Where's Waldo....and the $183,000?

You remember Where's Waldo...right? Find the geeky little cartoon dude in a maze of other cartoon people.

We have a similar game going on in the school district right now. But this game's called Where's the $183,060? Our quest is to find where the $183,060 is hidden within the $46M budget. They TOLD us that the $183,060 would be "taken out of fund balance".

6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
Meeting: 09/14/2009 REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised), 7:30 p.m.

11. To use $183,060 of fund balance to pay the issuance cost of the Qualified School Construction Bond dated 9/28/09.

So...where did they bury the $183,060 within the $46M budget?

BUDGET ADOPTION 2009-2010
GENERAL FUND (FUND 10)
................... Audited ______ Unaudited ____ Budget
.................. 2007-2008 _____ 2008-2009 ____ 2009-2010
Beginning Fund Balance (Account 930 000)
...............$5,765,999.77 ____ $7,240,354.01 ___$8,003,169.28
Ending Fund Balance, Reserved (Acct. 931 000)
................ $95,806.00 ______ $ 109,962.63 _____$109,962.63
Ending Fund Balance, Designated (Acct. 932 000)
............. $7,144,548.01 _____ $7,130,391.38 ___$7,693,206.65
Ending Fund Balance, Unappropriated (Acct. 933 000)
..................... $0.00 ________ 762,815.27 __________ $0.00
TOTAL ENDING FUND BALANCE (ACCT. 930 000)
............. $7,240,354.01 _____ $8,003,169.28 ___$7,620,109.28

You can see that the fund balance is projected to be reduced from $8,003,169 to $7,620,109,a reduction of $383,060.

And they told us that they would use:
(A) $200,000 from fund balance to pay property tax chargebacks and then
(B) the sneaky $183,060 cost of high school bond issuance.

And those two just so happen to add up to the reduction of fund balance.
But can you find "Waldo" as a line item in the budget documents????

One Awesome Investment in a Hard Recession

Remember the old adage...if you can get your investment to grow at about an 10-11% rate, you'll double your investment every 7 years.

So many of us saw investments take a big hit in the wake of the recession the country continues to struggle with. But there is ONE thing that continues to grow at the premium rate. If only our investments were this reliable!


What is it? The school district tax levy!!!! Over the past 7 years, the tax levy has grown from about $22M to over $46M. It's the perfect investment growth curve!

Unfortunately, the equalized value (the equalized assessed value of all property in the district) has begun to peak.


Why do you care? The mill rate is determined by dividing the tax levy by the equalized value. If you remember your math, the mill rate SHRINKS as the denominator (the equalized value) increases at a greater rate than the numerator (the tax levy). That's why the mill rate is shooting up...because the district continued to spend as if the economy and property values were not taking a hit.

Presto! Change-o! Add 4 more cents to the mill rate!

How does this happen? What changed?
On Monday 9/14/09, the school board voted on agenda item to "approve"--actual approve forwarding the budget to the community to vote on at the annual meeting.

6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
Meeting: 09/14/2009 REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised), 7:30 p.m.

The Situation report listed 11 "budget operating assumptions", number 10 of which was,

10. A projected mill rate of $11.81. This includes the 2nd installment of new debt for the 8/9 school and the high school project.

Then...when we get to the "Annual Report"...which has been provided to Board and Committee members but not the general public (?????). And it says (page 24):

"The tax mill rate is projected at $11.85 per $1,000 of property value, an increase of 12.56%."

The annual meeting booklets are very nice....printed with a high gloss color cover. This is a big change over the typical thick colored paper stock covers. These were received this past Thursday.

So...what changed between 9/14/09 and the day the annual meeting booklets were printed that caused the mill rate to increase $0.04? Sure...$0.04 doesn't seem like a lot. But since every $1,000,000 of tax levy costs the tax payers $0.26 in terms of mill rate....that still means a net increase in expenditures of about $156,000. What did we buy? Hmmm?

And surely we knew this at the time and could have told the school board in the 9/14/09 data that the mill rate would be $11.85, not $11.81????

Or does anyone on the school board have a clue? They can't remember how they vote! They can't remember if they knew about class fees! These folks are ready for Washington!

We're just sayin'...

Meeting Minutes Should Help Jog Shimek's Memory

We called Terry Shimek--chairman of the school board Finance committee-- this week and asked him why the cost of borrowing money for the last installment of high school construction loan was being taken from "fund balance", rather than from the high school construction account.

They can't do that, people. That's a manipulation of money to make it appear that they didn't spend more money on the school construction than they actually did. EVERYTHING related to the high school project must be accounted for from the $100M the voters approved.

Shimek didn't answer. His response was cagey at best, indicating that (1) he couldn't argue the point, and (2) that he spoke out against it at the board meeting. He did give himself an "out" by saying that "the board relies on Phil [Frei] and bond counsel to tell us what we are able to do".

