Changing of the Guard

Last night the school board held their annual officer elections. The STAR will carry the final results, of course; but (as is usually the case) the tale is not really told by results alone. The silence among audience members was palpable. The body language and facial features of board members, as the results were sequentially tallied, spoke volumes.


Rod Stewart once sang about how "every picture tells a story". Well, folks, this is one school board cable replay or DVD you do not want to miss. The board members finally are starting to show signs that they get it....that they understand what the community is looking for in terms of leadership on the school board.

This board clearly understood that the community wanted a change in leadership. David Stackhouse was not voted in for any officer position; nor was Caren Diedrich. In fact, look carefully at the vote totals. There's a story within this story. So...the board listened. Now, we get to see if they'll listen to the other messages we are sending.

Congratulations to John.e.Boy Whalen for compounding the interest on his election winnings. And congratulations to the other officers as well. How about a NEW start where you listen more carefully and not just nod your heads, feign concern, and then just vote the way administration recommends. How about--this year-- you consider what the community who elected you desires?

Will Stackhouse be Voted President Again?

The school board will elect its officers for 2009 tomorrow night. Will David Stackhouse continue to reign supremely? As we ponder that possibility, we recall the moments before a special school board meeting held just days after Stackhouse ousted MaryEllen Havel-Lang as president in 2007. Passing by a couple of district residents who congratulated him on his new role, Mr. Stackhouse offered his ring and (tongue firmly in cheek?) asked if they wanted to kiss it.

Pleading mea maxima culpa to Mssrs. Lennon and McCarthy....

Let me tell you how it will be
I'm the one for you,
board president I'll be
'Cause I'm the Staxman,
yeah, I'm the Staxman

Playing the "Single Source Vendor" Card

Recently re-elected school board member John Whalen stated very clearly during his STAR interview,

"The school board is responsible for setting policy to give direction to the school district. We're policy makers and it's up to the administration to figure out procedures on how it gets done, and that flows down to the principals and the staff," Whalen said. "That's, I guess, my style. Some people get caught up in wanting to micromanage the individual areas, and I see this as more of an oversight position."

What we're wondering however is, at what point does the aversion to MICROmanaging become so great that no managing at all is the end result?

First we have no record that the board has received quarterly bid reports discussed in a previous post. In addition, along the continued theme of competitive bidding, we have yet another board policy that is being ignored.

Way back in October 2006, the discussion of architects for elementary #7 (Creekside) came before the FT&T committee. The committee was prepared to simply name Bray Associates as the architect without any bidding until a citizen and a board member commented on that move.

The simple questions asked were.

"How does simply handing Bray Architects a contract without competitive bidding a fiscally sound decision?

How can we be sure that we will get the best design that will be cost-effective while meeting our elementary space needs?

How do you hand Bray a contract when your own policy requires competitive bidding on all contracts of this magnitude?"

The answer came from--of all people-- Caren Diedrich, who responded that by virtue of having done work on all Sun Prairie schools, they essentially met the criteria of "single source vendor" that allows an exemption from competitive bidding.

Wow! With that line of thinking, Caren, you should be in Congress, not the school board!!!!

The issue was voted on at the October 23, 2006 school board meeting. Voting "NO" (meaning they felt that competitive bidding WAS necessary)were former school board members Jim Gibbs and Steve McHoes. Voting to just hand all architectural work to Bray Architects were current board members John Whalen, Caren Diedrich, David Stackhouse, and former board members MaryEllen Havel-Lang and Cheryl Batterman.

Hmmm...seeing as the "AYES" represent only THREE current board members, it seems this issue should be raised once again to the full board.

Eschewing common sense in deciding NOT to require competitive bidding for architectural services seems a stretch to any clear thinking individual. It's almost like Sun Prairie is immersed as the central focus of a special edition version of the popular role playing card game "Magic- The Gathering". Perhaps we are under the influence of a magic spell in the form of a "Single Source Vendor" card, which someone has played???

Quick! Someone call the police! The board's common sense has been stolen!

Board members, your policy and procedures are clear:

POLICY DJ PURCHASING
1. Bidding Approval
The Board shall approve any bids or quotations as required by state or federal law, and all quotations and/or bids greater than $25,000, except as otherwise provided. Any bid needing Board approval will first go to a Board sub-committee, when practical, for approval and then to the Board, unless it is an emergency purchase.

2. Budget and Purchases
All school district purchases shall conform to the current fiscal year budget. All unbudgeted purchases shall be submitted to the School Board for approval.

3. School Board Oversight
The Finance Committee shall ensure that all district purchases are in compliance with board policy, the proposed or approved budget, and state and federal laws, then forward their recommendations to the School Board. A quarterly report will be given to the School Board on bid items between $10,000 and $24,999.


---------------------------------------------------
PROCEDURE DJ-R(1) PURCHASING PROCEDURES
B. BIDS OR QUOTATIONS
1. Bids are not required for:
a. Instructional materials such as textbooks, books, tapes, films, workbooks, educational kits, periodicals, computer software and audiovisual materials.

b. Miscellaneous and operational supplies less than $5,000 or replacement parts for existing equipment where the value of the replacement parts are estimated to be less than 50 percent of the total value of the equipment.

c. Prices from single source vendors.

[SP-EYE: Single source vendors, more commonly termed "sole source" vendors is not often defined, since its definition is intuitive. Seeing, however, that we appear to be in need of a definition in policy, let's explain it for the board. A "sole source" vendor is essentially the only vendor in the world who manufactures or markets a particular "widget". Since Bray Architects is certainly not the only architectural firm in the world, architectural services cannot fall under the "single source" exemption. Caren Diedrich's claim that Bray's knowledge of the schools makes them a soul source vendor is moot at best. Since we own the drawings, ANY architect can use existing drawings to re-design anything. Perhaps, however, we COULD always spend some taxpayer dollars and solicit a legal opinion that will defend your approach. ]

3. The District Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to purchase any single item or a quantity of the same item costing more than $5,000 but less than $25,000 upon the solicitation of at least three written bids.

4. Except as provided in sub-section 1, no purchases shall be made for supplies, services, or equipment costing $5,000 or more unless competitive quotations or bids for those items are obtained, provided the purchase is a budgeted item and the purchase is approved by the Board.

So...Mr. Whalen....will you now explain to the community why you voted on awarding architectural contracts in violation of policy?

Oh, and meanwhile we have a number of checks currently being written to Bray Associates for "architectural services rendered" for the pool, the 8/9 Upper Middle schoo, and the 10-12 High School projects. Things that make you go "hhhhmmmmmmm". Of course, the board's position is that since Bray did the original design work (without having to bid), they of course should work on any refinements.

