From: al@slane.us
To: SP-EYE
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Blog
Wow, I was the only one to not vote for some key items. I'll let you re-review your facts to figure that out.
Al Slane
As noted in the title of this post, Slane is correct. He identified two specific issues on which he voted "Nay". Unlike (ahem...school board members and certain administrators) we can admit when we err. It's not an excuse....but it does deserve explanation. You see...we took the voting results from the vaunted BoardDocs voting tally. You ask us? It's more like BoardSchlocks. You see...apparently (though we've owned it for over a year), BoardDocs has (at least) one teensy weensy little flaw. Perhaps Mr. Slane summarized it best:
" The problem with the data you are looking at is a known issue with BoardDocs, in that it can not track the votes for multiple motions or amendments (which is complete BS and has been voiced to BoardDocs support). The next version of BoardDocs is addressing this. The minutes are the record, not the BoardDocs votes. I know there are BoardDocs issues, and I tried to review it in FTT, but I did not correctly understand your request and so that review was kind of meaningless because I did not properly convey it to Admin. I plan to rectify this in the future."
We could ask the question, "Why would we have purchased software so fatally flawed"...but that would be digressing. We'll let that little notion simmer in your heads. Back to the issue at hand.
Slane DID vote "NO" on at least TWO occasions...but you need the full story behind each.
1. 6/22/09 - 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original motion, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH THE SUN PRAIRIE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (SPEA) was amended to read,
APPROVE THE INTENT OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH SUN PRAIRIE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (SPEA).
On this vote, Slane voted "NO". Shimek abstained, others voted "Aye". BoardDocs captured the FIRST vote (on which Slane voted "Yes") to AMEND the motion coming forward from administration.
We're not even sure what this motion does. How does one NOT vote to approve the "INTENT" of a CBA?
The next one is a classic cluster (expletive deleted) .
2. 7-13-2009 6.02 Reduction to Previously Approved Administrator Salary and Benefit Total Package for 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION: TO REDUCE THE 2009-2010 TOTAL COMPENSATION (SALARIES AND BENEFITS) PACKAGE INCREASE FOR ADMINISTRATORS FROM 4.5% TO 3.8% WHILE LEAVING ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTUAL BENEFITS AND EVALUATION PLAN AS IS
A. (motion#1) Stackhouse made a motion to amend the motion coming out of committee to add 5 furlough days for each administrator. That motion died on the vine because no one would second it. This would have been a good time for Albert to step up to the plate and at least second the motion...but NOOOOOOOO.
B. (motion #2) to table the original motion (raise reduction) failed on a vote of 3-3-1 (ties represent a failed motion). Slane, Stackhouse, and Camber-Davidson wanted to table it. Shimek--the would be swing vote--was absent.
C. (motion #3) on the 3rd try, they re-voted on the original motion--motion to reduce administrators' pay raises. This motion FAILED due to another tie vote. Which meant that Admin got their original 4.5% pay raises! Slane, Stackhouse, and Camber-Davidson voted "Yes", meaning they supported the raise reduction (a good thing).
D. (motion #4) Later in the meeting, Stackhouse---thankfully...great recovery, Mav!--- made a motion to reconsider their initial folly (they basically gave administrators a bigger raise than even admin wanted!) and re-vote. That motion (to-re-consider the original motion and subsequent vote) passed 5-1-1, with Slane voting "NO"!!! That means he VOTED to keep the Admin raises at 4.5%!!!!
E. (motion #5) Finally, on the 5th vote on the issue, they RE-voted on the original motion (to reduce the admin raises), and it passed 4-2-1, with Slane and Camber-Davidson voting "NO".
So, basically, Camber-Davidson and Slane---though we don't think they understood the vote---voted AGAINST reducing the administrators' pay raises. Did you follow all that?
SP-EYE - Therefore, we stand corrected. Mr. Slane voted "No" on 2 issues...though we're not certain he should be proud of either vote. He was doing better being viewed as a Yes man. SP-EYE is going to peruse all the "official" minutes and see if there are additional discrepancies, but it should only be when multiple votes or amended motions are made---which happens only rarely for this lock-step group.
Posts