But when asked, "Terry...how did you VOTE on the issue?". His response: "I don't recall; I honestly don't recall". Sounded like one of those great political moments when the trapped politico says, " To the best of my recollection, I don't recall". And that's being kind. Realistically, do we WANT a school board member who can't remember how he voted? Of course the only other logical scenario is that Mr. Shimek was not being truthful when he answered.

Thank goodness for meeting minutes. If we look at the minutes of the meeting, we find out that Shimek actually had 3 significant moments. How could he possibly not recall that:

1. Shimek was the one who actually MADE the original motion to pay the loan fee out of fund balance instead of the construction fund.

2. Shimek voted AGAINST Al Slane's friendly amendment to take $50,000 out of fund balance to re-instate the 5% cut made to classrooms.

3. Back to Shimek's original motion. He VOTED FOR the use of fund balance to pay the loan fee.

School Board Minutes, September 14, 2009
6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
It was moved by Terry Shimek and seconded by Jill Camber
Davidson TO APPROVE ATTACHMENT 1, 65.90 BUDGET ADOPTION
REPORT, AND ATTACHMENT 2, 65.90 BUDGET PUBLICATION REPORT,
OF THE 2009-2010 PROPOSED BUDGET AND FORWARD TO THE
ANNUAL MEETING FOR A VOTE BY THE ELECTORS.

A motion was made by Al Slane and seconded by John Whalen
TO AMEND THE MOTION AND RESTORE $50,000 (5%) SCHOOL
CUTS AND TAKE THE MONEY FROM FUND BALANCE.
The result of the motion was: Failed
Yea: Jill Camber Davidson, Al Slane
Nay: Caren Diedrich, Terry Shimek, David Stackhouse,
John Whalen
Not present: Jim McCourt

Vote on the original motion:
The result of the vote was: Pass
Yea: Jill Camber Davidson, Caren Diedrich, Terry Shimek,
Al Slane, David Stackhouse, John Whalen
Not Present: Jim McCourt

Time for some Gingko biloba, Terry?

We would want to forget such a poor showing if we were in your shoes.

Closing the book on last spring's sexual assault of a student

WKOW reports on the sentencing today of Richard Stackhouse:

Former school worker sentenced for sexual assault
Posted: Sep 23, 2009 4:32 PM CDT

MADISON (WKOW) -- A former Sun Prairie library assistant will spend a year in jail for having a sexual relationship with a student.

Richard Stackhouse was convicted of sexual assault in the spring. He admitted to having inappropriate contact with a student, who was 16-years-old at the time.

The judge also [sic] sentence Stackhouse to four years probation. He must also register as a sex offender following his jail time.


http://www.wkowtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11186296

Shimek shares his take on the bond issuance cost

As chairman of the Finance Committee, Terry Shimek was approached for an explanation on why the $183,000 to issue high school construction bonds will be taken from fund balance, rather than the construction fund.

At issue here is the requirement that ALL costs related to a school construction referendum must be taken from the referendum bonds. The rationale is simple. The community votes to approve a referendum with a CEILING LIMIT. Subsequently, all costs associated with the construction are to come from under that limit. When you shuffle costs out from under the referendum, you are violating law and public trust to say the least.

Here are snippets from Shimek:

• "I voiced opposition to the idea during the discussion."
• "I can't remember if I voted for it or against."
• "I'm not going to argue with you that the money shouldn't come out of fund balance."
• "Phil (Frei) and bond counsel said that we could do this."
• "The board takes the advice from Administration and board counsel. We trust that the information is accurate."
• "We discussed it in public, the STAR reported on the issue. so I don't see it as corruption."

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The board just added another $183,000 that SHOULD have come from construction funds, but instead they're taking it from the "rainy day" fund.

Shimek went on to say that some community and board members are also actively working to do other things that were not budgeted, such as lights on the sports fields. Gee...will we see that taken from fund balance, too? Or where else can they hide those things?

Sleep well, Sun Prairie. You can trust that your school board is hard at work.

Shenanigans Alert!

The school board voted last Monday to take $183,060---the cost to borrow the last installment for the new high school construction--out of "fund balance".

That move effectively removes $183K of costs associated with the new school construction OFF of that particular balance sheet.
It's like paying for something from someone else's account. In this case--the taxpayers.
The net effect is for the district to now be able to spend $100.2M on the construction and still say they are "under" budget.

Do you suppose they're getting a little sweaty on their brows that they'll be OVER budget? Or is that dripping sensation just more egg on their collective faces?