Is Lack of Oversight an Oversight?

Who's the captain of this ship? In theory, it's David "I'm a Leader Not a Follower" Stackhouse, current board president .

Well, Captain....your board policy says that the board will receive a quarterly report of all bid items between $10 and $25K.

Since this quarterly report has not been included with any board package, are we to conclude that you aren't following this policy?

Or is it that you aren't following the policy which specifies that bids are required?

---

POLICY DJ PURCHASING
1. Bidding Approval
The Board shall approve any bids or quotations as required by state or federal law, and all quotations and/or bids greater than $25,000, except as otherwise provided. Any bid needing Board approval will first go to a Board sub-committee, when practical, for approval and then to the Board, unless it is an emergency purchase.

2. Budget and Purchases
All school district purchases shall conform to the current fiscal year budget. All unbudgeted purchases shall be submitted to the School Board for approval.

3. School Board Oversight The Finance Committee shall ensure that all district purchases are in compliance with board policy, the proposed or approved budget, and state and federal laws, then forward their recommendations to the School Board. A quarterly report will be given to the School Board on bid items between $10,000 and $24,999.

Chickety Ch-Check Yourself...Before you Wrickety Wreck Yourself

The school board's Finance Committee is desperately in need of a major overhaul. This committee is charged with fiscal oversight of the school district's $65M budget. Certainly, some aspects of the committee are working. One aspect of the committee's duties that is decidedly dysfunctional, however, is the whole issue of "Check Approval".

The district writes hundreds of checks each month, totalling millions of dollars. In fact, the check total for the April 13, 2009 meeting was a whopping 400+ checks for over $9.5M. One of the reasons that the Finance Committee meets twice each month is so that checks can be "approved" twice each month, instead of piling up.

The one definition of "approve" to which the school board apparently subscribes to is the concept of rubber stamping approval of checks. The committee can ask for additional information about checks, but the only action they have at their disposal is to Approve". There is no "Not Approved" or "Rejected" button.

Perhaps what's really needed is to add (what many thought was intuitively part of this process already) the words, "Review and ..." in front of "Approve Checks". When your bank statement comes in each month, one hopes that you review it for accuracy, rather than just "approve" it by filing it away untouched. Occasionally, banks (and check processors) DO make mistakes. In our own homes, by reviewing one's statement, one occasionally might learn that one's spouse has gone out and purchased some toy or other which the "management team", so to speak, had not jointly agreed. Regardless of the situation, the proper procedure is to review the check register, ask the difficult (but necessary) clarifying questions, and THEN "approve", those checks that qualify, for payment.. In rare instances, we CAN find that unacceptable purchases had been made.

Check writing is the world's most fertile ground for misappropriation of funds. We say that because it's a fact. Your school board will get either defensive or queasy about this topic. But that attitude is what has gotten numerous businesses--and school districts--into trouble. Don't believe us? Try googling "school district" along with unsavory terms like "embezzlement". We are NOT suggesting that any of our district employees are dishonest. In keeping with the principles of "trust but verify", however, it is simply common sense to build visible, structured, and defensible systems to monitor the check writing process. It has been shown time and time again that the best deterrent to financial shenanigans is to have a very visible, operative system that checks and double checks things. Look, we all understand that bad things sometimes happen to good people. And what follows is that sometimes basically good people make poor decisions. Usually, however, when it comes to financial accounting, the probability of someone reaching for the forbidden fruit is inversely proportional to the perceived level of deterrent activities. Some of you know exactly what we're talking about...right?

OK...this is getting too serious. Time for some levity. Remember that old "Knock Knock" joke?

Joker: Knock. Knock.

Target: Who's there?

Joker: Banana.

Target: Banana who?

Joker: Knock. Knock.
Target: Who's there?
Joker: Banana.

this repeats until sensing frustration, the joker finally changes to:

Joker: Knock. Knock.
Target: Who's there?
Joker: Orange

Target: Orange who?

Joker: Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

Where are we going with this? Well...this joke is so very much like an ongoing discussion within the school board's Finance Committee between Caren Diedrich and citizen representative Rick Mealy. Except it goes something like this.

Mealy: I move to separate check numbers "X" and "Y" for a separate approval vote.

Diedrich: So...you're voting to not approve those checks. But the services have been rendered. We need to pay the vendors.

Mealy: Caren, are you telling me that my only option is to approve ---to rubber stamp--- all checks?

Diedrich: We can't not pay a vendor who has provided the district with something.

Mealy: Oh but we can. The board/district CAN make whoever made an inappropriate purchase reimburse the district. Perhaps the school board should take the employee who made the inappropriate purchase on an all expenses paid trip to the " 'Splaining Room ". Perhaps the employee needs to pay for the item out of his/her pocket. This is the only way people will learn what is and what is NOT an appropriate purchase.

The problem is that neither the school board nor the Finance Committee offer any option or protocol to "not approve" any particular check for payment. Even if there's 1 or 2 dissenting votes on a check at the Committee level, the full school board then unanimously rubber stamp approves full payment an hour or so later at the board meeting. There's no dis-incentive for anyone that violates rules governing spending. In fact, the "rules" themselves are loosey goosey at best.

The procurement system (and not just checks) needs to be re-worked from the top on down. Rules need to be established and followed. There has to be consequences for those that don't follow the rules. The Management Team needs to be the enforcers, so the school board does not have to micro-manage. And lastly, the Finance Committee has to develop a real, sound policy for reviewing and validating checks being generated. Payment --by the taxpayers--must not be an absolute. Yes. it will be tough to do this. But good things don't come easily.
- Rick Mealy

You get the point. This discussion has gone on at too many Finance Committee meetings to count. What makes the whole process so ridiculous is, as Mealy pointed out to Diedrich this past week: "Caren...you have the votes. It's going to be a 3-1 vote to approve these checks as it always is. You're gonna win. So why continue to argue this?" Mealy then suggested that if Diedrich didn't like his approach of voting to not approve certain checks then perhaps she could suggest some other alternative approach that would address the issue.

This past week was a little different; Diedrich actually responded to Mealy in their regular "Point - CounterPoint" session that she "would have to think about a way to cope with this". We'll see what THAT means.

No Policy. No Procedure.

Here's what really underscores the issue. "Checks" is an agenda item at EVERY Finance Committee and School Board Meeting. In fact, Finance Committee members are told to submit their "check questions" to Rhonda Page in advance of the Finance Committee meeting (preferably on Friday....geee we wouldn't want folks to take too much time to review 400 checks, eh?). Of course the check runs aren't even available until late on Thursday. Usually check questions don't come in until the weekend or early Monday. Then a response is provided by Rhonda, typically between 4:00 and 5:00 pm on Monday...often less than an hour or two prior to the meeting. Nothing like having no preparation time...right?

