Meet the new "Weaz"...

Same as the old "Weaz"?

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss ...

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
-the Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"

The comic and actor Pauly Shore has long been known as "the Weaz", short for "Weasel". Move over Pauly, John Whalen is stepping up to take that moniker. It seems that after being re-elected in a landslide and then elected board president by his flock, Whalen is feeling saucy. So saucy in fact, that he's stepped right up to the plate and taken the school board down a whole new path of shenanigans and weaseling.

Did you known that the etymology of the term "weasel words" stems from the manner in which weasels eat the eggs of birds? Weasels actually suck the contents out of an egg, leaving the shell--for appearances sake--intact. In fact, the term "egg sucker" was coined for the same rationale. Similarly, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon further review have come to be known as "weasel words".

So too did Whalen stammer and stumble and reach for words to defend his actions that violated board policy to keep a Bristol resident from being appointed to the school board's Finance Committee.

Policy requires applicants to submit a letter of application for each committee they are interested in. The Weaz stated, and as reported by the STAR, that he subsequently asked a candidate who had NOT demonstrated interest in the Finance committee to submit a second letter of interest AFTER THE INTERVIEWS WERE COMPLETED.

Then Whalen weaseled further by indicating that board policy does not specify a deadline for applications.

HELLO! Were other candidates offered the same opportunity--to basically ignore the application deadline which was published in the newspaper, on the website, and sent to "Key Communicators"?

Geee...if we got another application for a school position after the deadline for applications had passed would we accept it?

Geee...if a citizen submits candidacy papers for the school board after the deadline, do they get their name on the ballot?

We don't think so. Shame on Whalen for clearly violating policy...the law of the board.

Shame on Whalen for leaving Pastor Harold Rayford holding the bag. It's Pastor Rayford who Whalen coaxed into submitting the second letter to "justify" his selection. We're betting that Rayford had no idea what policy stated. Nevertheless, he's now stuck sitting in a seat that the public knows should have been someone else's. We wouldn't blame the Pastor if he opted step down, leaving Whalen with rotten egg alll over his face as he deals with cleaning THAT mess.

Our only question is...would Whalen prefer to be "the Weaz"? Or the Egg-Sucker?

We're at ShenCon 1!

That's right folks, we're at ShenCon 1, or Shenanigans Condition 1. Like the DefCon scale used to military severity and readiness, Shenanigans Condition 1 is reserved for situations when board shenanigans are imminent or already in effect.


Last night, board president John Whalen almost boasted, "Yes. You're right, [my actions are] this is a violation of board policy", when faced with allegations that his school board committee nominations represented a flagrant violation of board policy.


The school board operates in accordance with policies established (and voted on) by past boards. Board policy is, in effect, the law which governs a school board's actions. Last night, Whalen's actions effectively tossed all rules out the window. His prideful admission that he violated policy clearly announced that he and this board does whatever it wants when it wants. They stand above the law.


What Whalen did
By nominating a citizen who did not even apply for the Finance committee ( and casting aside another VERY qualified person who DID apply), Whalen violated Board policy procedure BCE-R, which states that applicants MUST apply separately (and meet application deadlines) for EACH committee of interest. Pastor Harold Rayford applied ONLY for the Human Resources Committee, to which Betty Collier was appointed.

All applicants shall mail, e-mail to the District Administrator's secretary
and get confirmation of receipt, or deliver to the District Administrator's office a letter containing the applicant's name, address, telephone number and a concise statement not exceeding 500 words of the applicant's qualifications and interest in appointment to a specified committee.
A person may apply by separate letters for appointment to more than one committee but shall not simultaneously serve as a citizen member on more than one committee.

Whalen weakly (almost embarrassingly) justified his violation by indicating that during his interview for HR, he noticed that Pastor Harold Rayford had a strong financial background. Therefore Whalen asked Rayford to submit a second letter--long after the application deadline--expressing interest in being considered for the Finance Committee appointment as well. Geee...did other applicants get asked if they were interested in another committee? Did THEY get to break the rules as well? Good for the goose, good for the gander?

...and 5 other board members supported him!
Adding insult to injury, five (5) other board members followed like baby ducklings and voted to support Whalen's violation. Only David Stackhouse had the intestinal fortitude to lay down the rubber stamp and vote "NO". In fact, Stackhouse also pointed out the specific violation of policy as the reason for his vote.


Putting the Pastor in a difficult position
We understand why Mr. Whalen would want Pastor Rayford to be involved with the school board. He represents a unifying force within the community, and has worked with the board to improve understanding of cultural diversity issues within the district. In fact, that is precisely why SP-EYE (and many community residents) felt that Pastor Rayford was a perfect fit for the ONLY board committee for which he applied: Human Resources. The district has expressed desire to improve minority recruitment, and Pastor Rayford's connections could have provided some awesome assistance in enhancing district recruitment of minority candidates. Whalen could simply have appointed Rayford to HR and avoided all this.


We feel very badly that Pastor Rayford has now been placed in such an awkward position by Whalen's move. OK, maybe it's a little comical to watch Whalen squirm when he stumbles while leading board meetings. But there's nothing funny about this faux pas. People are angry that Whalen and the board---once again---committed egregious violations of their own rules. And the one that got tossed under the bus was Pastor Rayford. Folks are angry that Eric Huemoeller was robbed of an appointment he deserved. A position for which he complied with all the deadlines. A position for which he is extremely qualified. And the one who gets the short end of that stick is now Pastor Rayford, who now has to try to act comfortable in a seat which should feel very uncomfortable...even wrong.


Motive: Why Would Whalen Do Something So Incredibly Dumb?
Did Whalen just want to flex his muscle? To prove the old, "absolute power corrupts absolutely" adage? hat purpose did it serve to so blatantly break rules when earlier it was apparent that Whalen wanted to re-appoint another citizen to the Finance committee. Whalen wisely opted not to do so when SP-EYE (and others) alerted him to the fact that doing so would violate policy.


So...why decide NOT to violate policy for one thing, yet decide to shatter it for another reason? Guess only Mr. Whalen can answer that...and perhaps Dr. Culver. Sources within the district indicated that Culver and Whalen had "had discussions" regarding the committee appointments. Hmmm...anybody else wonder what business in the hell Culver has in having ANY involvement in committee appointments?


Well...we'll offer one plausible explanation. Few will forget how the board absolutely trtampled the citizens from the Topwn of Bristol during the Boundary fiasco 18 months ago. Could it be, perhaps, that Whalen didn't like the idea of having 3 "of those Bristol people" serving on board committees simultaneously? Having appointed John Welke and Patrick Anderson to the FTT committee, even though Eric Huemoeller was the only person left who applied for the Finance committee, perhaps Whalen felt that was too much.


(Rancid) Icing on the Cake?
And exactly which candidates were present for the most important Finance committee meeting of the year and then the full board meeting last night? Only John Welke and the guy that got screwed. Does the board give ANY consideration to who is engaged enough to actually attend meetings when making appointments? We think not.


The requirements and deadlines were crystal clear:
(click to enlarge)

It's Piper Payin' Time!