" The proposed budget the board approved to be presented to district residents at the annual meeting had one new addition to it on Monday: use $183,060 from the fund balance to pay the issuance cost of the Qualified Construction Bond dated Sept. 28."
- Sun Prairie Star 9-17-09

Less than 3 weeks in and we have our first expulsion

---

O F F I C I A L P O S T I N G

---

Agenda for

09/22/2009 SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, closed, 6:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 220), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie. President: John Whalen

1. Opening Items
1.01 Call to Order, Roll Call, Affirmation of Public Notice

2. Closed Session
2.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of conducting an expulsion hearing and/or deliberating in regard to the matter [Wis. Stats. 120.13(1)(c) and 19.85(1)(a), (f), and (g)].

3. Discussion/Business Item
3.01 Conduct expulsion hearing
3.02 Deliberation and action on expulsion

Egg on Their Faces

At last Monday's school board meeting, Al Slane made a motion to return $50,000 which was cut from individual school budgets by paying for it out of the ginormous slush fund ($7.8M) known as "fund balance". Unfortunately, only he and Jill Camber-Davidson saw the wisdom in doing so. Slane's motion was defeated 2-5, with Whalen, McCourt, Shimek, Stackhouse and Diedrich voting against.

Stackhouse claimed, "The more money we take out of fund balance, that affects our credit rating and standing."

Come on, David! You're being disingenuous to say the least. That 50,000 represented 0.64% of the fund balance slush fund! THAT would do NOTHING to our credit rating. You also already agreed to take $200,000 out to repay a property tax charge-back and another $183,060 to pay for issuing the last $6M school bond. What's another $50K to give teachers what they need to do their jobs?

Phil Frei said, "Every year schools return unspent budgeted money." Sure...that's technically correct. But you and administration also strong arm teachers with warnings not to "spend it like you'll lose it if you don't". Gee...but that's exactly what happens!

What's this "Annual Meeting" all about?

...only the best kept secret within the school district!
The school board TALKS about Community Engagement. Check that. Has anybody heard the board say ANYTHING about community engagement in the past 12 months except that they want to better engage the community?

What better way to "engage" the community, than to actively get residents to attend the annual meeting? In fact. When one sets a goal, they usually establish a benchmark and then a means of measuring whether or not they see improvement. One measure could be attendance at the annual meeting. Since right now it's at about a pitiful ONE TENTH of 1% of the voting age community.

So...what happens at an annual meeting?

1. The attendees vote to Elect a Chairperson to conduct the budget hearing and the annual meeting

2. Phil Frei, Deputy District Administrator – Business and Operations presents his Summary of the Budget.

3. Open the public hearing for discussion/review/ questions about the 2009 – 2010 budget.

4. Vote on what amount the electors want to set as annual salaries of School Board members for 2009-10. Currently at $3200 for board members and $3500 for the President.

5. Vote on the annual proposal to acquire and sell of real estate for the home construction program.

6. Entertain a motion and vote on the amount of property tax levy to be assessed by the school board for 2009-10 (they want to tax us about $46M, up 12.2% from last year, and adding about $1.28 to the mill rate).

There are a couple of other minor "2-minute" agenda items, but that is the meat and potatoes.

That's right. IF you attend, YOU (not the school board) get to:

• Decide how much to pay school board members. (How much have their efforts been worth?)
• Decide whether or not to purchase a specific lot for the school construction program.
• Decide HOW MUCH the school district is able to spend (set the tax levy). (Yeah...YOU decide that. This is YOUR ONE chance. If you don't approve the amount the district wants, the board must then go back and direct cuts to be made.)

But you have to attend to vote.
Monday October 12, 2009
7:00 pm
Sun prairie High School Auditorium

But the board and the district administration would rather you NOT come.
They'd rather you stay apathetic and don't attend meetings. You can grumble all you want about:
--- increasing property taxes,
---ridiculous raises for administration,
---lack of solid leadership within the school district,
---a school board that rubber stamps whatever Tim Culver wants rather than vote what the community wants,
---where the heck does all the money go?

As long as you do your grumbling privately in your home and don't vote at the annual meeting. The board and Culver will be sure that they have about 25 puppets on hand that will vote for whatever they want.

And historically....that's all they need to continue the status quo.

Did you know...
... that about 3-4 years ago, a special "elector's meeting" was held to have the "electors" (YOU) vote on whether or not to enter into a long term contract with the Y to use their new pool (Smith's Crossing) for the swim teams?

Over 110 voting residents attended that meeting.

How come 110 or more folks came out to vote on something that would cost THOUSANDS of dollars, yet only about 30 or so peoploe attend the annual meeting where over $46 MILLION DOLLARS of spending is approved?

That's kind of embarrasing. And sad.

