pupil up to ~$8,300, and tertiary aids. Property rich districts (those with property value per pupil in excess of state average) actually lose funding -- known as "negative"tertiary aid. Sun Prairie is a "negative tertiary aid" district.

The biggest factor in determining the revenue limit is the number of students enrolled (as with everything else, there is a complicated calculation to obtain this number) and the number uses a 3-year average. Therefore, if a district adds 400 new students in a year (like with the 4K program), the revenue limit will only be increased based on 1/3 of that in the first year.

You can see why districts with declining enrollment are in serious financial trouble. Declining enrollment means a reduction in the revenue cap, and students don't decline in a manner that an equivalent number of teacher positions could be cut. This frequently leads districts to increase class sizes. Sun Prairie, of course continues to enjoy a bit of a luxury with steadily increasing enrollment. At some point, however, that enrollment will level off and eventually may even decline.

A school district can exceed revenue limits temporarily or permanently through referendum.
Sun Prairie had a referendum to exceed the revenue cap for 4-5 years when Horizon was opened. The recent pool referendum will allow Sun Prairie to indefinitely exceed revenue limit by about $300,000 annually to cover pool operation costs. Establishes maximum per pupil revenue ($9,835 for 2008-09). This amount increases about 2.1-2.3% annually ( up $274.68 for 08-09). The revenue limit for Sun Prairie for 2008-09

QEO Qualified Economic Offer)
Established w/1993-95 biennial budget. If school districts offer a combined package annual increase of 3.8% (2.1% salary; 1.7% benefits), teachers union must accept without arbitration. The QEO was conceptually designed to control salaries and benefits—the largest part (~80-83%) of a school district’s budget.

You've likely heard people say school funding is a "3-legged stool" and that lifting the QEO or lifting Revenue Caps would effectively cut one of the legs out from under the stool causing the whole system to collapse. Another term frequently heard is "structural deficit" caused by the QEO. The structural deficit is a term used to describe the increasing squeeze that occurs when the revenue limit is only increased by about 2.0 to 2.5% annually, while the QEO provision calls for a minimum increase of 3.8% to the largest portion of a school district's budget.

The graphic at right shows a fictional school district with a $50M revenue limit and salaries and benefits ("fringes" account for 80% ($40M) of the budget. This scenario shows what happens if NO CHANGE occurs to the system (NO change in the number of students, no referenda to exceed the cap). In this example, 15 years down the line, salaries and benefits eat up the entire allowable revenue limit. That means that long before 15 years, the district would be forced to take drastic measures such as a referendum to permanently exceed the revenue cap, shut down, or merge with another district. Now certainly there are other factors involved, and no district has a 15 year steady number of students.

So...have revenue limits and the QEO helped keep property taxes down? Sure. Is change needed? Most definitely. The problem at this point is that neither the QEO nor revenue limits can simply be eliminated without fear of another property tax explosion. It's a complicated problem that needs some serious thought before tinkering with it. School funding reform is needed, but we have to get it right. Trial and error is not going to work.

A few excellent resources on the subject:

School Funding position paper April 2007

School Funding FAQ

WEAC- What is the QEO?

Alliance For Strong Mequon-Thiensville Schools- School funding FAQ

Wisconsin Legislator Briefing Book 2009-10 (Chapter D - Education, Elementary-Secondary )

Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau - January, 2009 --Dispute Resolution Procedures
for Municipal Employees

Who REALLY Affects Student Achievement

Ok, so we've pointed out...a couple of times...the absurdity of the little mantra, "How Does This Affect Student Achievement?" that appears on the backside of school board members' nameplates. But we don't want to trivialize the issue, because while it may artificially elevate a school board member's sense of relevance in the grand scheme, it is a valid question. It's just not posited appropriately.

Just look at the hierarchy. How on earth can the board believe that they are really affecting student achievement?

Yes, the school board hires (once in a blue moon) the CEO (district administrator) of the business. And yes, the board approves the budget (although it is generated by district administration and most board members do NOT really look that deeply at it). And we KNOW the board creates policy (although once written said policies are frequently abandoned).

But WHO is actually doing the educating? Who puts the "connect" in "connectedness"? Is the board {No}? Culver{No}, district administrators {No}, the principals{No, not really}. Buried deep down in the chain are the ones in the trenches...the teachers and support staff. These are the people that are making a difference....every day. These are the people that can usually be inevitably identified as the very linchpin that keeps our kids from slipping off the axle.