At long last, Sun Prairie school district residents will hear about details of the 2009-10 budget. You're not going to see a budget, mind you, but a "Discussion on the 2009-10 Preliminary Budget"...at the Finance Committee meeting Monday July 27, 2009 5:30 pm at the Municipal building.

In keeping with past practice, you'll get detailed numbers of how much cost savings we'll see, but when it comes to things like salaries, all you'll see is "3.8% increase". That's because the real dollar value is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow. You also won't see detailed line by line expenses...this is "just a discussion".

The recommendation is to go with a budget that taxes UNDER the allowable limit by $590K [insert applause here] , with a final mill rate impact of $11.81, which is $1.28 per $1,000 assessed value MORE than last year [insert razzberries here]. That means that a home valued at $200,000 will cost you an additional $256.00 on your tax bill.

" The mill rate is projected to be $11.81, or $1.28 higher than last year. That's $256 more for a $200,000 home. Or...100 of your favorite coffee drinks (or 6 seabass dinners). So just skip the morning coffee every Wednesday and
you're covered. "

Cuts affect the kids...not the wallets of the district staff
The budget recommendation includes the following recommendation:

The third recommendation from administration is for the non-personnel budget for schools and departments be reduced by 5%. This would impact supplies, equipment, purchased services, and other non-personnel accounts. Administration feels that this type of reduction is doable. This would reduce taxes by $255,762.

Why is it that the budgets for individual schools are offered to the chopping block---something that DIRECTLY affects the education of our kids---but the wallets of staffers fare better than anyone [that doesn't work for a school district or AIG] in the state, if not the nation? And what about buildings and grounds? Now that we've upgraded all our schools, is NOW the time to cut back on maintenance? Oh...and then there's the district Energy Manager that Admin fought so hard to hire. Out of ALL the district staff, that is the ONLY position to be "red-circled", which is PC talk for "you're job is overpaid so we're freezing your salary until it's more in oline with the rest of the world".

Funny that we're not doing the same thing to Evelyn Smojver's salary. She stepped down as Director of Instruction to assume the principal-ship of Creekside last year. Of course, her fat cat Administrator salary is WAAAY higher than any of the other elementary principals. In fact, her salary is the 6th highest of all comparison district elementary school principal salaries. If there was ever a justification to freeze a salary, THIS is the case--not the Energy Manager, who actually helps SAVE money for the district.

But alas, we lack a school board that has a strong enough constitution to stand up and say, "Hey....we need to look at freezing some salaries here", instead of approving 3.8% across-the-board wage hikes. Can't have that. That might mean strained relationships with Administration. And lord knows we rely heavily on District Administrator Culver to tell the school board what their options are on virtually every agenda item of significance.

We particularly appreciate that the Administration feels that this is "doable". Of course, anything that keeps them getting their 3.8% on top of their already inflated salaries is "doable".

A public hearing on the budget is tentatively scheduled for the week of August 10th.

Admin Support vs. Dept. of Labor Statistics

Ok...so simply put, here's the issue.

Many of the 30 "Administrative Support" positions have parallels outside of the high-priced world of school districts. SOME school district--a leader perhaps-- has to finally take a stand and re-evaluate these positions.

A simple check of the US Department of Labor Statistics website can provide median and mean salary data across the nation, or even just for a given position and state.

The following comparisons are taken directly from the May 2008 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Wisconsin. It's likely a safe bet that wages have not increased significantly since that a year ago May. Food for thought, school board members.
..............................................
Program Managers (Special Ed. and Instructional Services)
We have 10 employees classified at this level.
Current salary ranges: $39.29 to $45.52 per hour (1680 hr/yr positions
Proposed salary ranges: $41.21 to $46.63 per hour
Proposed raises: $1.11 to $2.90 (3.1 to 7.2%)
Compare to: Education Administrators, All Other. Median salary: $30.50/hr.
..............................................
Business Services Manager
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
2007-08 salary: $31.72 per hour
Current salary: $34.22 per hour (2080 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $36.43 per hour
Proposed raise: $2.21 (6.5%)
Compare to: Business and Financial Operations, General. Median salary: $24.72/hr.
..............................................
Communications Specialist
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $23.39 per hour (1462 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $25.10 per hour → %26.19/hr on 7/1/10
Proposed raise: $1.71 (7.31%) + $1.09/hr on 7/1/10
Compare to: Media and Communications Workers, All Other. Median salary: $20.66/hr.
Compare to: Writers and Artists. Median salary: $20.48/hr.
Compare to: Technical Writers . Median salary: $25.38/hr.
Note: This position is much less challenging than that of a Technical Writer.
..............................................
District Health Nurse
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $32.67 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $33.98 per hr
Proposed raise: $1.31 (4.01%)
Compare to: Registered Nurse. Median salary: $29.27/hr.
Compare to: Licensed Practical and Vocational Nurses. Median salary: $19.06/hr.
Note: We have no information as to whether the employee is an RN or an LPN.
..............................................
Accountant
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $23.50 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $24.20 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.70 (2.98 %)
Compare to: Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks . Median salary: $14.96/hr.
Compare to: Accountants and Auditors. Median salary: $26.48/hr.
Note: We might be missing something, but we don't see this position as equivalent to an accountant as in CPA.
..............................................
Custodial Services Night
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $22.79 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $23.60 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.81 (3.55%)
Compare to:
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers. Median salary: $17.08/hr.
..............................................
District Administrator Secretary
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $21.85 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $22.30 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.45 (2.06 %)
Compare to: Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. Median salary: $17.49/hr.
..............................................
Administrative Assistant
We have 6 employees classified at this level.
Current salaries: $17.04 (1), $18.72 (1), and $19.27 (4) per hour (2080 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $17.87, 19.31, and $19.80 per hr
Proposed raises: $0.53 to $0.83 per hr (2.75 - 4.87 %)
Compare to: Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. Median salary: $17.49/hr.
..............................................
Payroll Specialist
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $19.27 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $19.80 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.53 (2.75 %)
Compare to: Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks. Median salary: $16.52/hr.

---

We're just sayin'....

Of Sense & Sensability: Can We Talk?

After a lengthy illness, has Common Sense died?

Reminds us of a rhetorical question heard numerous times:

Q: "Boy? Why'd you do that? Where's your common sense gone?"
A: "He never had any."

The Death of Common Sense

Maxims that need to be firmly placed on the table for discussion:


This is not personal
Because...it's not. We are not on some personal vendetta against the school board (contrary to water cooler district talk). We raise issues like the proposed compensation increases because they are part of the overall problem. That problem is that Sun Prairie has grown to be a spend-happy school district. The answer we get in return is that things are great! We're a growing district! We can find the money. Those are all technically correct responses, but plain and simply we have to run this (or any) school district like a business. More to the point: like a business in which we have invested our personal life savings. When it's 'other peoples' money' it's just too easy to spend, spend , spend.


Our ultimate product here is providing our kids with a proper education. Does having TEN program mangers each getting pad over $40 per hour REALLY improve the quality of their education? Really? More so than if these same manager were paid...say $25/hour?