You know what's great? For such a detailed procedure, it doesn't exist in ANY of the board's policies or Administration's procedures! In fact, "check approval" doesn't even appear as one of the Finance Committee's duties and responsibilities in Policy BCE.

Of course, we're just waiting for the school board's response to be something like, "You're right. Check Approval does NOT exist in policy....so we're going to discontinue the practice. We're taking bets that this is their response to resolve this problem. Any takers?

SP-EYE: This is yet another example of where school board members like JohnE Whalen hide behind the "Micro-management" immunity shield. It's their carte blanche to do nothing. And it's wrong. Current (and past) practice is not how these board members would handle their personal finances (gulp...we hope) or their businesses. And it's not how the school district should operate either.

How Wrong Is This? ...Let Us Count the Ways

First...let's be crystal clear upfront in very simple terms:
1. AcaDec good.
2. AcaDec preparation past practice "policy" bad.

What is AcaDec? It's the Academic Decathlon...a kind of Survivor Meets Who Wants to be a Millionaire without the desolate territory, poor hygiene (well....we guess that depends...), and the Million Dollar Prize. It's a fast-paced, oral and written exam based school competition that begins at the local level, progresses to Regionals, then States, and finally to a National Competition. We think this AcaDec concept is great as a sports-alternative club/team building opportunity. Where we draw the line, however is the costs that have gone into it because of "past practice" (see what happens when you aren't informed as to how tax dollars are being spent?)

OK...so why is it so wrong? For starters, how about $1,575 in hotel room costs for a 3 night WEEKEND stay (Sat., Sun., Mon,) for a competition that is (A) about 10 miles away, and (B)began Monday morning and ended Tuesday afternoon? OK...if the contest were in some distant land like Hedapimp, Idaho...and they needed to get settled the night before...then fine. But this was in MADISON during the week!

Oh...and toss in $132 for a brunch for 10 students and 1 advisor. We'll do the math for you...that's $12.00 apiece! And the board has imposed a $6.00 per meal limit for staff? Oh...wait...that doesn't include students!


Administration was asked to provide more information on this expense. Rhonda Page, SP Business Manager, responded with the following:

3 day hotel stay for Academic Decathlon: This is the response we got from [Athletic Director] Jim McClowry: Sun Prairie is one of the schools that doesn't tie the Acadec program to a semester class. Instead the kids essentially take 3 days to "cram" a semesters work into those days. They work from dusk until dawn to prepare for the event during those days. As this information was given to the School Board in prior years, the practice was continued this year. If so directed by the School Board, this practice will be eliminated. Management Team will be revisiting this topic in the near future.

REALLY?! So now Administration is tossing the BOARD under the bus? It's the Board's fault? Because they were asleep at the wheel and rubber stamped this like they do everything else? OK. You're right. It IS their fault. It is the board's duty to rein in wayward administrative spending. Of course, since the administration is, in theory, composed of intelligent tax-paying adults, we'd like to believe that the board doesn't have to back up the goalie on this one. Admin should have denied this expenses years ago. Oh...and this was the one that on Monday night Phil Frei and Jim McCourt were trying to hang on Paul Keats!

Wow! We could market and make a mint off a Sun Prairie version of the old board game, "Clue". Aha! It was Colonel Keats! In the Doubletree Hotel. With a graphing calculator! Get it? Get a "clue"? Huh?! Huh?!

Do you hear that, school board? Administration is going to "revisit" this topic in the near future...but ultimately, they're relying on you to say "NO". Honestly...this is like a 2-year old that tests his/her parents by stretching the lines of what he/she can or can't do ...not stopping until mom or dad firmly says NO!".

Oh...and NOW the Management Team is going to "revisit" the topic? Shheeeaaaah! Hello! This was complained about LAST year (again, only by a citizen or two). So, what is it...One complaint you ignore...but two complaints in a row and you "revisit the topic" ???

And exactly what message or life lesson does this pass on to the children in the school district?

So...here are the top 5 best defenses to the AcaDec expense "rationale"

5. It costs less to stay in a hotel than to heat up a school for 2 days.

This was priceless...and it came from none other than Phil Frei. We like Phil. He's really a nice guy. Our criticism though is that he has to learn to say nothing rather than coming up with a quick offhand excuse for these things. That approach isn't working well for him (see the whole building permit fiasco).

Do you REALLY want us to even remotely believe that, Phil? I don't think so. Not that we even for a moment considered it, but nevertheless we looked at the heating bills during that month. There's just no way you can convince us that it would have cost $1600 to heat a zone within a school like Creekside for 12 hours on each of Saturday and Sunday.

And imagine the possibilities...instead of being cooped up in that awful hotel for 3 days, you could have had the kids in Creekside and made use of those awesome new SmartBoards as part of their cramming session!

Bottom line: There is no acceptable reason to spend money for 2 nights of hotel stay the weekend before the competition begins...and CERTAINLY not when the competition is only in downtown Madison! We'd even argue that since competitions don't begin until 8 or 9 am Monday and Tuesday, even a 1-night hotel stay is not warranted.

4. We did this last year....and even spent more!

Correct! You spent $2,226 to be exact (check #85470, 3-11-08 ) to stay at the Concourse hotel. And don't even THINK about asking to be rewarded for cutting back on your costs by $500 this year. If you and your teen successfully go to court and argue down the cost of a speeding ticket and the number of points assessed, is that reason to celebrate? Do you think your insurance company sees it any differently? Your surcharge isn't going to be any less.

It's wrong...and being slightly LESS wrong does nothing to validate what was done.

3. Other schools have a semester-long course designed to prep. We cram.
This sounds like a 21st Century response to mom's favorite come back to just about anything: "...and I suppose if Johnny wanted to jump off the ______ you would too".
Perhaps one of the advisors should put together a similar course for us. They would save the taxpayers the hotel costs, and put some money in their own pocket for putting together a new course. It seems like if that's what other schools are doing...geee...maybe THEY have it right.

2. The kids work hard and they're exhausted. They work from dusk till dawn.

Newsflash! That's what life is going to be like when these kids get out into the real world! Perhaps this is a good life lesson.

Come on! The competition day schedules are printed below. The six individual exams are done from 9 am to Noon. That's not exactly dawn. And the afternoon sessions doesn't exactly go till dusk, either (in fact it was already Daylight Savings Time!)

This excuse also begs the question ...if the football [or fill in any sport] team travels to Beloit for a game that goes into overtime, shouldn't all the kids and coaches just stay at a Beloit hotel for the night? Heck, it could be 10 or 11:00 or even later by the time the games over. You don't think THOSE kids are exhausted? Oh...and they also went to school all day. And traveled quite a bit further than the AcaDec Team does.