It's election season. This is typically a time when school board candidates are out gladhanding, kissing babies, and shouting out "The children must come first". Of course this year, you likely will hear not a peep. Jeff Probst has made a special visit back from some remote area of the world untouched by civilization, to declare that all three incumbent school board members (Whalen, Shimek, and Slane....hey, does that sound like a law office for ambulance chasers, or what? ) are "safe" at tribal council. They run unopposed.

At the risk of starting a "chicken before the egg" argument, let's not any of us forget that it REALLY needs to be all about the teachers and support staff that work directly with the students to nurture their minds.

Oh...and since the school board now all regularly tune in to this channel, we can fully anticipate some statements at the board table Monday night designed to tell you to not believe what you read on some nasty blog site... that they really DO appreciate the teachers and support staff. Do they? We don't think that THEY get to be the judge of that. Sure, they hand out "Results Plus" awards on occasion....and that's nice and all. And maybe a $25 plant when a loved one passes on has meaning for a few days. But there are other, better ways to recognize and reward the ones that make or break the business of the school district.

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm".

Charles is in Charge Here. But...Who's Charles?

A school board is often likened to a board of directors for a company, with the District administrator being the CEO. The company, of course, is the school district. The company's business is to educate our children to properly prepare them for their future--be it to further their education or to transition directly into the workforce from high school. The stakeholders are us...the community who pay local property taxes a significant portion of which funds the company, and the state that provides the rest of the aid.

Typical duties of boards of directors include:

• Governing the organization by establishing broad policies and objectives
• Hiring, supporting, and reviewing the performance of the CEO
• Ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources
• Approving annual budgets
• Accounting to the stakeholders for the organization's fiscal and business performance

The relationship between the CEO and a board seems to be pretty clear cut. So...why, with respect to the Sun Prairie Area School District, does it seem like the tail is wagging this dog?

Why does District Administrator Tim Culver have a seat at "the big table"? Why doesn't he sit to the side (like his staff) to clearly demonstrate the line between employer and employee? Let the board govern as a board. By sitting at the right hand of the president (and frequently whispering to him) it's pretty clear how much influence Culver has.

Why does it frequently appear that in a somewhat passive aggressive manner, Culver tells the board what it is that they should (or should not) do? This is especially seen at board "working sessions", where Culver frequently offers input to the board on how to do their jobs...including how to evaluate HIS performance!

Why do some board members, particular the president, have what is frequently viewed as an overly chummy relationship with the district administrator? Most definitely, a strong working relationship is required, but the lines between employer and employee must not be blurred.

Why is it that managers beneath Culver continually "take one for the team"? If Culver is ultimately responsible, why it it that the fan never seems to blow the feces up to his level?

Why would the board extend Culver's contract for an additional year when there is still a year left? It's not like he's the Tom Brady of district administrators. And sometimes, when a school district struggles...as this one does...the need for a change in CEO should be seriously considered.

We're just askin'.

Boom Boom Boom...Out Go the Lights?

Ok... time for audience participation.
Raise your hand if you heard Phil Frei on TV 2 weeks ago --or read about him in the paper--saying that economic stimulus money (which will now soon be arriving) would pay for (drum roll) lights for the athletic fields at the new high school?

Read the Channel3000.com article
Play the video

School Security, Baseball Lighting Top Sun Prairie's Stimulus Wish List
District Could Potentially Get $2.2 Million
UPDATED: 9:29 am CST February 3, 2009

Phil Frei, the deputy district administrator and the man in charge of business operations for the district said:

"There's always those things we do, then there are those things we wish we could do but don't always have the funding for so those are the things it will help out with."
Frei said on the top of the Sun Prairie list is lighting for the new baseball and softball fields and track.
----Channel3000.com 2/3/09

Surely, lights for athletic fields was not what the president had in mind with this package!

What a difference 2 weeks make
Fast forward to this week's edition of the STAR. No mention of lights here!
2-12-09 STAR article on the stimulus package and Sun Prairie

"I understand the construction part of it. We can spend that money fairly quickly on construction," Frei said. "Our primary thing would be fixing the entrances to all the elementary and middle schools. So they have secured entrances like we do at Horizon and Creekside, and like the new high school and upper middle school will have."