The issues here relate to people, and therefore its hard not to view things as getting personal. Sadly, we have no desire to make things personal. Ultimately, the people involved (sadly) are just pawns in the grand scheme.


It's not just about Sun Prairie
Ultimately, our views on the ludicrous state of school district salaries are not limited to Sun Prairie alone. But Sun Prairie likes to view itself as a leader...and this is OUR community. So we have to start here.


The average Joe on the street --once [s]he's aware that Tim Culver earns about $150K per year-- is flabbergasted. No one in their right mind believes that a school district administrator of 800 or so staff and 6,000 kids is worth more money than the governor, or surely the state school superintendent who oversees ALL 426 school districts! Or any of a whole host of occupations, for that matter.


The grim reality is that Dr. Culver is paid only moderately above average when compared to ALL 426 school district administrators. But that's not an excuse. That argument is akin to the age-old, "If Johnny Jones jumped off the Empire State building, would you?" conundrum.


More to the point is the trickle-down effect. Just as School district administrators are paid obscenely, so too are those beneath him: asst school district administrators, district administration, administration support, and so on down the line. Are teachers fairly compensated? Yes and No. Very few people can claim to retire at a salary of $70,000 or more. That's the argument that teachers are VERY fairly compensated. On the other hand, entry level teachers....not so much. The answer is easy: we need to raise the lower end and then compress the salary scale. Easily said; tough to do...especially when everyone else is doing it. An by "doing it" we don't mean the typical adolescent colloquialism. We mean that no other district is doing the right thing, so why should we?


This is not really about the economy
It's easy to point to the economy as the reason to speak out against arguably ridiculous raises, but the simple truth is, it has nothing to do with the economy. The issue was always here. The economy is just a convenient spotlight to use to highlight the problem.


We need to take this opportunity...even blame the economy if we so choose...to right this ship or else run the serious risk of sinking further down the road.


Nobody gets paid what they think they are (or their job is) worth
Here's the elephant in the room to which Caren Diedrich likes to refer. Let's be honest, folks. We all think we deserve more money. We don't blame the Administration folks, or the Admin Support folks...or anybody. It's human nature. Can you name ONE person who would honestly say, "I'm WAY overpaid for the work I do".

So...let's just get past that. Everyone thinks they are underpaid. Do you REALLY think all state workers are overpaid? Do you think that Gov. Doyle said, "Geee...all these guys are overpaid, so instead of giving raises, I'm going to cut pay 5 % by furloughing (3%) and rescind 2% raises previously agreed upon"?


This is precisely why doing a job survey (an unbiased survey) makes sense. However, paying $9,000 for it for 30 people is not so good an idea. And basing it on comparisons to other districts (for reasons previously discussed) just makes it more of a bad idea.



Nobody WANTS to assess the reasonableness of salaries
This is where the school board (and committee members) get squeamish. NO ONE wants to be the person to say..."that's too much money!" Unfortunately, this where the rubber meets the road for school board members. For all the gooey photo op moments and recognition ceremonies, this is where you pay the piper for the privilege of being elected by ALL the community residents. This is where you have to lead. And real leadership is tough.

Nobody wants to "be the bad guy"
We get it. The least enjoyable aspect of being a manager is when the bad news has to be delivered. But becoming TOO cozy with "the hired help" can make that an even more unpalatable proposition. You need to keep an arms length from the District administration. You need to be the boss...not the buddy.

That being said. You need to suck it up and MAKE the hard calls. Publicly and privately, you can apologize all you like and tell people you'd love to give them more. But ultimately, you're the boss, and the business can't afford more personnel costs. They have a VERY nice job situation./arrangement, and they DO have a rewarding career. There are many people that hate their job, but do it because it pays the bills. Pass that on as well.


We need to plan for the end game
We keep talking bout how the district is growing, growing, growing. But that growth is NOT endlessly self sustaining. In every district, a growth peak occurs, followed by a plateau, and inevitably declining enrollments.

The number of kids enrolled IS the lifeblood of the district as, until a change is made in school funding, kids = dollars (of state aid). But the rest has to be made up in property taxes, and there is a tax levy ceiling to factor in as well. All of these things get reduced when enrollment drops.

We've got about $175M of debt to pay over 20 years. Sure, some of that falls off sooner than that. We're adding new programs and paying huge inflated salaries. And let's not forget that over 80% of the district budget is eaten up by salaries and benefits.

We need to start projecting for when this end game (declining enrollments) will occur. It's quite possible that Tim Culver will long be retired when that happens, and your board terms will long have expired. But as an elected official it's your duty to plan for the future and NOT leave this mess for a future board.

And we need to start making decisions based on the end game rather than the time of growing enrollment. Hey...here's an idea...we need to run this district like a business. And YOU, not Tim Culver, are the CEOs.


We need to face the cold hard realities of real life.
In the REAL world, the reality is that there are a lot of quality people (many unemployed) that gladly would do most of these jobs...and do them well...for HALF of the salaries being paid.


The old adage of the business world is that NO ONE IS IRREPLACEABLE. The cold hard reality is that whether you retire, or leave to take another position, your job WILL be covered by someone else. And often, for less money. It's the really the Bill Bellichick model for success. Rather than paying megabucks for some prima donna, you pay someone veteran scale wages to come in, do the job, and be part of as team. Can you say Three Superbowl titles?


At some point, a quality school board will lay the personal coziness aside and make the cold hard business decisions.


New Mantra (proposed)
[Insert a job title here]? You're paid MORE than adequately. You got a $2.50/hr last year. That's it. Consider yourself red-circled. We appreciate the job you do--very much so-- but this is a business. And our decision is that no increase is warranted at this time. We hope you'll understand and have no hard feelings, but we'll also understand if you wish to seek employment elsewhere.

---

So, school board? This all ultimately rests in your hands. You want our advice? Seek out--that's right, get on the horn and call the average Joe---the community residents you DON'T know and ask what they think given ALL the data. That makes your job easy. Then you can be apologetic to the affected district staff and say, "Sorry. We'd like to pay you more, but we serve at the will of the people and we serve to DO the will of the people."

Peace. Out.

Life is good: Admin Support Raise Proposal

In our last episode related to Administrative Support staff pay increases, the school board's HR committee tabled the discussion until its August meeting--but ONLY after district residents voiced concerns [Read: pick and nit and nit and pick] that the information for the meeting had only been made available a couple of hours prior to the meeting.

That leaves about 2 weeks to prepare any comments you'd like the HR committee and board to hear. Speak now...or forever hold your piece.

SP-EYE asked for the complete proposed pay increases per staff member as well as their current salary. There's no real reason to put individual names to the position boxes, although those are certainly available. Some of them you know already.

Remember-- we were only provided with the following at that meeting:

1. a new pay grid,

2. a statement that increases would amount to a "3.8% total compensation package increase", and,

3. The total cost for the 30 employees would be $79,000 for 2009-10, or an average of $2633 per person per year.

Now you have the whole ball of wax with which to make your own assessment. Do these seem reasonable? Did YOU get a 4.3% pay raise for next year?