Do we even need to discuss the whole shenanigans potential? [Remember that classic line from Juno MacGuff in "Juno": "... I'm already pregnant, what other shenanigans can I get into?" ] Three nights times 10 teens plus 1 adult advisor adds up to a googolplex of possibilities for shenanigans. I don't think we need to remind people of recent events. These kids should be at home with their parents, 10 miles away.

Oh...and doesn't every teacher worth his/her salt tell kids that cramming before a test doesn't improve knowledge retention? It just makes you more tired and thus less likely to do your best on a given test. Yeah...many of us did just that in college...but we all know that it didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

1. Two-thirds was paid out of activity club fees.
This is the best one. So....should the French Club hook up with the Aviation Club and charter the Concorde [we know...we know...the Concorde is no more...but you get the point...right?] for lunch at the Eiffel Tower? And the last time we checked, Activity Club funds DO come from the taxpayers, too.

We repeat...COME ON! $1700 is ridiculous. Let's not even start down the road of "Is every club afforded the opportunity to go on a 3 night, $1700 trip 10 miles from home 2 nights before a competition even begins?"?

---

Nice digs, eh? The calendar tells it all

---

This schedule doesn't even reflect the need for a hotel


SP-EYE: Let's face it folks. This was wrong from no matter what angle you look at it. Management Team...don't make the school board micromanage this....you know the very thought of micro-managing makes JohnE Whalen squidgy. Instead, how about doing the right thing, and ending the practice on your own and then reporting such to the school board. How about taking the opportunity to publicly be a role model and tell the students that you made some poor decisions in the past and that you are going to own them and fix them. Of course, you can always do what we have come to expect: quietly (or not) explain to the students that their worldly experience has to end because of just a couple of uptight citizens.

Celebrity Look-a-likes Part 2

The school district is going though a rough spell following the events that unfolded this past week. We by no means want to undermine the solemnity of these events. Our experience, however, is that one needs a little levity to make it through the rough stretches that life tosses at us.


Therefore we offer you the latest in our series of celebrity look-a-likes:





And, Terry...we promise...no "Meathead" jokes.

The Community Trumps Your No Bid

How many times does this have to happen before our school board WAKES UP and starts BEING a school board...you know....oversight body....accountability...fiscal responsibility? THAT school board.

It all starts with a simple check, check # 93054, to be precise.

Check# 93054

To: ELMORE, LYNETTE

Date: 03/20/2009

Amount: $242.65

Reason: HS REPLACE STOLEN STUDENT EQUIP

Which board members questioned this check? That's right....NONE of them.

So leave it to your citizen representative on the Finance Committee, who asked the questions: Who, what, why? The answers, as reported by Rhonda Page, District Office Business manager, are:

A student was using an I-Touch in class and a substitute teacher took it away. The sub teacher did not secure the device and it was stolen. Because the item was in the district's possession it is our responsibility to replace it. Jason Widiker received three quotes and we reimbursed the parent the amount of the lowest quote. Our insurance deductible is $1,000 so this replacement cost will not be reimbursed by the insurance company.

This is NOT intended in anyway to be an indictment of the substitute teacher, by the way. Rather, we want the board to answer a couple of questions:

• Is there even a policy allowing teachers to confiscate these devices (there IS a policy regarding phones and pagers...but this is NOT a phone...it's a fancy IPod)?


• If we ARE going to confiscate things, there IS a chance they could be stolen....is this how we intend to deal with it?

Mr. Whalen...you've stated loud and clear that a school board's main role is as a policy setting body. And you know...you represent the community so well....Well...it seems like you've got a need for some policies.

But, you know what....those aren't even the GOOD questions. We've been saving the best for last. Are you ready? Cuz here it comes...right between the eyes....

So...school board...how come administration went to the time and trouble of getting THREE bids to replace a used $243 item...

.....pause for effect....

....when you didn't require ANY bids for the architect work on the $100M new high school, renovation of existing high school, and pool?

Please, PLEASE spin this one for us. Please wiggle your way out of this one. You GAVE the job to Bray architects without ANY competitive bids...despite a policy requiring such (and a few citizens pleading with you to bid it out).

The policy directed procedure is clear:

PROCEDURE DJ-R(1) PURCHASING PROCEDURES
B. BIDS OR QUOTATIONS
1. Bids are not required for:
a. Instructional materials such as textbooks, books, tapes, films, workbooks, educational kits, periodicals, computer software and audiovisual materials.

b. Miscellaneous and operational supplies less than $5,000 or replacement parts for existing equipment where the value of the replacement parts are estimated to be less than 50 percent of the total value of the equipment.

c. Prices from single source vendors.

3. The District Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to purchase any single item or a quantity of the same item costing more than $5,000 but less than $25,000 upon the solicitation of at least three written bids.

4. Except as provided in sub-section 1, no purchases shall be made for supplies, services, or equipment costing $5,000 or more unless competitive quotations or bids for those items are obtained, provided the purchase is a budgeted item and the purchase is approved by the Board.

So...if architectural design costs (which were a cool $5M on the high school job) are NOT instructional materials or supplies under $5,000....WHY were no bids obtained as the policy states?

Are you ready?? You are gonna LOVE this! Because none other than Caren Diedrich argued that "because Bray Architects knows all our schools [Hello! that's because you've handed them every project!] they are a de facto "sole source vendor, which allows the district to award the job without bids. True story. Don't you just LOVE it? Isn't that just like one of those surprise endings on "The Practice" or "Law and Order"???

Here's what's sad. The school board...or at least 4 of them...BOUGHT Diedrich's weak (and that's being kind) --or wacky, you decide--argument. And THAT is why we spent what we did for the high school...for Creekside...for Horizon....without ANY competitive bidding to ensure that we couldn't get equal (or better) design for less cost.

But....we went out and got three bids to replace a stolen "IPod Touch" when policy doesn't even require it for amounts under $5,000. A Darwinian moment for sure.

---

The Many Faces of Tim

If you've been to or watched a school board meeting, you KNOW what we're talking about. And if you haven't, you should see it first hand.

The big question most people have is "What is he doing sitting at the board table, anyway?" Roger, that. Anyone want to take their 3 minutes and ask the board that question.

Oh...yeah...back to Tim...Culver, that is.
It's like, if you're going to sit at the big table , in the public eye, then you just might want to look like you at least have a pulse. But, like you can count on drowned worms littering the sidewalk after a rain, it's a sure bet that Dr. Culver will very quickly sink down in his seat and his head will droop. There have even been allegations that he's fallen asleep during board meetings. Yep, model employee and leader there.