We agree that security is most definitely in the best interests of all the kids and is what the stimulus package is all about. We've spoken with a number of folks in the district as well to hear their ideas for the stimulus money. Two recurring themes that come up are to make some much needed changes to the SOAR (Alternative Learning Center) and to make some changes to improve safety and the learning environment at Royal Oaks elementary. It's amazing what quality input district residents could provide to the school district and the school board--if only the board majority cared to listen.

Of course, a question we have is: Why the change in approach? Why were lights on the athletic fields suddenly not on "top of our wish list"? We didn't hear this discussed publicly at a board meeting....so when was it discussed? And...who gave the order to "tone down the lights on the athletic fields" statements? [ You ordered the lights out, didn't you, Colonel?! You're $#@% right I did!!!! ] Did it come from the board? Or Culver all on his own? Conspiracy theorists might suspect that this may have been an inappropriate topic for discussion at the close of one of those frequent "closed sessions" to expel a student or discuss personnel issues. [ If an issue that doesn't meet the criteria for closed sessions is discussed during a closed session, and there's no one from the public to hear it, has a violation of Open Meetings Laws occurred? ] And to think the board wonders why people are concerned about violations of open meetings laws!

SP-EYE: Sometimes we forget that school board members aren't endowed with special powers to have the right ideas on everything. All they did to sit at the big table is obtain 100 signature and manage to be elected....or selected as replacements.

Are lights needed on the new fields? Absolutely. Is the federal economic stimulus money really the right thing to be using for that purpose? We don't think so. But again, if only the school board would ask a few of its own teachers or residents, we're pretty sure that we could come up with a plan to get lights on those fields.

Factoid of the week: how many district residents knew that Royal Oaks elementary school is one of the last remaining "open" schools in the state (if not the country)? That's right...no hard walls between any of the classrooms! Bookshelves and bulletin boards serve as natural room dividers.

---

Same Old Song and Dance

Last Monday night, school board member Jim McCourt only served to corroborate the facetiously offered post suggesting that the new school board mantra is "You're wrong for thinking we're wrong...and that make you wrong twice".

After community resident--and school board gadfly---Rick Mealy suggested that by applying for a "21st Century Community Learning Center Grant" the school board was doing an about face on its commitment to balance socio-economic diversity in the schools, McCourt had two words for Mealy:

"You're Wrong!"
-Jim McCourt

In keeping with past board practice when a resident catches them with their pants down, McCourt tried to deflect from the substance of the input presented to the board. It's that old amateur magician's game of "don't look at what the left hand is doing, keep your eyes on the right hand."

McCourt took issue with Mealy's statement that the intent of these DPI grants was for schools to commit to a 5-year program . That only makes sense....you can't build a "21st Century Community Learning Center in only one school year! You can really only initiate the process and then continue it in future years.

We'll let the readers decide. The DPI application for the grant, 21st Century Community Learning Centers info, clearly states the following:

What is the length of the grant period?
"The DPI intends to make grant awards for five years to successful
applicants who demonstrate satisfactory progress. Annual grant awards will be made dependent upon availability of funds. For grantees who have demonstrated success during their five-year cycle of funding, continuation grants will be awarded to successful applicants for a three-year cycle.

So...yes, Mr. Court, you are technically correct: a school district can apply for the grant for ONE year and then choose to not re-apply the next year. See? We can be fair. We'll give you that.
But can you be equally giving and admit to the community what we both know to be true- that the DPI WANTS schools to continue this program for 5 or even 8 years?

The DPI is not in the business of awarding grants so that school districts can buy some really cool stuff and then walk away with a "Thanks for the cash, Stupid" arrogance. How exactly would THAT approach affect student achievement?

What McCourt--and none of the other board members would answer, was the actual question that was asked by not just Mealy, but community resident John Welke:

"What I'm concerned about is the mixed message the board and district are sending. On one hand, I hear you say balance the socioeconomics, and on the other hand, you seem to suggest that you're willing to accept schools are high poverty schools," - John Welke

At last, Dr. Culver answered the question indirectly,

" The grant is renewable every year for five years. I just can't see that by next August the boundaries are going to change. The next elementary school is four or five years out, the referendum is two or three years out, and you'll have to change boundaries anyways. Personally, whenever we
can provide direct services to kids, it's worth it."
--District Administrator Tim Culver

So there you have it. The answer is that no changes to the boundary mess or attempts to balance socio-economic diversity across the district will be implemented for at least 3 to 5 years---when we plan for the 8th elementary school.