Numbers

District population - ~ 35,000
District population of voting age (18+) (~70%) - 24,500

# voters who voted for school board April 2009 ~4,000
# votes received by top vote getter, John Whalen ~ 3425
# residents who voted for the 2008-09 $65M budget/ $41.1M tax levy- 37

37.
That's right...John Whalen received over 3400 votes in last April's election, but only 1% of those voters showed up to vote on a $65M general budget and a tax levy of over $41M.

2008-09:... 37 electors voted (26 for; 11 against) to approve a $65 M general budget /41.1M tax levy

2007-08:... 32 electors voted to approve a $62 M general budget /$36.8M tax levy
Motion by former school board member Joe Goss; second by school board member John Whalen

2006-07:... 30 electors voted (25 for; 5 against) to approve a $57.25 M general budget/ $34.1M tax levy
Motion by Bird Principal Chad Wiedmeyer; second by school board member Cheryl Batterman

2005-06:... 33 electors voted (23 for; 10 against)to approve a $53 M general budget /$31.8M tax levy
Motion by District Administrator Tim Culver; second by school board member Cheryl Batterman

And you know who those 25 or so people are who always vote FOR the budget/tax levy?
---District Administrator Tim Culver,
---Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei
---a handful of other Administration folks
---7 school board members (most with significant others)
---several school principals (and their significant others)
---a handful of current and former district staff (and their significant others)
---a couple of former school board members (Havel-Lang, Goss)

Don't Gripe if You Don't Show Up and Vote
We hear from a lot of you. We hear your frustration with the spending and property tax increases. We know you're busy. But the annual elector's meeting is held ONCE a year. It takes about 2 hours tops. Yes...you miss some of Monday Night Football.

The annual elector's meeting is the ONE time when YOU, the electors, get to decide how much of a tax levy the school board is allowed to set. That levy decides how much that can be spent.

Many of you feel that your vote is useless. But when less than 40 people show up, individual votes carry a LOT of weight.
Come.
Speak your mind.
Cast your vote.

Annual Elector's Meeting
Monday October 12, 2009
7:00 PM
@ the Sun Prairie High School

Striking a Nerve: [Lack of] Equity in Our Schools

An excellent perspective on the school equity (or distinct lack thereof) issue.

Dear SP-EYE,

Wow, did you hit a sore spot! Some parents’ groups (say, ones that might have the highest F&R #’s in the city) can’t afford new playground pieces as the old ones wear out. Price out a slide or two – it takes a lot of pizzas (Would you like to buy one or two? I can send you an order form.) to buy one single piece. And then, you have to pay for installation, too, because the district will not do it.

Even when a parents’ group buys a school sign because the district wouldn’t provide that (no equity again – two new elementary schools, two fabulous brand new marquee signs available and lit on day one), no installation by the district; we had to get a company to donate that, too!

Anyway, despite board members’ insistence that playgrounds would be equitable (discussion item at the first diversity meeting last spring), building and grounds will only REMOVE worn or dangerous pieces – but not REPLACE them. So if your kiddos’ parents’ group doesn’t have tens of thousands to bankroll playground equipment, their playgrounds are going to look pretty bleak if they’re not at one of the newer schools!

Just for fun, count the number of basketball courts/hoops at each school. Then figure it out per capita – wanna guess which one has the fewest?

Last year one parents’ group paid several hundred dollars for playground aide radios (safety thing) not covered by the district, not to mention other playground/recess toys and balls that there was no money in the budget for. These are basic needs – so there’s nothing left to “save” for a playground equipment fund. If you want to know what goes in and out of a parents’ group budget, ask the officers. Most of the schools have contacts posted on the website. Minutes are often there, too. It shouldn’t be a secret.

Please don’t use my name.

SP-EYE - Again...school board members don't particularly like it that names are withheld, but they need to get the message that community members, parents, and district staff DO fear retaliation...either to themselves, or their children. And until that fear--whether real or perceived-- is eliminated, that's the way we will do things here. We're not the State Journal here.

More Letters: Class Fees/Supply Lists

Another perspective on the issue of class fees and school supply costs.

Dear SP-Eye,
Thank you for covering the "class fees" issue within the school district! I have to admit that over the years I simply just wrote out a check for whatever fees were listed for the grade and school that my kids were entering at that time. I also went out and purchased whatever supplies were listed for my kids respective classes. This year I inked a check to the tune of about $95 per kid and an additional $25 for one kid that is involved in middle school athletics.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the current school my kids are attending returned $9,618 of their annual budget allocation last year! In addition, they returned an another $5,928 that was allocated to the school's athletic program!!! That money surely could have gone to offset some of the fees that the parents are paying out of pocket.

Now in the district's infinite wisdom they came up with a proposed budget that will cut schools and programs to the tune of $250,000 or so and at the same time they are increasing the budget by over $1.7 million to pay for salary and fringe benefit increases the board approved a few months ago.