Enough words...let's let the pictures do the talking (our apologies for the picture quality...distance shots with a lousy camera and worse cameraman) . Board members...is THIS the image you want to portray?

---

---

Dangerous liaisons alleged at SPHS

The following statement was released by Distict Administrator Tim Culver to the district "Key Communicators" list on Friday, April 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM

District E-News to Key Communicators

On April 15, 2009, a Sun Prairie High School support staff employee was placed on administrative leave due to allegations related to inappropriate contact with a high school student. The school district is involved in an ongoing investigation of the matter. The employee submitted a letter of resignation to the school district on April 17. The Sun Prairie Police Department has referred the case to the District Attorney’s Office.

High school staff will be working with the student and the student’sfamily to ensure they have the support they need.

“Our first priority is to ensure the student has the necessary support,” said District Administrator Tim Culver. “We never, ever want a student involved in this type of situation. We have a reporting system in place and I am pleased to know it worked. In less than 24 hours from the time we were notified of the alleged conduct, the employee was questioned by police and placed on leave.”

---

Channel3000.com is reporting that a male support staff person engaged in a sexual relationship with a 16-year old fremale student.

Read more at Ch3000.com

Appearance is EVERYTHING

Imagine our surprise when, at the 4-13-09 school board meeting, Tim Culver introduced Ms. Lisa Heipp as the "new high school principal"....and then quickly added..."oh...I mean...assuming you vote to accept the personnel report tonight".

The school board must approve ALL personnel decisions, before they are final. Guess this means that it really is just a rubber stamp.

WOW! If the graffiti on the wall wasn't clear before about who's in charge and how things are done outside the public eye, then it has certainly been permanently sand-blast etched into it now.

Why would you DO something so brazen?
There are a million ways that this could have been done....correctly.

When the Personnel agenda item came up, Culver could have indicated that administration's top candidate was present this evening to take any questions from the school board. In fact, perhaps she could have been present at this meeting to make a short presentation and then her hiring voted on at a subsequent meeting---even a special session.

But...that didn't happen.

Instead of taking the opportunity to do something right in front of the community, Culver made no effort to hide the fact that this hire was a done deal. The only thing lacking was the de facto unanimous board vote to "officially" seal the deal.

How does one get so bold? The answer is that when one is allowed free roam without any boundaries from the "employer" (the school board), then roam they will, as Culver has done.

How does a guy get to toss so many of his administration (and staff) freely under the bus, yet is immune to reproach from his "bosses"? Hell...how many of you know that as part of his annual performance review, Dr. Culver is charged with undergoing a "360 degree" survey of his performance? Wanna know the catch? Culver himself gets to decide who he sends the survey to and the surveys are returned to HIM! When was the last time your supervisor allowed you to choose who would perform your review and the review information would go directly to you?

Culver has publicly stated that he sends his survey out to people on the district's "Key Communicators" list. Geee...we've been on that list for about 4 years now...and we've never been asked. You don't suppose that's just a statistical co-inky-dink...do you????? Rumor has it that some folks that were "very close" to the recent co-head basketball coach issue had PREVIOUSLY been given surveys...but not this year. Hmmmm...."I may have irritated those people with our recomendation to continue with co-head coaches. Nope, no survey for them this year!".

Kinda makes the annual performamce review (which is tied to his raise) like standing on a ladder and having to just drop the ball into the basket...eh Tim?

In all seriousness, welcome to Sun Prairie, Ms. Heipp; we wish you the best of luck. Certainly the Sun Prairie High School poses some daunting challenges, but her energy seems to indicate that she's up to the task. We take issue with HOW she was introduced (and even she surely felt a little weird about the way it was done), not with her hiring.

School board members...take a memo....you will NOT win over this community until you deal with the problems that YOU create.

Under Tim's Bus...

Begging 1000 pardons from Mick Jagger and Keith Richards...

Under Admin's bus..
like a deer in headlights
Under Admin's bus,
Who'll be the next one in his sights?

Its down to Tim,
oh thats what I said
The way he slumps down in his chair
Down to Tim
No change for us,
He's drivin' Admin's bus

There you have it ladies and gents...the latest person tossed under the Administration Bus is none other than lame duck high school principal Paul Keats.

The issue? At Monday's Finance Committee meeting citizen representative asked why the taxpayers paid over $1700 for a 3-night hotel stay (Saturday, Sunday, and Monday) for an Academic Decathlon (AcaDec) competition which ran from Monday through Tuesday. And the hotel was on West Johnson street just 10 miles from Sun Prairie!

Oh...trust us...we'll get to THOSE details in a bit. Like Pavlov's dogs, we'll let you stew a bit and salivate a bit longer.

Mealy asked who authorized the hotel stay for 2 nights before the competition even began.

The answer (Phil Frei and Jim McCourt) : Paul Keats.

Mealy asked further...Did Mr. Keats authorize this expense alone, or is there administrative approval as well.

The answer: The Management Team approved it...BUT...BUT... Mr. Keats requested it.

The bus pulled up and Mr. Keats was promptly tossed under it.

---

Now...get your "I got Bussed by Admin" T-Shirt!

Getting It Right

Chalk one up in the win column for our school board.

On Monday night the board voted 7-0 against administration's recommendation to continue with co-head coaches for boy's varsity basketball , opting to return to a single head coach.

Granted this was an opportunity for some much needed saving of face, and the right decision was crystal clear. The path to the right decision couldn't have been easier to follow even if the board had a Garmin GPS unit to guide them. But having a crystal clear vision has not always worked well for our school board; on a number of occasions there was equal clarity regarding the right thing to do, yet the board opted to muck things up.

For once, a contentious decision seemed to come quickly to the board, with minimal grandstanding from board members. We are a little disappointed however, that not a single board member--particularly those incumbents that hype fiscal accountability--mentioned the need to do away with co-head coaches simply because it cost the district (and taxpayers) $5,000 more than a single head coach. Beyond the obvious, "NO ONE is doing co-head coaches" argument, a single head coach just makes crystal clear sense from a fiscal position.

We'd like to see this as a win-win situation, and it is a win for the board, the kids, the parents, and Coach Boos (who will be re-called as head coach based on seniority). But we also need to remember that this does come at a cost...Jay Swanson has to be laid off from the position. Mr. Swanson came in and did what administration asked of him after they created a mess of the situation. Sadly, he becomes just another administrative pawn in this game.

Welke Thanks the Community

John Welke sent us this letter , putting closure to what was a virtually unprecedented, in terms of votes received, write-in campaign for school board. It's tough enough to get elected if you're ON the ballot; but most politicos will tell you that it's an impossible task to win election by write-in in a city of this size. Nevertheless, Mr. Welke received just under 800 WRITE-IN votes. We ask the community to join with us for a tip of the hat to Mr. Welke's inspiring effort. Kids....learn a civics lesson. Here's a guy that managed to get 800 people to remember his name and to go to the effort of writing it on the ballot (which can be a monumental task with some of those pens) AND connecting the arrow.