Now that we know that, we can more loudly applaud Westside Principal Mueller's efforts to DO SOMETHING to help the high number of kids at Westside elementary caught in this middle of this issue.

Meeting Minutes Minutiae

The whole brouhaha over SOME citizens' comments at school board meetings (like maybe those that the district doesn't care for) being excluded (while others are not) from the attachments to school board minutes] has highlighted the issue of meeting minutes. As usual, this prompts a number of questions.

• What does the LAW require for minutes?
• What are the schools of thought regarding minutes?
• Is the school board consistent in how meeting minutes are prepared?
• Is meeting the minimum requirement for minute-taking in the best interest of the community--or even in the best interests of board members?

What does the LAW require for minutes?
The law does not mandate the keeping of detailed.
The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law COMPLIANCE GUIDE FEBRUARY 2007 says,

The open meetings law does not require a governmental body to take detailed minutes of its meetings. Other statutes, however, may impose such requirements. ...The open meetings law requires a governmental body keep a record of the motions and roll call votes at each meeting of the body. [Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3).] The recordkeeping requirement can be satisfied if the motions and roll-call votes are recorded and preserved on a tape recording. If a member of a governmental body requests that the vote of each member on a particular matter be recorded, a voice vote or a vote by a show of hands is not permissible unless the vote is unanimous and the minutes reflect who is present for the vote. The requirement applies to both open and closed session meetings. "Consent agendas," whereby a body discusses individual items of business under separate agenda headings, but takes action on all discussed items by adopting a single motion to approve all the items previously discussed, are likely insufficient to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3).

Dr. Culver adds [from a recent e-mail response to a resident on the issue]:

The concept of "yellow card" does not exist as policy. There are policies that may be relevant to your request. The first is POLICY BDA: BOARD MEETINGS, which states in part that, " The minutes will contain: 1) the kind of meeting; 2) the name of the society or assembly; 3) the date and time of the meeting; 4)the presence of the regular chairman and or secretary; 5) whether the minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved; 6) all main motions, including the wording of the motion and its disposition; 7) secondary motions that were not lost or withdrawn; 8) all notice of motions; 9) all points of order and appeals; and 10) the hour of adjournment." And further, "...The testimony by district residents, School Board member reports, and District Administrator reports will be recorded and available by request at the district office but will not be included as part of the official minutes."

What are the schools of thought regarding minutes?
As you may have guessed, there are 2 schools of thought: (1) that minutes should reflect the bare minimum: who was there, what motions were made, by whom, and what was the vote.

The other school of thought is that minutes should serve as a "trail of breadcrumbs", so to speak. They should capture the essence of discussions on each agenda item, paying particular attention to concerns or questions raised and how --or even IF---said concerns were to be addressed.

The following websites represent a sampling of both conventions:

http://www.managementhelp.org/boards/minutes.htm

http://www.secretarialsite.com/meeting-minutes-tutorial.htm

Minutes of Meeting Tutorial -
"Minutes are a record of the proceedings of a meeting e.g. who attended and did not, discussion that took place, action to be taken, time the meeting closed. "

http://www.effectivemeetings.com/meetingbasics/minutes.asp

How many times have your colleagues been confused or in disagreement about what happened in a meeting? With minutes to refer to, everyone is clear.
What most people don’t know is that meeting minutes shouldn’t be an exact recording of everything that happened during a session. Minutes are meant to record basic information such as the actions assigned and decisions made. Then, they can be saved and used for reference or background material for future meetings relating to the same topic.

http://www.meetingwizard.org/meetings/taking-minutes.cfm
Concentrate on getting the gist of the discussion and taking enough notes to summarize it later. Think in terms of issues discussed, major points raised and decisions taken.

Is the school board consistent in how meeting minutes are prepared?
Not completely, no.

The minutes from the meeting of the full board look different from minutes coming out of board committees. In fact, we LIKE the minutes recorded by the Education & Policy committee (chaired by John Whalen). The minutes of those meetings effectively capture key discussion points during the meeting.