This is a complete mess and someone needs to be held accountable. School and program budgets should be fully funded and parents should not have to pay a thing until the complete allocation is spent down. Likewise, employment contracts should not ever be considered until the board gets a full budget picture that takes into consideration current income and expenses.

Keep up the good work!

NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST
NOTE: SP-EYE will print names of those individuals who do not request anonymity. Sadly (and understandably) we get letters from folks who either work for the school district, or parents with children in the district. These individuals sincerely fear retaliation. And we respect that.

Hold on to your wallets!!!!

Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei was asked recently what the current projections are for NEXT year's millrate, considering that the increase for THIS year is expected to be at least $1.28 (per $1,000 of assessed value).

Frei's estimate for the 2010-11 year is: $1.32 (per $1,000 of assessed value).

That's a total of $2.60 additional, or an additional $520 for a $200,000 home (as compared to 2009 property taxes).

Adding $1.32 on top of the $1.28 (at least) for this year (2009-10) will increase the total school district mill rate to $13.13, the highest it has been in over 10 years. All that building? Time to pay the piper, folks.

Please note, however, that mill rates can never be calculated with a high degree of confidence until final aid and equalized value (of district property) numbers are obtained in mid-October of any given year.

School Supply Lists Come Under Fire

Here's two words for ya:

Inconsistent.
Questionable.

Inconsistent is for the ridiculous variability across the 7 elementary schools for even a single item on the supply lists.

Questionable (and we're being kind here) is the word that comes to mind when we really look at these class school supply lists.

5th grade supply lists Do they really need this many :
□ Pencils: Royals Oaks requires 12 pencils. Horizon requires 72 PER CHILD. Other schools require 36 or 48. 72 represents 1 pencil for about every 3 school days. Is that realistic?

□ Post-It Notes?

□ 400 sheets of notebook filler paper? That's about 2 sheets per child per day! And 2 of the 7 schools don't require it at all!


□ There are too many others to call them all out. W suggest, however, that you take a look.

Why do the kids/parents need to supply these items
□ Hand sanitizer (2 of 7 schools). Yes, we understand the need. But isn't this -as a need- something akin to toilet paper? It's needed, all kids use it (or should) therefore the school provides it. Or next year will each kid be required to bring a 6 roll pack of Charmin?

□ Disinfectant wipes (6 of 7 schools). Same issue.

□ Dry-erase markers (6 of 7 schools). Hello! Or are kids going to have to chip in next year and supply the whiteboard to go WITH the dry-erase markers?

□ Zip-lock bags. Some schools require them, some don't. There are size variations. We're just curious what they are used for.

□ Flashdrive. We get this one...and it is more of a personal data thing, so it does make sense to have each child bring their own. But we have two questions: (1) why is Eastside the only school to require one? and (2) are 128 Mb drives even still available? You might be able to find a 1 Gb drive, but pretty much 2 Gb is the low end these days.
Shouldn't these items be covered by the budget?


Why should parents even be providing these things, when the schools themselves aren't even spending all that was budgeted?
So we budgeted (and paid taxes for) about $50,000 that went unspent during the school year. Consequently, Administration proposed cutting budgets by 5% --that amounts to roughly the amount that went unspent-- so they could afford their 3.8+% pay raises.

Great! but the parents are still on the hook to provide all these questionable classroom supplies--not to mention the class fees that are "imposed".

How's about NOT cutting the school budgets and using that money to pay for these ridiculous school supplies? Especially when you advertised so well that 1500 families cannot afford to purchase the school supplies that ---now that we look closely at what they are--- the parents shouldn't have to pay in the first place.

And do not even THINK about going down the, "This the way it has always been and nobody's complained in the past" road. That road is closed permanently. FIRST, this is YOUR job, school board members. To make sure that the kids are provided with everything they need for a day at school. And yes they use the rest room, so you better supply TP for the restroom. And yes, they may have to blow their nose or sanitize their hands. Provide that as well.

TWO. These are unprecedented times, that call for re-evaluating ALL past practices.

OBSERVATIONS................

►Notice who gets hurt most by the proposed cuts. The three schools with the highest number of socioeconomically challenged families (Bird, Westside, and Creekside) also came closest to exhausting their budgets. These schools will be seriously impacted by the proposed building budget cuts.

►Or was that the plan? The budget is being cut, so we'll require the parents to provide more.

►Couldn't the school district get these items in much larger quantity at a much better price AND tax exempt?

►Look...we get that parents should be supplying those things that are individual in nature: gym clothes/shoes/ an old "dad": shirt to wear for art, assignment books, even notebooks, and some other things. But back in the day, when a compass or protractor as needed, the teacher lugged out a box full of them. What's next? Parents required to supply toilet paper? Each parent assigned a certain square area of the floor to mop/wax?