Yes, the incumbents are to be congratulated on their re-elections. But don't think for one minute that all three of them weren't getting a little nervous as election day arrived. We wouldn't be a bit surprised if several of them hadn't privately figured their personal chances for re-election were slim at best. No sour grapes here. No sir. Simple reality.

John Welke is a class act. He most definitely has the skills and values to be what this community needs on the school board. We look forward to him filing his papers next January and see what happens when his name is on the ballot.

---

Dear SP-EYE,

Now that the Spring 2009 election is over and the dust has started to settle I wanted to take a minute and thank you for your coverage of school district issues and more specifically the recent school board election. Congratulations to Mr. Whalen, Mr. Shimek and Mr. Slane.

While their vote totals were significantly more than mine I am very happy that 792 community members took the time out of their busy day and went to the polls and cast a vote for me by writing my name in on their ballot. To them I would like to say, “Thank you very much for your support!”

The upcoming year will have many challenges for the school district. In my role as the Town of Bristol school district liaison and as a community member I will stay committed to working with the board, the district and the taxpayers to ensure the things that will make SPASD the investment of choice.

With a significant monetary commitment to several new facilities and the current economic woes that the community faces it is even more important to responsibly use the taxpayer’s dollars. Squeezing every penny out of each tax payer dollar will be required to ensure needed programs continue and will demonstrate to the public that the school board is a good steward of their tax dollars.

As an advocate of open government I will encourage the board to ensure that there is clear and open communication on all aspects of the district operations. By doing this the board will increase the public’s trust in their elected officials. Increased personal accountability for those involved in the various aspects of the districts operations will also bolster the public’s trust.

An area that I heard a lot about during my campaign was the desire by teachers to be more involved in district decision making. It is my hope that the Board will make this a priority and provide teachers with more opportunities to share their ideas and thoughts. This will only be successful if it occurs in an environment where they can feel safe and without fear of reprisal if their ideas are not exactly in line with administration.

Lastly, student safety is an increasing area of concern. We live in a rapidly changing world. One that seems to have en ever increasing element of reckless and harmful behavior. Gang activity, drugs and physical violence are areas of serious concern. The board needs to form a close alliance with the city police department, parents and private sector entities to ensure that no one drops the ball with student safety.

As community members we all have a role in the issues that I have outlined above. I know that SP-EYE has tried to take a proactive and informative role to that end. Clearly we are not always going to agree on every topic but civil discourse and constructive criticism will make us stronger and ensure that the important things do not slip between the cracks. Thanks again for the information you provide the community.

Sincerely,
John Welke

Basketball HeadCoach Issue on Board Agenda Monday 4-13-09

What we know so far is that Administration's recommendation is to continue the co-head coach debacle for the boy's varsity basketball team.

We know that that decision will cost the taxpayers an additional $5,000 per year.

We also know that every single college and professional sports team has ONE coach. Of course Jay Cutler may have liked to have another coach to turn to in Denver...but we digress.

Do a FEW high school teams have co-head coaches? Sure....but a VERY few. And a very few of us would have decadent dinners --like, say, sea bass-- if we could stick the taxpaying community with the bill. Yes, some people do. But it's not the norm, and it's not right. And it make no sense. Just like two head coaches.

So...what will our school board do? They remain intact after the election, so they can't claim that some newbies messed the decision up. This one is on them. Entirely.

Will they support administration's decision? (as the board is wont to do) Or will they make a stand, part ways with administration, and direct them to axe one of the coaches. Oh...and wait till you see what administration has cooked up for the guillotine! It's brilliant! Sheer genius! If the board opts against supporting what the administration "intends" (note the most excellent switch of the villian role), then they'll lay off BOTH coaches and then use "contractual rules" to determine who gets called back for the solitary head coach position.

These decisions aren't fun....but that's what comes with sitting up at the big table.

If you have a position on the issue, or something to say, be at the City Municipal building by 7:30 Monday April 13, 2009.

The Rest of the Story on the "Intent" to fund a 2nd PLO

Let's be clear that SP-EYE is not questioning the need for a 2nd Police Liaison Officer (PLO) at the new high school. What we question is how this whole deal transpired, after it was reported in the STAR 2 weeks ago that Chief Anhalt had received verbal commitment from Tim Culver that the district would cover 70% of the cost of the 2nd PLO when the COPS grant expires in 2012.

We are a little concerned about where the authority lines are drawn. Does Administration really have the authority to even agree to INTENT to fund something 3 years down the road without discussion at a public meeting?

Let's get real here....Chief Anhalt and Pat Cannon are trying to formulate a budget. The COPS grant would fund a 2nd PLO for 3 years. But they need to know what happens after that, because if they want to continue it and the district does not, that is a budget item the City needs to prepare for. It would seem that they need something firmer than "intent". Now, a draft letter dated April 13, 2009 is on the school board agenda for tomorrow night (4-13-09). We wonder if this would have happened had questions not been asked.

The school board "approves" each annual budget, but it is the ELECTORS that actually VOTE approval of said budget. Dr. Culver and the Management Team can put anything in a given budget. The electors (us... the taxpaying district residents) get to authorize a budget amount each year at the annual meeting. The electors don't get a say on the budget parameters; the only control we have over the budget is to send a message by voting a budget amount LESS than what the district wants. Then the school board and administration have to decide what to alter or cut in order to fit the budget within the budget ceiling voted on by the electors. So...if you disagree with a particular budget item...it is best to tell the board early and often.

4-8-09 E-mail from Tim Culver to Rick Mealy responding to questions about the COPS grant.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:41 AM
From: Tim Culver
Re: COPS grant

Mr. Mealy,

Sorry for the tardy response; I have been away the past week. I have had conversations with Pat Anhalt and Pat Cannon about this issue on March 20 and 27. They asked, if the district was interested in adding a second school police liaison officer (SPLO). I told him we were...that it was part of the conceptual planning for when the news HS opens in the fall of 2010. Pat asked for a letter of support in making a stimulus grant request that would fund a second SPLO for three years and asked if I would indicate that the school district would intend
to continue funding the position (as we do with the current one position... at 70%) when/if the grant funding ends. I indicated to him that I would be willing to do so, as long as it was clear that a future School Board would be setting parameters on the budget and while we can intend to do something in 2012, we could not guarantee it. That seemed acceptable to both. I informed the School Board on March 21 of this matter (see below). I will be sharing a draft of my letter to the City with the School Board for information under the District Administrator's report next Monday in case they wish to comment.