Compare the minutes from a recent school board (of how much use are these in capturing how they got to where they did?) to minutes from a recent Education & Policy school board committee meeting (way to go, John Whalen! These clearly capture the discussion and concerns voiced). We--the community can clearly see (transparency of government, folks) and follow along with the thought process involved (or ignored, or not even considered) in making a decision. [SP-EYE- Anyone want to bet that there will be a drastic change in the how the minutes for the Ed&Policy are recorded from now on? Hmmm...we wonder how that little communique will take place. Think da Prez will give Johnnie a call at home and urge him ---off the record--- to change things? Or will Culver call on the carpet the District staffer who records/writes the minutes and "counsel" them in the proper taking of minutes? ]

Is meeting the minimum requirement for minute-taking in the best interest of the community--or even board members?

Sun Prairie prides itself for being a leader, but we've seen in a number of instances that the school district seems to prefer taking the "bare minimum" approach. During discussions about compliance with SAGE, Dr. Culver's comments clearly reflected doing the absolute minimum to remain in compliance. After several days of no school due to weather, Dr., Culver stated that a "day of school" had to be made up, but went on to state that DPI minimal requirements to count as a "day of learning" were to have 4 hours of school...so that's what Culver did...hold school for the morning ONLY of a recent Friday that was scheduled to be a day of no-school. At the last school board meeting when several residents spoke about about their comments being excluded from the minutes while others were not, Dr. Culver again emphasized what the law requires as a minimum and that the school board minutes meet that minimal requirement.

Board members...how does this [philosophy of doing the bare minimum to get by] affect student achievement? If you think the kids aren't watching, you've got another think coming. This "do as we say, not as we do" mentality has to stop.

It's All About the Benjamins - Grant $$ Trumps Socio-economic Inequities

Nearly a year. Countless meetings. Formation of a "Diversity Task Force". Wait...that was voted on...but did that ever really happen?

Oh the board TALKED a good game about the need to balance socio-economic diversity. In fact...wasn't that one of THE major issues in the Boundary Wars fiasco? How the board wanted to balance the number of free/reduced price lunch students among its schools so that no one (or two) schools had a disproportionate number of socio-economically challenged kids?

All that seems to have gone up in smoke as the Education & Policy Committee approved/forwarded the "21st Century Community Learning Centers" grant proposal to the full school board for this Monday, February 9,009. That's right...money talks and balancing diversity can take a walk.

We'd give you the link...but this wonderful new $50K BoardDocs program really doesn't facilitate such a thing. Hmmmm. So all we can tell you is to check out the agenda item via BoardDocs, "21st Century Community Learning Center Grant ". It's under the "Consent Items" portion of the agenda.

We'd encourage you to have your voice heard on the issue...you know...fill out one of those (now) infamous yellow cards that double as a "Miracle Ear" so that the secretary can hear what you say.

But...you know what...the topic appears under "Consent Items", which means the board votes unanimously to approve everything contained under that heading. So likely, you needn't waste precious time. You should probably read to or talk with your kids instead. The chances that any school board member has sufficient spinal structural integrity to request that this grant be pulled out of "Consent Items" and discussed seriously is about as likely as the economy rebounding completely tomorrow.

If you're a glutton for punishment...here is the key information form the Situation Report:

HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS:
Rick Mueller, Westside Elementary Principal, submitted this grant application in partnership with the YMCA of Dane County, requesting $99,900 to establish a Community Learning Center at Westside Elementary during the 2009-2010 school year. Westside is the only school currently eligible to apply for this grant based on the present level of economically disadvantaged students (43%).The project would include:

• Before and after school care for students in K-5 including startup costs
• Academic interventions after school in reading and math
• Nutrition and fitness activities
• Lessons in personal care
• ATODA lessons
• Addition of assistive technology at Westside
• Expansion of the Watchdogs volunteer program
• Monthly service learning projects
• Financial literacy activities
• Opportunities to spend time with volunteers
• Parenting classes for parents
• Financial literacy classes for parents
• Evening computer lab access for parents and students
• Professional development for Westside faculty and staff
• Transportation assistance to guarantee equal access for economically disadvantaged

The purpose of this grant is to close achievement gaps amongst Westside students and to provide learning opportunities for parents and caregivers that support and strengthen families.

Read the grant requirements from DPI
Grantees completing a five-year cycle of funding may apply for a continuation grant for a maximum of three additional years. Budgets for continuation grants should be based upon $75,000 in year one, and $50,000 each in years two and three. Note that several sections of the application ask specific questions of applicants eligible for a three-year continuation grant.

What is the length of the grant period?
The DPI intends to make grant awards for five years to successful applicants who demonstrate satisfactory progress. Annual grant awards will be made dependent upon availability of funds. For grantees who have demonstrated success during their five-year cycle of funding, continuation grants will be awarded to successful applicants for a three-year cycle.