Note that the only position that did not get a raise (the new PC term is "red-circled") is the Energy Educator Manager. Look...we've "outted" some of the concerns with the whole energy management game in the past, but the question which can't be ignored is this: why is it that out of 30 positions, the ONE that you "red-circle" (freeze their pay) is the ONE position which theoretically saves the district a bundle of money every year? Make sense?

A follow-up question: if that position is so overpaid relative to the comparison districts, why did Admin and the board approve the pay grade initially? As a member of the $100K club, shouldn't we expect our HR manager to establish more reasonable salaries than that? And if the answer to that question is, "No"...then what's the chance that these other positions are being overpaid as well?

As always, click on the graphic images to obtain a larger, higher resolution image.

Recession-Proof

While the rest of the world, country, state, and county continue to struggle with mounting unemployment (now just shy of 10%), layoffs/furloughs/wage cuts, and foreclosures, at least we sit secure in the recession-proof Sunny Prairie school district!!!

At least that's what District Administrator/Super Nintendo Tim Culver desperately needs you to believe...at least until he can get his as yet unseen budget passed and sweet raises for everyone.

Culver was working his mega mojo at the school board meeting Monday night, stating that while other districts such as arch-nemesis [DAMN! They got named top city by Money; we only got Family Circle] Middleton are struggling, "...we're in great financial shape." [SP-EYE...shouldn't that little cheer be followed by a resounding, "naaa naaaa nuh boooo booooo"? ]

Let's summarize how wonderful life is in the Sun Prairie school district.

The teacher's contract is water under the bridge at this point, but those contracts will cost the taxpayers $1.5M this year and another $1.5M next July. That calls for a 4.2% salary increase this year and amounts to a 7.74% increase in salaries and benefits over 2 years. Since salaries and benefits account for over 80% of the annual operating budget, that means the budget will automatically increase by at least 6.0%.

Next up is the administration contracts. The board voted to accept their GRACIOUS offer to reduced their "entitlement" of 4.5% increase to 3.8%.

After that, the plan is to give Admin Support a "3.8% package" increase. Our calculations show that in salary increases alone, that translates to a 4.40% total increase, with at least one individual being awarded a 13% increase.
More little tidbits regarding the Admin Support package that you likely won't hear:

• 17 out of the 30 members of this group will get raises of at least $1.11 per hour
• 12 out of the 30 members of this group will get raises of at least $1.50 per hour
• 3 of the 30 members of this group (10%) will see raises of over $2.00 per hour ($2.14, $2.21, $2.90)
• The "Business Services Manager", who received a $2.50 per hour raise LAST July, will get a raise of $2.21 per hour effective THIS July. That's a $10,000 per year raise in ONE year's time!
  
• 10 of the 30 members of this group are "Program Managers"; each will have a per hour rate of at least $41.21 (max of $46.63). Can you say "top-heavy"?
• The program mangers only work 210 days per year. You and us? We work 2080 hrs/year, which means 260 days.

A 3.8% increase is also being offered to the Substitute Teachers.

Oh wait...we can't bat 1.000...Local 60 is stuck with 3.25% increases.

Dr. Culver has asked for a 0% increase. Geee...do you think the board will feel bad and give him one anyway? I mean...afterall...what's $5500 on top of a $70,000,000 general budget...right?

Property tax bills will also bear the brunt of the rest of the $100M borrowed for the high school construction.

The cost of the 4K program will be heavily borne this year, as we only get state aid for 1/3 of the kids this year. And enrollment hadn't reached projections when we last checked. Oh, and the plan was to operate the program at about a $600K loss this year. That would be what's known as a positive liability, sports fans.

Oh...and word on the street that the exodus of students from Sun Prairie, at least at the elementary level (where our growth has been coming from) outweighs the expected inodus [OK...that' not really a word; we just made that up...but it sounds cool, n'est ce pas?]. Less bodies means less state aid (which is already being cut). Less state aid means more has to come from property taxes.

Does anyone else think it's nuts to be talking raises at all??
Only fringe board member David Stackhouse had the intestinal fortitude to make a motion that furlough days be included to cut the costs. NONE of the other board members would second that motion. So...you know how things are goin'...right?

How long will the school board continue to write checks that the taxpayers can't cash?

So...Dr. Culver...you who keep chanting how great SPASD is because we tax below the allowable limit (like 20% of the districts, right Dr. C?]....so how long do you project that we'll continue to tax below the ceiling...like is that little feather in your cap just about macaroni tight now?


Oh...and McSeaBass? We're sure we're probably just making these numbers say whatever we want. So we anxiously await your explanation of how all these numbers should be properly reviewed using your new McFilet o' Math.

Excuse us for nitPicking...BUT....

We're a little tired of hearing Dr. Culver cite incorrect facts from his pulpit...you know the school district administrator's board table. And you should be too.

Dr. Culver is on a rabid quest to secure incredible raises for all district staff in a time when the economy is teetering on collapse. Did you READ the paper or watch the news, Dr. C? Wisconsin is just a hair below double-digit unemployment!! Yet you stated vehemently. "The Sun Prairie School District is in great financial shape".

Of course it is. That's because the taxpayers foot the bill. But the day of reckoning is fast approaching. But we digress.

The issue here is simple:

"Culver continuously states (quite incorrectly in fact) that "nearly 98% of school districts tax up to the revenue limit. Sun Prairie is in that 2% that do not do so." "

Here's the truth:

In 2008-09 school year, 85 out of 426 school districts set a tax levy UNDER the allowable limit. That's 20%, Dr. Culver.....as in TWO ZERO point ZERO, not TWO point ZERO. You're off by an order of magnitude. You gotta quit taking math lessons from McSeaBass.

And, yes...Sun Prairie taxed $200,000 UNDER what we could have been taxed last year. And that's GREAT...but that also pales in comparison to some other districts. In fact, of the 85 that taxed under the limit, we ranked #22 in terms of absolute dollars. That's not even in the 90th percentile! Yes, a handful of districts only taxed $1 shy of the limit, but $1 under counts.

And there are some VERY BIG names (and big $$) ahead of us on the list: Janesville, Mukwonago, DC Everest, Racine, and Hudson, to name a few. In fact, Hudson tops the list; they levied a tax $5,000,000 under the limit.

Y'all decide. When it comes to Culver-speak or the board, practice the principle of trust but VERIFY! ...and we don't want you to just take our word for it, either. See the data for yourself. Become educated on the issues. The truth shall set you free!

Districts taxing further under the limit than Sun Prairie. See all districts and how they levied.

District / Amount under Tax Levy Maximum
Hudson $5,142,387
Norris $1,913,982
Gresham $1,684,234
Campbellsport $1,404,033
Cadott Community $1,372,640
Janesville $1,230,000
D C Everest Area $1,183,801
Shawano $1,044,016
Menominee Indian $907,910
Augusta $559,299
Monroe $523,173
Cedarburg $520,576
Waterford Graded $435,643
Racine $414,255
Wauzeka-Steuben $350,100
Mukwonago $300,000
Northwood $272,514
Fall River $259,053
Union Grove UHS $250,000
Darlington Community $240,585
Florence $216,515
Sun Prairie Area $200,000

Citizen Representative Interviews set

Some refreshing news for a change. Interest in citizen representative positions has lagged the past several years, with, on at least one occasion, the need to re-post and further seek volunteers to fill a seat.