The three year school police liaison contract with the city expires at the end of this year and it will come to the School Board for consideration of renewal, likely in June. The contract will not specify the number of SPLOs.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Tim Culver

3-21-09 E-mail from Tim Culver ...ostensibly to school board members
>>> Tim Culver > 3/21/2009 8:54 AM >>>

To: ?School Board??

I met with Police Chief Pat Anhalt yesterday. We agreed to get together periodically and share perspectives.... he is seeking to have the police be more connected with the community. Interesting discussion about the challenge of hiring minority officers...they have similar challenges and have been less successful than us.

An opportunity exists now as the city considers how to use their federal stimulus funding. One idea they have is to add a second school police liaison officer (SPLO). The Management Team has been intending to include a second SPLO in the budget for fall of 2010 with the idea of basing one at the 10-12 building and one at the 8-9 building then "zoning" the other schools between the two. This would be a natural part of our growth as a school district (and has been requested for a number of years by the principals).

The city's stimulus funding would completely fund such a new position for three
(federal budget) years. [ Pat is getting me the exact calendar of funding based on their stimulus regulations so we can compare it to our funding cycle]. The city would like a letter of intent from the school district that (a) we are interested in a second SPLO and (b) when/if the federal funding runs out the school district would "intend" to fund the position similar to the current agreement we have with the city for our current SPLO position. One purpose of
this district letter (in my opinion) is to protect the city from the backlash they got when the (several years back) 'cops in school' funding was eliminated and they had to pull the 4 neighborhood officers out of the elementary schools.

Our opinion is this is something we need anyway as we grow; it gives us three years without cost; and then we can plan to absorb the cost two years after the new HS school opens instead of in the 2010 school year (when a lot of new costs come due). We could also decide at that time to eliminate the second position...we would have to own that decision based on our budget and any potential community/school concerns. The second SPLO would likely come into existence sometime during the next school year, which would also be useful in our last overcrowded year at the former SPHS.

This letter probably does not need Board approval (it is just an interest and intent). However if anyone wishes, I would be pleased to place this on the April 13 board agenda if you wish to discuss it. Just let me know. Also, if you have any questions, either for now or which you would like discussed on April 13, please let me know. Pat would like our letter by April 15 to meet their funding proposal timeline.

Tim

Voters Weigh In; Scales Tip for Whalen

The tribe has spoken.

Despite an admirable write-in campaign effort by John Welke, we'll be seeing the same old faces at the school board table.

The unofficial results (which do not include city of Madison precincts) were:

John Whalen 3,425
Terry Shimek 3,146
Al Slane 2,565
John Welke 788

For those wondering why the school board results were nowhere to be found last night, either on TV or on any known websites,

"the Dane County election results website, which the TV and other media use
for results, did not have Sun Prairie Area School Board results on their website
because they considered this election as 'uncontested'."

While we received numerous reports that JohnE Whalen had a heavy heart about continuing his role on the school board, clearly the voters had no such qualms. Perhaps Mr. Whalen's viability as a candidate was hugely under-estimated. Clearly Mr. Whalen was shown the love--big time-- and that kind of massive vote total launches him into instant celebrity status. We haven't seen that kind of voting for school board since the 2006 elections, and those numbers were heavily weighted by the 2-high school referendum on the table at the time.

Congratulations to misters Whalen, Shimek, and Slane for their re-election!

Speaking of celebrity status, we've tossed the idea of celebrity look-alikes around for some time, as a number of people have made mention that certain board members could be dead ringers for celebrities. It seems fitting, given Mr. Whalen's ballot box bulging vote total, that we start with Mr. Whalen for our school board celebrity look-a-likes. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you John E Boy Whalen:

More Decisions Made Beyond the Watchful Public Eye?

It wasn't even listed under school board business. But, if you read closely what was written about the recent City Council meeting in the STAR this week, there it was, innocently buried within a discussion of the "COPS" grant.

4-2-09 STAR, City Council COPS grant discussion

And...before we get mis-interpreted, let's get something clear. We firmly believe that something needs to be done about the problems and violence occurring at the high school. Perhaps additional Police Department liaison officers ARE required. If that's what the community wants, fine. Our issue is HOW these decisions are being made. There are rules, and if the story is correct, someone doesn't seem to be following rules. Someone's committing to financial obligations for which they lack authority. And THAT is a problem.

Police Chief Pat Anhalt was authorized to apply for federal stimulus funding through the federal COPS Grant program for three new police officers; an additional school liaison officer for the new high school, a detective for the department's Neighborhood Task Force, and a regular detective.

If approved at the federal level, the three positions will be federally funded for three years. Anhalt said the school district has agreed to fund 70 percent of the school liaison officer once federal funding ceases three years from the time the position is created. The city will have to fund the other two officers and the remaining 30 percent of the liaison officer.

We don't think Chief Anhalt is one to mi-interpret commitments made to him.
The problem is that the cost of funding 70% of an additional liaison officer is a FUTURE BUDGET line item We haven't even seen a draft of the 2009-10 school district budget, let alone anything further out.

Furthermore, it is the ELECTORS who have final approval of a budget. No one in the school district administration office has the authority to commit to budget provisions. Budgets are prepared for school board approval and then go to the electors for a vote at the annual meeting.

First we had Phil Frei on local TV announcing his plan to spend federal stimulus money (that never materialized) on ballfield lights. Now someone is committing to financial costs without taxpayer approval or community input.

When is the school board going to reel their employees in?

More Letters

Dear SP-EYE,

I've heard people talking about voting strategies. Some of the terms used are "bullet vote" and "under vote".

I firmly believe we need change on our school board. They just do not seem to be, nor want to be, in touch with the community that elected them.

I'm intrigued by the prospects of the write-in candidate, John Welke; but isn't it really hard to win an election if your name isn't on the ballot? Is there a voting strategy to ensure we get change on our school board? If so, what is it, and is it legal?

Thanks for your help!

--Wondering in Sun Prairie

---

Dear "Wondering". Thanks for asking! And yes, there certainly are strategies to improve a write-in candidate's chances of getting elected.

An undervote occurs whenever, for a given office, a ballot is submitted which contains less than the maximum number of choices which can be made. In this year's school board election, 3 seats are available, two 3-years terms and a 1-year term. The candidate receiving the 3rd highest vote total will get the 1-year term (the remainder of Jim Carrel's original term).

So any ballot for this year's school board election on which an elector chooses only 1 or 2 candidates, will represent an "under"vote.

A bullet vote is an undervote in which only a single candidate for a given option is selected, even though the option to select two or more candidates exists.