►It seems only logical that those supplies that are consumed as part of the education process (let's apply--say---"the toilet paper test") should be provided by the school district and be budgeted for accordingly.

►How come parents need to provide these items -to the tune of let's say $40-50 per child- when the elementary schools alone had over $14,000 in unspent budget at the end of the school year. Those funds get scooped by the district, pooled and used to purchase "larger ticket" items before the end of the year.

---

---- Phil Frei wrote:
=============
Any surplus money from any budget, building or department, goes into the general surplus account. Schools understand this and this has not been a problem. We encourage schools to not have the mentality to spend it or they will lose it. We try to pool money together in the spring for large purchases. Every department within the district is affected by the 5% cut, for example B&G, Instructional Services, HR. In general the schools got cut $50,000. Capital projects got cut $50,000 and $150,000 came from all other areas. We could not do across the board 5% cut to all budgets b/c some budgets could not be cut, for example utilities and transportation. In these cases the adm. cut 5% from areas that could be cut. Yes, the overall reduction to the mill rate is about .07 cents from the 5% cut.

---

►Two other schools, Creekside and Royal Oaks seemed to have a sneaky way of sliding in what WE would call "class fees":

□ Royal Oaks 2009-10 Kindergarten School Supply List - $10.00 for film development and crafts (please make checks payable to SPASD). Who the heck uses film these days?

□ Creekside 2009-10 Supply Lists: Optional $10 classroom donation for picture printing & crafts (please make checks payable to SPASD). Optional! That's clever!

Class Fees - Why YOU Should Care

So what's the big hairy deal? One school came up with an ingenious way to pad the fundraising coffers, by charging a class fee paid through the SCO. Who cares?

You should ALL care. Why? Because it is wrong on so many levels. We'll list here just a few of the glaring reasons why this is wrong. Let's start with the gorilla in the room, to use Caren Diedrich's pet phrase.

Economic Diversity is NOT balanced across the district.
Eastside just happens to have the 2nd lowest number of children eligible for free or reduced priced lunches in the district. [Don't believe us...but DO see the graphics at right that come directly from DPI data as reported by the district]. Why does that matter? Because if fewer families are suffering from poverty in the Eastside school boundary, a much larger percentage of families could afford to pay a class fee. This puts Eastside at a competitive advantage in terms of fundraising. Since the revenues from fundraising go towards buying nice things like (ahem!) new playground equipment, THESE kids would also benefit from having "better things" at their schools.

Maybe the kids at Westside and Bird would like new playground equipment...or something else. But given the percentage of families that are struggling in these schools, it would be much harder to generate revenues from class fees.

And that is just plain WRONG, people. The school board knows it. When (several years back) a group of Royal Oaks parents offered to pay for brand new school computers the school board (correctly) said " Thanks, but we can't allow that.". Why? because it creates an imbalance between schools. Equity has to be everything when it comes to education. Geee...isn't that the mission statement of this school district?

It amounts to a double tax
The whole purpose of establishing a budget and assessing a tax levy is to fund schools. The revenues from state and federal aids combined with property tax levies is designed to cover ALL the costs of education. If the budget is short (which is a hard case to make considering the sizable budget surpluses in recent years) then we need to tell the school board and district to increase the budget.

These class fees represent a tax on top of the property tax already in place. Fundraising should be voluntary. These class fees were represented as a "requirement". And no other school was imposing them.

Somebody lied when they said they didn't know.
We don't like to call people out like this (ok...maybe we do...but just a little). But the facts speak for themselves folks. People in charge knew about the fees, even though they denied such knowledge. They can deny it till they're blue in the face. We don't care. There's just too many people who had opportunity to be aware of the fees and too many claims of "There are no fees". Good grief. The only other logical conclusion is that these same people were absolutely, unequivocally CLUELESS. Hey...there's a good question...would you rather have school board members that will lie? Or those that are clueless?

Eastside Principal Craig Coulthart KNEW - hell, it's his school! He was at the meeting where the fees were discussed! He approved the newsletter that discussed them. Did he not even look at it?

School board member McSeabass KNEW - he was the school board liaison and was also at the fateful meeting.

Ass't District Administrator Phil Frei MUST have known. His kids attend Eastside. Surely, as a good parent, he reads the newsletter?

School board member Al Slane MUST have known- his kids go to Eastside. His wife is the ESCO vice President. He claims he gives all kinds of money to the ESCO...but he claims he didn't know about or pay the fees.

School board member Terry Shimek MUST have known- his kid goes to Eastside. His wife teaches there. but he claims he didn't know about or pay the fees.

But in the end, in a public forum, the existence of the class fees was absolutely denied. This is WRONG, folks...on EVERY conceivable scale. A bunch of people have some serious 'splainin' to do...and the school board should launch an investigation.