Not so this year. In fact we have 9 different applicants for 5 available seats.

Interviews are scheduled for Monday July 20 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 and then Tuesday July 21 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

EDUCATION & POLICY COMMITTEE:
[5 applicants for one 2-yr vacancy]
John Welke, Jan Fournier, Christina Klawitter, Melissa Vervoort-Landsness, Patrick Anderson

FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
[3 applicants for 2 vacancies; one 2-yr seat and one 1-yr seat]
John Welke, Erich Huemoeller, Patrick Anderson

FINANCE COMMITTEE:
[3 applicants for one 2-yr vacancy]
John Welke, Erich Huemoeller, Patrick Anderson

HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE:
[4 applicants for one 2-yr vacancy]
Betty Collier, Harold Rayford, Christina Keeley, John Welke

What's the crystal ball say about filling the slots?

Well...let's start with FT&T and Finance, as those are pretty easy. There are 3 seats available between the two committees and the same 3 candidates (Anders, Huemoeller, and Welke) are the only applicants for both. Unless board president John Whalen has some reason to "DQ" one or more of these candidates, it's a titanium lock that each will get a slot on either FT&T or Finance. [SP-EYE- How on earth would it look to play musical chairs and say, "Hey...we have 3 slots and 3 guys, but one of you doesn't get a seat?] But let's look a little closer and see if we can project further.

FINANCE and FT&T
There's only 1 seat, a 2-yr term, on Finance, a vacancy created when applicant Pat Anderson completes his term (1 yr) at the end of July. A casual observer might think, "Hey, he's served there, why not just "re-up" him and give him the seat. We won't presume to anticipate how Mr. Whalen will answer that, but certainly board Policy (BCE) and procedure (BCE-R) would seem to preclude Mr. Anderson's candidacy for Finance.

1. These policies only allow a citizen to serve on a Committee for a maximum of 2 consecutive years. Since this is a 2-yr seat, Mr. Anderson would have to serve 3 years, which would violate the policy. Of course Mr. Whalen could change the seat to a 1-yr term.

2. But that move would create some further problems with the policy by requiring that both citizen seats be filled next year. The board procedure indicates that "Every effort shall be made to avoid replacing both citizen members on any given committee in the same year". So...it might be possible. We'd be interested in understanding how Whalen would substantiate that "every effort"...let alone any effort... had been made to so, however.

3. Last but not least, board policy states that in order to be considered for a re-appointment, Mr. Anderson would have had to have submitted his request to do so prior to July 1, rather than the July 10 deadline for open seats. SP-EYE did not request copies of the candidates' letters, but it would seem that since re=appointment does not require an interview.

Therefore, for Financed, we see candidates Huemoeller and Welke vying for the Finance seat. Based on Huemoeller's background in finance and investing, we'd have to give the nod here to Huemoeller for Finance. That would place Anderson and Welke on FT&T.

EDUCATION & POLICY
Taking Anderson and Welke out of the mix because they now have been seated, leaves us with Jan Fournier (just completing a 2-yr term on FT&T) , Christina Klawitter, and Melissa Vervoort-Landsness.

This could be a tough call. On the one hand, we have Ms. Fournier, who has served the board well and is seen by some as eying a run for the school board next spring. Passing her over, however, would open the door for one of the new-comers to board committees. This is a tough call. If anyone has curriculum experience, they would get the edge over Fournier; otherwise our money is on Fournier.

HUMAN RESOURCES
Taking Welke out of the mix because he has been seated, leaves us with three newcomers: Betty Collier, Harold Rayford, Christina Keeley.

Without knowing their qualifications, Pastor Harold Rayford jumps out as an obvious choice. As a pastor, he certainly understands and has experience with the confidentiality needs that go hand in hand with HR issues. In addition, Pastor Rayford also has provided the district with an excellent resource in their recent efforts to effectively deal with the changing diversity of the school district. Our money is on Pastor Rayford for HR.

---

Of course...it goes without sayin' that...we're just sayin'. ANYTHING can happen with this school board! We will know for certain at the next regular board meeting on Monday July 27, when the committee appointments are voted on.

The downside of all this, of course, is that if the selections go as we predict, at least 3 and maybe 4 of the 5 newcomers to board-committee-land will be rebuffed in their first attempt to engage with the board. And that is unfortunate. Food for thought school board: since "nothing dies in committee" and ALL committee items eventually come to the full board, what's the harm in adding additional citizen representatives to the board committees? After all...you DO want to engage the community...right? And, as the board has said, the committees are the place to engage the board in discussion on "hot" topics....right?

In the worst case scenario, you MIGHT get a few more administrative recommendations coming out of committee with a "NO" vote. You can always cancel that at the board table...right? Thinking out of the box???
N

Are you picker? Or a nitter?

In a lengthy diatribe at last night's school board meeting, Dr. Culver first told the audience how they had it all wrong. And, clearly, HE wasn't on any 3-minute timer!!!

Culver read from prepared notes that clearly were prepared to counter information and commentary provided by good old SP-EYE. Culver went on ad nauseam about how Administration deserved the merit based raises that were being proposed.

Then, clearly irritated, Culver pointed at the audience and temporarily lost his composure. He called the group of those in attendance "nitpickers".

In what is sure to become a memorable moment in school board meeting history, Culver proceeded to point at audience members and declare, "You pick...and you nit...and you nit...and you pick..."

Our favorite part was how he emphasized that he had no vested interest in the [raises] process (since he requested ZERO raise from the board)....wasn't telling the board how to vote.....that his goal was to achieve equity between the various employee groups (Admin, Admin Support, Teachers) so that each got a 3.8% compensation increase.

Nitpicking, eh? Way to engage the community, Dr. C! Look...if you want your back patted, you could get a gaggle of your faithful to show up at meetings to shower you with praise. Maybe. But just because you don't like what the audience that is there has to say, is it appropriate to stoop to name calling? You know...this "nitpicking" could be construed as constructive criticism...but that's a 2-way street, and you and your cronies aren't interested in compromising. You want you want, and you just label those that disagree.

And could you perhaps explain how exactly we are "nitpicking" by pointing out how the instability of the economy does not support the concept of 3.8% across the board raises. Disagree? How about we ask 25 random community residents whether they agree with YOUR raises, or whether they feel that a "net zero"--red-circling--is in order for this year?

For etymological reference, the origin of the term "nitpick" referred to the act of manually (and laboriously) removing nits (eggs) of [yuck] head lice from another's hair. Some would say that the school district way of doing business frequently develops "lice" infestations. Someone needs to address those.

Nitpicking inherently requires fastidious, meticulous attention to detail, the term has become appropriated to describe the practice of meticulously searching for errors in detail, and then criticizing them.