MAKE NO MISTAKE--We think applying for grants is a wonderful thing. Certainly, the projected uses of the grant funding all go towards excellent educational objectives. You can't argue against the benefits for Westside students, and we commend Mr. Mueller for looking into this. On the other hand, we have to balance the idea of THIS one grant with the understanding that committing to this grant means that Westside's percentage of free/reduced price lunch-eligible kids cannot drop below 40% during the 5-year grant cycle. The current level is 43%. It does not take much influx or efflux of students to drop that level below 40%. And then we'd be scrambling to justify continued funding using some other rationale. More to the point, what happened to the board's commitment to balancing the per-school socio-economic percentages district-wide? Guess what? This means the board is not going to ANYTHING to address the socio-economic diversity...at least not at Westside.

SP-EYE's take - Well...the grant only lasts 5 years---with significant reduction in funding each year. Maybe in 5 years the board will re-consider dealing with the socio-economic diversity in our schools. Can't you just hear that loon Howie Mandel asking: The banker is offering $100,000 if you'll forget about balancing diversity and keep Westside Elementary at a level of least 40% free/reduced price lunch-eligible kids. DEAL? or NO DEAL? Does it seem inherently wrong to WANT to keep the number of free/reduced price lunch eligible kids at at least 40% of the total Westside enrollment? Anyone?

---

Inside Edition: Events Linked to Paul Keats' Resignation

Many have wondered. We've received calls, e-mails and personal inquiries. Everyone seems to know that something unsavory went down, but no one has all of the pieces. Those at the district would rather not have the details see the light of day. They silently ask why would someone want this information?; they suggest an invasion of Mr. Keats' privacy. And while we respect Mr. Keats' needs, we have to balance those needs against them the public's right to know what in tarnation is going on at the high school.

WHY, on the cusp of opening a sparkling new high school, did Mr. Keats resign?
DID Mr. Keats resign willingly...or was it one of those backroom, "resign...or else" deals?
DID something happen that places the over 1700 kids at Sun Prairie High School in danger?

Parents have a right to know. More to the point, when you smell that aroma of doggie fecal excrement, one's natural inclination is to check one's shoes. With all that has transpired, has the district possibly stepped in it once again?

We have NO information---yet---of any personnel matter that might explain the sudden resignation of Mr. Keats. In fact, SP-EYE has no personal issues against Mr. Keats. Maybe he did something (or DIDN'T) do something that precipitated all of this. But we're bottom line people...and the bottom line is when something stinks as badly as this, the place needs to be aired out. Therefore, we have obtained the following information. It represents a very interesting and rapid-paced timeline. All have been documented. We have obtained copies. Read into it what you will.

January 12, 2009 - "Resignation Agreement" between the District and Paul Keats
This is a 6-page contractual agreement (wonder what THAT cost in legal fees!). The highlights are as follows:

• Resignation is effective 6-30-09. Resignation is offered to either (a) accept another position in the district or (b) pursue employment elsewhere.


• Allows Keats to prepare HIS OWN public statement regarding his resignation which must be approved by the district and shall be [emphasis added] the ONLY such statement. [exactly WHO gets to author their own resignation-related press release??!!]


• Keats' contract and duties remain until 6-30-09, with the exception of renewal/non-renewal provisions.


• Keats wishes to assume another position within the district. Tim Culver shall not object to Keats filling any position in the District other than a position at the high school. Yet nothing shall preclude Keats from applying for and accepting a position at the High School.


• Assuming Keats stays on through June 2009, his health benefits will be paid through August 2009. This includes $150 per pay period he is paid in lieu of health insurance coverage.


• The District agrees to provide Keats with a mutually agreeable reference letter on District letterhead, signed by Tim Culver.


• Following placement of the letter of reference in his personnel file, no further documents regarding Keats' performance shall be placed into his personnel file.


• In return for this agreement, Mr. Keats "irrevocably and unconditionally releases, waives and fully forever discharges the District [and all its agents] from all claims....", etc. [ a string of 12 nouns ensues] "of any nature whatsoever.


• Keats agrees to use all unused vacation days prior to June 30, 2009 or forfeit them. Interestingly enough, if Keats accepts any other employment prior to June 30, 2009, he gets paid $421.91 per diem for each unused day.