The brakes SHOULD have been put on the idea of class fees
It is the school board's JOB to know about this stuff. And it's their JOB to take action to initiate a cease and desist order when these things inexplicably emerge. Sorry, JohnE Whalen, but that's not micro-managing, that's management 101. If you can't trust the employees to ferret out this stuff and shut it down, then you're simply not being a good enough manager, and the employees' cages need to be rattled.

Where do we go from here?
You can't take the playground equipment back. That train has definitely left the station.

But you CAN do some/all of the following (of course, since SP-EYE recommends it, we pretty much guarantee the board will do absolutely nothing)

1. Put this item on the next meeting agenda.

2. Get the FACTS. Demand accountability.

3. Fortify your policies to ensure class fees of any kind, framed in any way, are absolutely unacceptable.

4. Put it in your employees' performance reviews

5. Figure out a way to police the SCOs.

6. Demand that SCOs have a a complete accounting of their revenues (including specific source for each) and expenditures.

7. Inventory the other schools, particularly those with high populations of children eligible for free/reduced price lunches, and make sure they have equity in their playground equipment with Eastside.

8. Apologize to the community

Readers Write About Class Fees

Dear SP-EYE...

Beyond the fees issue, many schools/teachers seem to add basic classroom and janitorial supplies to the kid’s school supply lists. This year, we were asked to provide Clorox Wipes, and dry erase markers, and this is not the first year. In the past, we’ve had to provide a disposable camera and a donation for processing the film.

-Name Withheld

Dry Erase markers? Aren't those basic classroom materials?

Chlorox Wipes? Certainly we see the need...but again, if it's needed for the school, then it should be part of the budget.

Disposable Camera/Film? There's just no way you can convince us that THAT is a necessity! And who uses film these days anyway?


Take a closer look at the Elementary school supply lists for 2009-10

2009-10 CH Bird Supply Lists
2009-10 Creekside Supply Lists
2009-10 Eastside Supply Lists
2009-10 Horizon Supply Lists
2009-10 Northside Supply Lists
2009-10 Royal Oaks Supply Lists
2009-10Westside Supply Lists

Tarnished Deeds 3: Who Knew?

Disclaimer: First, let's be clear. What we present here can be viewed negatively. This will probably bring on yet another story time from Cap'n Tim about "Builders and Wreckers". Unfortunately, some of the nicest looking woodwork hides termites beneath it. Sometimes, the crowbars have to come out to save the rest of the structure.

Here is clear documentation that Phil Frei, double-checking on his statements at the public hearing, says there are no such things as class fees.

Phil Frei: There are no class fees.

[SP-EYE is seeing images of George Bush saying, "Read my lips..."]

---

Board member Terry
Shimek: There are no fees

---

Board member Al Slane:
There is a fee in the SCO bylaws, but they are working to remove that...and besides....they haven't charged a fee in the past 6 years.

Oh...and no fees (which haven't been assessed in the past 6 years) were used to pay for the playground equipment.

---

After obtaining documentation that the class fees DID exist, we shared that information with Slane and Shimek and again asked for their comments


Slane: OK...I guess there WERE fees...but they were only used for good...not for evil.

[Anyone seen 'True Lies'? Remember the scene at the end when Arnold Schwarzenegger 's true identity as a secret agent becomes clear to his wife (the lovely Jamie Lee Curtis)? She asks him if he's ever killed anybody, and his response is "Yes...{pause}...but they were all bad people". Sorry, we digress]

---

Shimek (acknowledging existence of class fees):
The fees shouldn't have been mandated.

[Oh...OK...as long as they are not MANDATORY, they're OK??? Come on, Terry!]

---

Here's the bottom line, folks:

The FACT is that Principal Coulthart knew about the fees. That means District Administration should have known about the fees, because Coulthart would have known such a thing would raise red flags. And once Admin knew about the fees, the school board should have been notified, since it is from their ivory towers that the cries of "We must have equity in our schools" are shouted. The FACT is that board member Jim "McSeaBass" McCourt did know about the fees because he is the Eastside liaison and was present when the fess were discussed (unless he was snoozing at that moment).

It is also FACT that Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei and school board members Al Slane and Terry Shimek, due to their personal connections with Eastside, also --at the very least--had numerous opportunities to become aware of the fees (although they claim no such knowledge).

So why didn't anyone take action to put a halt to the fees?
Was it because this was a nice way to get needed things for the schools without raising the mill rate? Phil Frei's own logic would day that such an argument is silly because $17,000 would not even raise the mill rate by one penny.

Did they not even THINK about ramifications this information would have once it came to light? About how it flies in the face of the equity issues they've preached about in the past?

Is it just arrogance in believing that what the SCO was doing served 'the greater good' and therefore they could look the other way?