You can call it what you like...but there are many (arguably a majority) that feel your lack of a budget and the implementation of raises in this climate was far from nitpicking. You don't like to get called out when you step firmly in the doodie...we get that. Well...stop stepping in the cowpies, then!

Culver: Equity for all! (well...except for Local 60 that is)
Culver also waxed extensively (hmmm...that may have come out wrong) about how his goal in proposing these 3.8% raises was to have equity for all staff: The teachers agreed to 3.8%, he has proposed 3.8% for Admin Support, and now Admin is asking for only 3.,8%. Hold on there...what about Local60?

In all that talk about promoting equity and valuing the district staff, Culver seemed to forget that the Local 60 folks only got a 3.25% increase. So, if Culver really feels equity is important, why not push for only across-the-board 3.25% increases??? Oh wait...in McSeaBass Math that would mean like a 17% cut for Admin! How on earth would these folks be able to afford their $400K mansions and sea bass dinners?

Memo to ourselves: Why does Local 60 constantly get treated like a red-headed stepchild?

What's the 411 on the Budget?

First we had the "Amber" Alert (missing child). Recently discussions about establishing a "Gray" Alert (missing senior citizen) were held. We're calling for a "Green" Alert to be implemented. Green as in....WHERE THE HECK IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET?

Administration and the board have been merrily agreeing to and proposing 3.8% raises for all levels of staff...all except for the poor Local 60 folks. They get stuck with 3.25%

Salaries and benefits account for more than 80% of the school district's basic operations budget, which was over $65,000,000 THIS year.

The teachers' contracts will cost over 2,000,000 in new money.

We don't know what the Local 60 increases will cost.

Admin is "proposing" that Admin Support will add $80,000 to the debit column.

We don't know yet what Admin's "requested" 3.8% increases will cost.

We haven't even seen anything CLOSE to a budget.

Phil Frei has told us that as a result of state aid cuts, that cuts will have to be made to each building's operations budget.

So...we can afford raises, but expenses that DIRECTLY go to the kids will be DECREASED?
We don't think so.

How can we even be discussing what raises we can afford?

Oh...back to the budget....or lack thereof.


So....what have we seen THIS year? NOTHING CONCRETE.
Yet...suddenly....we think....there's a public hearing on the budget for NEXT Monday, 7-20-09. At least that is what was discussed during the 6-22-09 Finance Committee meeting. This hypothetical budget hearing (A) wasn't even on the famous BoardDocs meeting calendar as of this morning and (B) no preliminary budget has been brought before either the Finance Committee or the full Board!!!

The Budget Timeline, presented to the Board in January 2009, says:

• April Management Team reviews budget draft #1.
• May The Finance Committee & School Board review budget draft #1.
• June The District Administration refines the planning budget and formulates draft #2.
• July A Budget Hearing is held.
• July or August The School Board takes action on the proposed budget.

POLICY DB ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET specifies:
5. The public distribution of budget documents.In accordance with the budget calendar, the district administrator shall submit a preliminary budget to the Board for consideration.

►The Board shall study and evaluate the proposed receipts, expenditures and the amount to be raised by local taxes in terms of the educational plan and the ability of the school district to support the plan. Recommendations for changes in the proposed budget will be considered.
►The Board may schedule special budget review meetings.
►The Board or Finance Committee may request written justification, documentation, and analysis for any programs.
►The proposed budget and tax levy, as tentatively approved by the Board, shall be presented to school district electors at a budget hearing at the time and place of the annual meeting. Electors at the annual meeting shall adopt the tax levy.
►The Board shall adopt the annual operating budget at a Board meeting following the annual meeting.

How was the budget handled last year (as in previous years)

5-27-08 Finance Committee: 1st draft of 2008-09 Revenue Budget
6-23-08 Finance Committee: draft of 2008-09 Expenditure Budget
6-9-08 School Board – Draft Revenue Budget Informational Item
7-6-08 Public Hearing on Budget 7-28-08 Finance Committee – Budget Hearing Discussion

What have we had to review THIS year?
Read for yourself what we have(not) been provided. NOTHING has been presented to the Finance Committee. NOTHING has been presented to the School Board. The public has no formal notification of a public hearing on the budget--which is 1-week away (we think) and hasn't been seen by or reviewed by ANYONE. Oh...but we're going forward at warp factor 9 on handing out raises like they're Skittles.

12/22/2008 5.03 2009-10 Budget Timeline
1/12/2009 5.01 2009-2010 Transportation Budget
1/12/2009 8.01 2009-2010 Budget Timeline
1/26/2009 8.01 2009-2010 Transportation Budget
1/26/2009 3.05 Budget Forecast Model
2/9/2009 6.06 Budget Forecast Model
3/30/2009 6.02 Instructional Programs Budget Review
3/30/2009 6.01 Student Services Budget Review
3/30/2009 3.01 Youth Options Program Requests - Fall 2009-2010
4/13/2009 9.02 Instructional Programs Budget Review
4/13/2009 5.02 Technology Budget Review
4/13/2009 5.04 Buildings & Grounds Budget Review
4/13/2009 9.03 Student Services Budget Review
4/13/2009 8.06 Youth Options Program Requests - Fall 2009-2010
5/26/2009 3.01 2009-10 Budget Development - Initial Budget Assumptions
6/8/2009 8.10 2009-2010 Budget Development - Initial Budget Assumptions
6/22/2009 5.02 Update on State Budget Progress and Impact on SPASD
6/22/2009 3.01 Review of Food Service 2009-2010 Budget
6/22/2009 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement
7/13/2009 8.01 Food Service Preliminary 2009-2010 Budget

N

Descending the Slippery Slope...

Minutes of the School Board Meeting Sept 26, 2006:

E. BOARD MEMBER PICTURES FOR WEBSITE AND DISTRICT OFFICE

Motion by Stackhouse, second by Whalen,

TO HAVE A GROUP PICTURE OF THE ENTIRE BOARD AND INDIVIDUAL PICTURES OF EACH BOARD MEMBER DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE, TO CONTACT THE HIGH SCHOOL PHOTOGRAPHY CLUB TO CHECK THEIR CAPABILITY OF PRODUCING QUALITY PICTURES OR CONTRACT WITH A LOCAL PHOTOGRAPHER IF HIGH SCHOOL CLUB IS NOT ABLE, TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WITH A MINIMUM COST, TO HAVE A GROUP PICTURE DISPLAYED AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE, AND TO ANNUALLY UPDATE PICTURES AS NECESSARY AFTER THE SPRING ELECTION.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Batterman, Gibbs, Havel-Lang, McHoes, Stackhouse, Whalen
NAYS: Diedrich
MOTION CARRIED: 6-1

So...why isn't Diedrich's picture out on the website nearly 3 years later?

Well..because she "doesn't like her picture".

Hello...McFly! You're an elected official, Caren! You're picture is pretty much in the public domain, whether you like it or not. And if you don't like it... why on earth have you continued on as a board member all these years?