• The District signature on the agreement is difficult to decipher and there is no typewritten name or title. It is not Tim Culver's signature. It looks like it could be that of Board president David Stackhouse.

[SP-EYE: We wish Mr. Keats the very best of luck. We've also never seen such a thing as this "resignation agreement". All we can say is, "Wow."]

January 12, 2009 - Letter of Recommendation for Paul Keats from Tim Culver
Interesting. The letter is stamped "DRAFT", although a request for all final documents was made. Key excerpts from the letter:

• "Few principals can equal [Keats] in his application of effort and attention to detail."


• In my opinion, the following aspects of Paul's job performance have been consistently 'exemplary' [quotes appear in the original document]: [includes a bulleted list of 7 demonstrative skills]


• Concludes with, "Paul's experience, knowledge, intelligence, and organizational skills serve as the technical foundations for a quality school administrator. I recommend him for any school management position matching the needs for these attributes."

January 12, 2009 - Letter of Resignation from Paul Keats
Key excerpts include:

• "I believe my leadership has added to the fabric of the learning community and I am pleased of the work I have done."


• "I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead for me. Perhaps my path will intersect with the Sun Prairie Area School District again in the future. "

January 12, 2009 - School Board Minutes of 1-12-09
The minutes of the January 12, 2009 school board meeting show that at 9:03 pm the school board moved to go into closed session "for the purpose of discussing administrative personnel issues". "The result of the vote was: Unanimous. " At 9:25 pm, the meeting was adjourned. Action take during the closed session was "TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF PAUL KEATS". The motion was made by Stackhouse and seconded by Diedrich. "Motion carried".

SP-EYE - Note that when you make a motion it means that you support the motion. The motion "carried" [emphasis added]. Note very carefully the distinctly different results of the two votes. The phrase "motion carried" usually is used to indicate that a majority (but not all) voted in favor of the motion. It CAN be synonymous with a unanimous vote, but typically such a voted would be expressed as it was on the motion to go into closed session. We suspect that one or more board members did NOT support accepting Keats' resignation.

January 13, 2009 - Letter form the District to Paul Keats
From Annette Mikula, Executive Director of Human Resources. Confirms Keats' resignation.

January 13, 2009 - Principal position opening created on the Sun Prairie website
Effective July 1, 2009.

January 26, 2009 - Keats' resignation announced via e-mail to Sun Prairie "Key Communicators"

OK...so based on the Resignation Agreement, Keats clearly wants to continue on in Sun Prairie. And Tim Culver just as clearly does not want Keats at the High school. It just doesn't smell right that all these things transpired on January 12th...ONE day. We all know that our district administration and school board RARELY move at such speeds. Heck...it took them a week to clear snow and ice from the SOAR sidewalk!!!!Even if Mr. Keats was just having some doubts and voluntarily tendered his resignation out of the blue (which we doubt), logic would suggest that the District would have counseled him to take some time. Not here. The bullet train immediately left the station and then the engine was sabotaged so it could not possibly start up again. So, it makes you wonder... did Keats really resign...or was this all precipitated by a notification --or a verbal discussion--in which Keats was told that his contract was not going to be renewed after June 30, 2009? As some of you know...a "Notice of Non-Renewal of Contract" must be placed on file with DPI....and THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is most certainly the equivalent of an educational arena "black ball"

$36,000 to fix a $59 problem

Pop quiz time: How much does it cost to clear the ice from the sidewalk outside the high school's "Alternative Learning Center (aka S.O.A.R. building, old old Junior High school)after a late December storm?

Answer: $36,000 per year.

Kinda makes NASA and their $500 hammers sound like a good deal, doesn't it?

As always, there's a lot more to this picture than meets the eye. It all started with preparations for the Jan 26, 2009 meeting of the school board's Finance committee.

Citizen representative Rick Mealy (and possibly others on the committee) submitted a request for more information to Business Services Manager Rhonda Page for more information on check # 91714. The information available at the time was:

Check # 91714
Payable to: Treasurer, City of Sun Prairie
Date: 1/8/09
Amount: $58.60
Description: BG (Buildings & Grounds) Sidewalk Citation

Fast forward to the committee meeting. When asked to explain this "ticket", Phil Frei's initial response was, "Yeah...I'm really kind of surprised that the City would have issued this ticket".
Whoa....hold on there! Yes, we have a "partnership" with the City to share some costs and equipment, but isn't the safety of our kids and other district residents of paramount importance?