Or is it just that this is yet another indicator that this school board lacks the chutzpah --or simple motivation-- to keep an arms length between themselves and the district, to hold the district accountable, and to take action when necessary? To basically act like an employer, not a subordinate? Sure they can point to things like employee Richard Stackhouse's dismissal following his sexual encounter last spring. But that's a no-brainer, folks. It's these less clear-sided issues on which the board MUST take swift - and consistent- action.

As Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men" put it, "All good questions.."

Tarnished Deed 2: Class Fees, The Documentation

This one covers the gamut, The 5 Ws: WHO gets the fees (the teachers) WHAT are the fees? ($5 per child for K-2, $10 per child for grades 3-5); WHERE (Eastside); WHEN the fees are due (October 1); WHY the fees were established (Class fees help to purchase extra supplies for the classroom).

What's really interesting is that board member Jim McCourt was clearly at the meeting and present during the discussion. Yet, McCourt has gone on the record on numerous occasions stating that teachers do not need anything beyond what they are provided, and if they do, they should contact the board. Newsflash, Gumbo Jimbo. Put down the sea bass for a minute and LISTEN. Clearly, these teachers (and the ESCO) felt they needed more materials.

Here it is a week later, coming in the schoolwide newsletter. Clearly Principal Coulthart had to know about the fees. He was at the September 9, meeting AND he must review (or at least read) his school newsletter.

Yet another newsletter...this time the "SCO" newsletter. Again, the infamous five W's are very clearly present.

Class fee revenue projections based on DPI 3rd Friday counts:

Eastside Elementary
Grade K -96 kids -$ 480.00

Grade 1 - 73 kids - $ 365.00
Grade 2 -97 kids - $ 485.00
Grade 3 - 75 kids - $ 750.00
Grade 4 - 79 kids - $ 790.00
Grade 5 - 81 kids - $ 810.00
_______TOTAL $3,680.00

That has to be the top 1 or 2 source of SCO funds.

A "lengthy" discussion regarding how to collect EVEN MORE (higher percentage?) of class fees! Imagine that!

They like what they receive so much, they want to collect more.

Also troubling is the comment that the group operates without a formal budget. YIKES! How does one account for what they do with the money? Can you say "low hanging fruit"?

All this resulted in purchase of playground equipment as approved by the school board's FTT committee:

RECOMMENDATION: The Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds recommends accepting the proposal from Gerber Leisure to install wood chips and border in conjunction with the purchase and installation of playground equipment ($17,000) by the Eastside Parent Organization.

Tarnished Deeds: When SCOs Go Wild

The 2009-10 school year began this week. Eastside elementary kids were greeted by wonderful new playground equipment, funded by "ESCO", the Eastside School-Community Organization. That's a great thing....right? A success story? Sadly, there's more here than what you hear from the school district. And when you dig a little bit, things really begin to stink.

There is a LOT of detail to this story, so let's start you off with the summary of our findings.

► There is no evidence to refute that the new Eastside playground equipment was at least in part financed by inappropriate "class fees".

► Class fees represent a double tax for parents. The school district budget, which is paid by state aids and property taxes, should cover ALL classroom/student needs.

► Class fees represent an inequitable financial advantage for a school. We could only find evidence of this practice at Eastside.

►The school district and school board SHOULD have been aware of this situation (were they?)and nipped it in the bud.

►There is crystal clear evidence that principal Coulthart, deputy district administrator Phil Frei, and 3 school board members (McCourt, Shimek , and Slane) SHOULD (arguably MUST) have been aware of these class fees--and done something about them.

►The transparency of government becomes clouded-- to say the least-- when SCOs do not have to provide financial accountability for their revenues.

►Board member Jim McCourt is constantly prattling on that teachers who are not getting things they need should speak to school board members--and that such a need doesn't exist. They shouldn't HAVE to, Jim. You were present at the ESCO meeting last fall when class fees were discussed: how much, and the fact that they paid for things teachers need but don't get.

---

SP-EYE: Ponder that for a bit. We'll be presenting all of the DOCUMENTED FACTs on this issue a followup. There are some many layers to this issue that it needs to be peeled slowly...like an onion.

Take out all the subplots and it boils down to 3 main issues:

1. The idea of "voluntary" class fees to supplement teachers in their classrooms is fundamentally a bad idea. The school board needs to take action to stop this practice permanently.

2. Too many administration and board members had to have their heads in the sand to NOT know this was going on. This is one of those "Have you stopped beating your spouse" questions. No matter how you slice it, it comes down to, "Were you that clueless? Or did you look the other way?" And, if it was the latter, then did you pull a Pinocchio when asked directly about the fees?

3. The perceived need for class fees to purchase things which teachers need to do their jobs, passively supported by administration, lends credence to arguments that the 2009-10 budget should not target classrooms for 5% cuts.