This is, first and foremost about community engagement. Caren, we're sure community members would like to be able to approach you and share their perspectives on the issues as you're out and about. In order to do so, however, they need to know what you look like. This was, indeed, the impetus behind the agenda item in the first place!

Of greater significance however, is the issue of what happens when a board member defies policy enacted by the board. That, mes amis, is a very treacherous and slippery slope. This vote represents de facto policy. Further, a legal vote becomes binding, whether you agree with it or not. In fact, Diedrich has long been a board member that preaches the concept of presenting a unified front once a vote has been taken. Hmmm...guess that only works when you actually agree with the results of a particular vote!

Arguably, this vote is the legal equivalent of board policy, and Diedrich is openly defying it. We know that Whalen, and Stackhouse before him, have "had words" with Diedrich on the matter, but, in typical fashion, the board has abdicated responsibility.

Oh, the critics will point to this being such an insignificant thing...pictures on the web and all. And we agree. But conceptually, it's the "elephant in the room"to use Diedrich's pet phrase. How can this board ever hope to gain the respect of this community...to effectively engage the community...while it is abundantly clear that board members get to do their own thing regardless of what is voted?


N

Lord of the purse stRings

As the school board ponders (wait...is there really any pondering going on?) pay raises for school district administrators, let there be no mistake as to who holds the purse strings.

According to law, the school board, elected to represent the district residents, SHOULD hold the purse strings. Sadly, this board, like most past boards, hands the purse strings over to the District Administrator.

Last fall, Dr. Culver attacked community resident John Welke, proclaiming that Welke had "ulterior motives", when Welke asked some pointed and valid questions regarding SAGE program compliance.

Now it would seem that similar allegations could be levelled at Culver. Reports abound that the district staff are not as enamored with Culver as their leader as once they may have been. So how does a leader regain his disbanding flock? Perhaps by fighting for 3.8% compensation package increases when the rest of the community, region, nation, and world are facing job and wage cuts, furloughs, and the burden of paying an increased share of healthcare costs.

Just as Culver accused Welke of having ulterior motives, it can be argued that Culver now is the one operating with ulterior motives. For, after all, Culver indeed is the Lord of the Purse Strings for the Sun Prairie School District. He supported a 3.8% increase for teachers (4.2% salary), a 3.8% increase for administrative support staff and administrators. But...geee....those poor Local 60 folks are stuck with the 3.25% they bargained last year. Too bad, so sad for them...right?

Self serving interests, perhaps?
Culver's motives strike another chord in the ulterior motives sonnata. Could it be that Dr. Culver is cleverly lining up the dominos so that down the road they all fall neatly in a line to further his own interests? Consider for a moment, that if Culver helps to secure 3.8% for the teachers, 3.8% for Administrative support staff and then 3.8% for Administrators, it would be pretty hard for the school board to not give HIM a 3.8% raise...right? Got your thinking caps on school board members? Are you getting this?

Wake up, school board! For once, just TRY to tell the community how much you value the administration in words, but keep our wallets securely in your pocket. Tell Administration that you appreciate their willingness to drop their "entitled" 4.5% increases to 3.8% and tell them that if it's 3.8% they want...fine...but furloughs will be enacted...10 days for those with 260 day contracts. Yes, it will be hard to do that. But you weren't elected to wield a rubber stamp.

Oh...and when Culver's "raise" comes up for discussion, perhaps it's time to "red-circle" him.

Stop Making Sense II - The Principals

So...the Administration kind of opened the door for comparisons when they recently spent $9,000 to do a job study (read: How do we get these people more money?) for Administration Support staff. As part of that study, as directed by none other than Tim Culver, of course, 11 school districts were chosen as "comparable" to Sun Prairie. Thus...we have our basis.

So...how do we compare? We looked at a number of positions to see how we stack up. Particularly in tight times, it IS important to see the lay of the land. We only wish that either (A) the school board had directed Administration to provide them with similar data, or (B) the board members did this work themselves. Neither is going to happen. Also...as a side note...no $9,000 was needed...this data is readily available from the DPI website. Yes, the consultant did a little bit more in-depth work, but did we really need all that? As always, YOU be the judge.

All data is 2008-09 salary data reported to DPI.

High school principals: Average salary = $105,222. Range = $92,000 to $114,000. Sun Prairie pays its principal the 3rd most. Note: new principal Lisa Heipl's salary for 2009-10 is $110,000.

Middle school principals: Average salary = $96,705. Range = $85,000 to $109,000. Sun Prairie pays its two principals more than any other district in the comparison.
Elementary school principals: Average salary = $88,908. Range = $70,000 to $110,000. One of Sun Prairie's principals, as a former District Office administrator, is paid in the top 5. Should this salary be frozen?


Average Elementary school salaries
Beloit $79,256
Fond du Lac $84,881
Oregon $85,762
DeForest $86,638
Middleton-CP $86,859
Elmbrook $90,964
SunPrairie $92,018
Waunakee $94,416
Mukwonago $98,520
Verona $99,977
WestBend $101,019

Remember as well that the board approves only the compensation "package" dollar amount. Tim Culver (at least for now) holds the purse strings in terms of doling the raises out. Raises are tied to scores on evaluations (which we know are subjective). So Culver gets to reward his pets...and penalize those that don't march properly. Dontcha think that the board should request to see and approve or modify any raises at an open meeting??? Maybe that would stop those crazy $5.00 per hour raises!!!

Stop Making Sense pt 1

"As we get older
and stop making sense... "
--the Talking Heads

Yep...the administration (some anyway) are getting older....and some would say they have stopped making sense as well.

What is wrong with the system when Tim Culver...or any district administrator makes more than the Governor....more then the head of the Department of Public Instruction himself!!!! That's the head of every school district in the state...the Super SUPREME Nintendo! But Culver earns more. There's something wrong with that, people. And it is our elected officials, the school board, who are the only ones who can stop the madness and start making sense. We're not saying these jobs aren't valuable. We're just saying that there's a reasonable salary line that needs to be established for these positions....and we may have crossed it.

We offer the following salary comparions, from verifiable sources. You decide....is there something wrong with this picture?

2008 Salary data (updated April 2009) obtained via Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel Watchdog Reports - state employees pay

Tim Culver SPASD District Administrator... $145,886^*
Michael Morgan___Secretary, State DOA......$142,109
Jim Doyle___Governor.......................$141,821
J.B. Van Hollen___Attorney General.........$137,622
Matt Frank___Secretary, State DNR..........$135,064
Tony Evers___Secretary, State DPI..........$132,809
Barabara Lawton___Lt. Governor.............$ 74,892
* includes $425/month "stipend"

Comparing other "high paid" occupations¹ to our District Administration
Surgeons......................... $218,610
Dentists, General............... $158,340
Phil Frei Business Manager, ADA $117,484
Lawyers ........................$110,700
Lisa Dawes Director of Spec. Ed. $109,586
Pharmacists....................... $109,350
Annette Mikula HR Manager .......$107,869
Alice Murphy Dir. of Instruction $107,621

¹ Source: US Department of Labor Statistics (Wisconsin) - May 2008

The only occupations paid better than Phil Frei are like surgeons (not just doctors) and dentisits?? He makes more than the average (notoriously overpaid) LAWYER? You gotta be kidding us!