Upon further questioning regarding how such a thing could have happened ("It was over the holidays...", "...we didn't have staff...") Mr. Frei then told us that the ALC/SOAR building (previously) did not have a custodian. So they subsequently hired one. This appeared in the January 12th Personnel report to the school board:

Title: Lead Day Building Custodian (if there wasn't one to begin with and we didn't hite TWO, who exactly are they "leading"?)
Former Incumbent: New (that means we never had a custodian there previously)
Base Salary: $17.11/hr ($35,600/yr)

We know. Oh...we know....this raises SO many questions doesn't it? Like:

• How did we clear snow and ice from previous storms?
• Do we need a full-time custodian just to clear the snow and ice?
• And if we needed a custodian for more than just snow and ice removal...why didn't we have a custodian for this building up till now?
• Does this lend any credence to talk that the ALC is considered a red-headed stepchild of the district? ....which would be absolutely shameful to say the least
• Who was responsible for this task during all those storms earlier in December?
• Is asking why the City would have cited the District an appropriate response?

Wait...it gets better! The interesting thing about citations is that you can't name an "entity" like the Sun Prairie Areas School District". They have to name an individual. So...who should be named? You're thinking back to that meeting this fall when Dr., Culver announced, "I am accountable for what goes on in this District", right? You're thinking that the ticket was issued to Tim Culver, aren't you? Wrong! (annoying buzzer sound). Take a look at the copy of the citation. Who got tossed in front of the bus this time: none other than Buildings & Grounds Manager, Tom Brooks. Thanks for taking one for the team, Tom! [SP-EYE: this DOES seem to happen quite a bit, doesn't it? Chad Wiedmeyer took one for the science classroom issue last fall, Gwen King took one for the yellow card fiasco, and now Mr. Brooks takes one for the sidewalk. Who's really accountable here? With all these district employee-bus collisions, shouldn't the DOT be investigating the need for a traffic light?]


And let's not blame the city for this. The assistant city Building/Plumbing Inspector should be absolved of any "blame" here. He was doing his job. The ALC is located in a high traffic area, and we all know that there was a lot of ice around. We HAVE to be concerned about the safety of our kids and area residents. And, when you ask the right questions of the right people, you learn that the city gave the District quite a bit of grace in getting the situation dealt with. The last snowfall was December 28, 2008.
http://www.cityofsunprairie.com/docs/category.php?department_id=8&category_id=3710

The district was alerted on Friday Jan. 2. The district was informed that this was a "Severe Hazard" situation , which means that they had 2 hours to remedy the problem. Monday, Jan. 5 was the first day. Note the date of the picture at right. The city inspector returned to the scene not on Monday, but on Tuesday Jan. 6. to snap this picture as documentation that NOTHING had changed! Then the ticket wasn't even written up until January 8!

No one was available to resolve this? That's not typically the case. In fact, we received an e-mail regarding another situation where a custodian went out of his way and came in on his own time to make sure walkways were safe.

" I know my custodian came in on his own time Sunday and salted
just to break up what he could because he cares so much, but even that only had
a small effect on the ice. The entire city and community are dealing with very icy conditions and we are trying to do everything we can to keep everyone safe..."

So...how did this happen? How did we have NO custodian at the ALC? Don't those kids (and staff) deserve one? Several years back, the ALC housed only a handful of kids, but now the numbers are typically in the 70-80 range of students, and the program has a dedicated principal. This may be an "Alternative" Learning Center...but custodial activities should not have had to be dealt with by "alternative" means.

[SP-EYE: Yes, we realize that things like a $59 citation mean nothing to a $65M operating budget, but they DO add up. And in this case, it actually added $36,000 per year to taxpayer costs. We're not saying that hiring a custodian wasn't necessary. We're just wondering: How were these responsibilities dealt with since the beginning of school, and why WASN't there a custodian to begin with? We're just sayin'....]

---

Mill rate projected to rise ~ $1.00 for 2009 tax bills

At the 1-26-09 meeting of the school board's Finance committee, committee members were presented with a snapshot of budget projections for the next several years.

During 2009 we can expect to see expenses rise as the district borrows at least the 2nd $32M installment for the new high school (and upper middle school) construction. In addition, we may be seeing borrowing for the pool, and definitely will be seeing the costs of start-up of the 4 yr old kindergarten program (SP 4 Kids)