There most definitely can be strategy involved in undervoting. The bottom line is that if you want Candidate "X" to be elected, any vote for the other candidates merely dilutes, or cancels out your vote for Mr. X. Political junkies and strategists will often discuss for whom and when an undervote or bullet vote represents a good strategic move to improve the chances of election for a given candidate. And, yes, undervoting and bullet voting is perfectly legal.

If you want change on our school board and you believe John Welke is THE guy to help effect that change, then we would suggest you consider a bullet vote for Welke. Simply write in "John Welke" next to the first blank line for School Board which sometimes contains "(write-in)" in small text. Then connect the arrow. That's all you need to do. That will ensure that ONLY Mr. Welke receives a vote. Remember, by virtue of being listed on the ballot, the 3 incumbents already have a better chance of being (re)elected.

Also bear in mind that undervoting can effect change in another way this year. The candidate that comes in 3rd receives only a 1-year term and must run for re-election next year. If you really want to effect change on the board, Welke needs to either receive the highest or 2nd highest vote total. That way, one incumbent will be "voted out" and another will be on a very short leash with the prospect of having to run for office all over again next year.

Is the STAR Now Quietly Endorsing Welke?

Last week, the STAR offered weak endorsements of the school board incumbents:
STAR 3-26-09 Endorsements

"If this is an ideas campaign, then Welke's opponents have him beat ..."
[SP-EYE: Really? WHAT ideas? The school board hasn't pushed any scheme that wasn't hatched by Tim Culver or district administration. Name ONE board initiated idea.]

"...and frankly, they've done nothing within the past year to warrant being cast off of the school board".
[SP-EYE: We've seen stronger endorsements supporting Michael Vick's return to the NFL! How about asking what the incumbents did to REMAIN ON the board? Oh...and about that co-head coach fiasco and possible additional violations of Open Meeting Laws...]

Terry Shimek "has demonstrated a willingness to investigate issues despite the thoughts of his fellow board members."
[SP-EYE: We agree; Terry asks the right questions, and expresses appropriate concern when warranted. Where we part ways is the follow-through. When has he voted AGAINST any of the things he has concerns about? When has he followed up questions/concerns with action? Maybe a motion? ]

Al Slane "is far from the administration's board member and has worked hard in his first year on the board."
[SP-EYE: On what factual basis is that claim made? Slane has voted in support of every administrative recommendation. He also supported eliminating the objective metrics part of Tim Culver's evaluation in favor of a subjective assessment. Like Mr. Shimek, Slane occasionally expresses concerns but never votes against a motion nor makes a motion or amended motion to reflect his concerns on a given issue. ]

John Whalen has demonstrated during his board tenure that he does his research and comes to his own conclusions.
[ SP-EYE: Ummmm...could you cite an example? For 3 years, Mr. Whalen's repertoire of board table comments consists largely of , "I'm good", "This is a really good thing...", or a shake of the head to indicate the lack of a comment. What "research" has he done exactly? When did he come to a conclusion that wasn't that of district administration or Tim Culver? ]

What a difference a week makes!
This week, the STAR absolutely slams the board for (yet another) incident of questionable closed door session, which could be argued to be another violation of Open Meeting Laws.

STAR 4-2-09 OpEd column

The process used to make the decision.
The board posted a questionable closed session notification (using the incorrect statute number, 91.85 instead of 19.85) to "review performance evaluations of and consider employment of a public employee; consider the possible discipline of a public employee; and discussion and action on preliminary staff layoffs [Wis. Stats. 91.85(1)(b), (c) & (f)]." Unless the coaches were to be laid off, using this notice to discuss the disposition of the co-head coaching position is a suspect -- some might even argue illegal -- use of the Open Meetings Law.

Culver said it would only be one year agreement
District Administrator Tim Culver explained it would only be for one year per the agreement between the board and the Sun Prairie Education Association.

The arbitrary nature of the decision.
By not including the public in a discussion of the continuation of the position as a co-head
coach position, the school board failed in its duty to steward the public's money [Hmmmm...John Welke has used these exact words in several addresses to the board] and use its own common sense to reach an objective that had already been pre-determined because it was due to expire after one year.

The public's lack of involvement
...DESPITE the board's insistence on transparency in almost every other avenue of its decision-making processes.

---

So, Chris...
(1) You leave out any mention of school board endorsements this week (although others are repeated).

(2) You had this information LAST week, but did not use it. Hmmmmm.

(3) You make some of the same points that THIS BLOG made a week ago.

(4) You chastise the board for violating the very things on which John Welke has built his platform.

(5) Your only "knock" on Welke was not filing nomination papers in time to get on the ballot. Please! Mr. Welke was able to assemble 500 signatures on a petition in less than a week last year after the board laid an egg with the boundaries. Do you really believe he couldn't have EASILY obtained 100 signatures? Asked and answered.

(6) You even chastise the board for failing in its "duty to steward the public's money ", a phrase which John Welke has used on several occasions. As long-time STAR readers, we don't ever recall you using that phrasing before.

(7) You end your School Board endorsement section with, "Welke has demonstrated his ability to research issues and has actually presented situation reports to the board on various subject matters and we believe he also would be a competent board member."


So...it sure sounds like you and the STAR are quietly endorsing Welke. 'Fess up!

American Incumbents: WWSS

Remember those bracelets, "WWJD", standing for "What Would Jesus Do"? Seeing that another Idol season is in overdrive, how about a twist on the old WWJD with a contemporary spin: WWSS, standing for "What Would Simon Say".

It's perfect! We're down to the wire in an other spring election season, and there's much talk that one of the incumbents is in jeopardy of being ousted --a la MaryEllen Havel-Lang last year--by write-in candidate John Welke. American Idol head judge Simon Cowell has garnered fame for his trademark witty, sarcastic, but dead=on evaluation of Idol contestants. While ditsy Paula Abdul goes for decorum with her mothering style of trying to say something nice about everyone, Simon remains the realist.

Of course incumbent school board candidate John E Whalen (anyone remember that drummer from Cheap Trick? Bun E Carlos? Doesn't it just seem like Mr. Whalen should go by "John E"? But we digress) will claim SP-EYE is endorsing Welke. You know what? So what if we do? Welke has done an outstanding job of running a serious campaign to show that he is engaged in this school district. Welke stands for all the things this district lacks: accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, fidelity to funding, and giving our teachers a more prominent role in decision-making without fear of reprisal. More to the point, Welke is not all cozy with district administrator Culver. An employer-employee relationship --as the board is supposed to have with Culver-- just cannot cross the lines that it has for many years. Welke is not afraid to stand up and say "No" to district administration.

So....where would Simon stand on the incumbents (in ballot order)? WWSS?

---

---