The director of HR and Director of Instruction make a hair less than pharmacists--whose drug interaction knowledge (or lack thereof) could cost lives?

So the administrators want applause for being so kind as to "give up" 0.7% of their 4.5% "compensation package increases" to which they are entitled? What is the sound of one hand clapping?
N

Correction! Admin is "entitled" to a 4.5% increase

As predicted, the school board packages are out...and guess what? Admin compensation for 2009-10 is indeed on the agenda!

Read it and weep

The Situation Report clarifies that the school board (in their eminent wisdom) voted to approve an increase of 4.5% for 2009-10 in May 2008.

Our apologies for the confusion. But....the landscape has not necessarily changed.

Just as the governor "took back" contractually agreed upon salary increases for state workers, and forced unpaid furlough days over the next 2 years, so too can the school board--the EMPLOYER-- decide that similar actions are in order "...in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle...". Why not furlough some of these high-priced Administrators over the summer months? Or even for a number of days during the year--as was done for state employees.
[ OK...you want 3.8% raise...fine...but we're going to furlough you each for 10 days without pay.]

The bottom line is that a contract is a contract until it is changed....whether forcibly or voluntarily.

Of course...it would take a school board equipped with a set of stones to actually do something that favors the taxpayers instead of the Administration---their EMPLOYEEs.

We DO appreciate the willingness of the %100K club and other Administrators to reduce their "entitlement". We just don't quite think it hits the mark.

====================================

HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS:
On May 27, 2008 the School Board adopted changes to the Administrative Contractual Benefits and Evaluation Plan that included, among other things, a total compensation package increase (salaries and benefits combined)for the 2009-2010 fiscal year in an amount equivalent to that provided to members of the Sun Prairie Education association during the 2008-2009 school year. This was a 4.5% total package increase. This was in compliance with Wis. Stat. 118.245, Limitation on salary and fringe benefit costs for professional employees. Another change was that administrators would pay for an increasing percentage of their health care premiums.

The administrative team appreciates the support of the School Board and this attempt to keep pace with other licensed employees. However, the administrative team felt that in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle, it would be best to ask the School Board to reduce the salary and benefits package from what teachers received last year to what teachers received for 2009-2010: a 3.8% total salary and benefit package.

Administrative representatives (Ms. Smojver, Mr. Widiker, Mr. Luessman, and Mr. Frei) met with members of the School Board (Mr. Whalen, Mr. Shimek, and Ms. Diedrich) on July 1, 2009, to confer on this requested reduction.

The Board’s representatives unanimously passed a motion that appears as the recommendation to the school board. (Motion by Whalen, second by Shimek)

3.8% Across the Board RAISES!

Have our school board members been living in some remote hideaway with no access to the TV, radio, Internet or newspapers?

Must be...because while the rest of us....you know the ones that foot the bill for the expenses THEY approve....are struggling in this recession, they are on a spending spree.

Local 60 (support staff) are stuck with the 3.25% increase they negotiated last year. The board gave the teachers union a 3.8% "package" increase. Now mind you, if ANYONE deserves a raise, even in tight times, its the folks who are actually doing the educating. That being said, these ARE tight times, and no better reason could be given for negotiating a wage freeze. But...water over the dam, that contract has been settled.

Next up, however, are the Administrative Support Team, the Administration, and Dr. Culver. The Admin Support raises got tabled Monday night, so more on that later. In the meantime, we hear things. We understand that at last week's Negotiation meeting-- though details are sketchy and suggest no vote was taken--- Phil Frei was said to indicate something along the lines of: [Admin] is entitled to a 4.5% increase (as teachers got last year]...but...given the economy...we'll take 3.8%.

Gee? You'll "take" 3.8%? Well isn't THAT taking one on the chin for the team???

So...we're expecting that sometime tomorrow, when the school board agenda comes out for Monday's meeting, you'll see a quiet little item regarding contracts for Administration. Our sources indicate that the 3.8% is a done deal. Want to know what 3.8% means??? Another $110,000 to the taxpayers. Phil Frei will tell you that that means another couple of cents on your property tax...so how can you disagree?

Time to take stand folks. If you don't think it makes logical fiscal sense to be tossing around 3.8% raises when jobs and wages are being cut all around, then:

1. CALL your school board members.
2. E-mail your school board members
3. Come to the meeting Monday July 13 and TELL them.


Tell them, "NO More". Not until this economy changes.

What does 3.8% look like?
The chart below compares last year to what a 3.8% increase would look like. Yes...one administrator has retired. And yes, Paul Keats will not be with us. We know that. But you should at least know how things will look for others.

And we have a question....since the principal of Creekside is so much more highly paid than other elementary principals (because they were formally a top shelf Administrator)...shouldn't their salary be frozen anyway???????

And let's not forget that Culver gets $425/month in addition to his salary...pin money so to speak. Why do some folks get less benefit $? Several are opting out of health insurance because they have coverage from a significant other. And for that they get $300/month cash that isn't included here.

CLICK THE CHART FOR A LARGER VIEW---if you dare

0.800 Batting Average going into the All-Star Break

We're heading into the All-Star Break ans SP-EYE is carrying a blistering 0.800 batting average.

Back in January, we predicted the following school board actions:


N Buy more land
................................ After an extended process (and lots of legal fees) the board quietly purchased additional land for the high school construction project. Did anyone know that?

N Spend more money
................................. It's what they do best. We've added a new program (4K), paid more to scrap security guards in favor of the " feel good style" Youth Advocates.

N Increase Admin Staffing
................................. The board approved a new administrative position for HR...they just haven't hired someone yet. The picture is even worse if you look at all the Admin Support staff. From the 2007-08 to the 2008-09 school year, the Admin positions increased from 21 to 23. Salary and fringe benefit costs increased 13% to just shy of $3,000,000. Wonder how high that will go in '09-10?

N Vote to start a 4K Program
.................................. Despite concern from one of their own (Jill Camber-Davidson) and a decision from one of the largest (if not the largest) daycare center in the city (Gingerbread) to NOT participate, it was full speed ahead. Everyone says that it's a "good program" to help kids prepare for school. What they don't tell you is that all research has been geared towards using 4K and the Headstart program to help jumpstart the educational learning of socioeconomically disadvantaged kids. How many of those will be in the 4K program? Hmmm they're not talking that one up. Wonder why? If raises for Admin approach 5% for 2009-10, we could also have 2 or more new members of the $100K club, bringing the total of this elite group to 11!

s Re-structure Board Committees
....................................This is the only one that has yet to come to fruition, yet Al Slane and Jim McCourt (accidentally) discuss it in conversation as if it's a done deal. Hmmmm....wonder why they haven't pushed this one through yet. Perhaps someone actually read the article from Tim Culver that started this bonfire and decided it was not what it was chalked up to be? Come on now! SP-EYE's looking to bat 1.000!