Stipends: Swollen Memberships

(Part 1 of a series)
Preface
It is important to note from the start that we recognize the value that memberships in professional organizations and societies offer in terms of networking, resources, and professional development.  But like anything, it must be in good measure.  Maybe you agree it's a concern, maybe you do not; but in  the wake of a serious economic downturn, all stones must be turned to at least evaluate potential savings for the district.  The sheer number and cost of these memberships is mind boggling.  But perhaps what stands out most is that these are intangibles; we can theorize that having these memberships could possibly result in a better district....yet we cannot prove it.  Where are the metrics?  How do we assess the return on our investment?   More to the point....many of these memberships are provided for individuals who are already very well compensated.  At what point does it become too much, and if individuals wish to maintain these memberships, they pony up the membership fee out of their own amply lined pockets.

It's time someone took a look at how many professional memberships we pay for in the district.

Teachers continue to have to supplement their classroom materials out of their own pockets because building budgets have been reduced.  That's just plain wrong.   Get past teacher pay for just a moment and ask yourself:  should ANY employee ANYWHERE have to provide their own materials to do their jobs?  We don't think so.

Interestingly enough, teachers' building budgets have been reduced by about $50,000. That reduction only means that teachers have to dig further into their own pockets to provide classroom materials to teach our kids.   Wanna take a guess at how much we spent in the last 12 months on professional membership dues?  Yup...a little more than $50,000.

General "district-wide" memberships:  24, totalling a bit over $27,000
Individual memberships:  104, totaling a bit under $25,000
Of those individual memberships, 72 (69% of individual memberships) were for the 28.5 FTE administrators, accounting for a bit over $21,000 (86% of individual membership costs).
That's an average of 3 memberships per administrator at a cost of just under $1000 per administrator.

24 of the 29 administrators have at least one membership paid for by the school district.  Two administrators take the prize for most individual memberships, with each having 7 membership dues/fees paid for by the district.

District-wide memberships include 17 different organizations. Individual memberships include 40 separate organizations.  That's a total of 57 memberships!

Memberships may be a good thing...but why are we paying for multiple memberships to the same organization?
The district pays for FOUR (4) SAM's Club memberships:  one each for Nursing, Elementary schools (ES?), and --not one, but --TWO memberships for high school athletics!  While the cost is fairly minimal, why do we need FOUR?  Can't the district purchase just ONE membership?  We purchase a "business" membership, which includes, " one Membership for you and one for a household member over 18 years of age.   Business Members also receive a company card that may be used by an employee for business purchases. "   Hmmm...who gets the second membership?  And since we receive a company card that may be used by an employee for purchases, why the need for more than one membership?

The bottom line is that these costs add up to a non-trivial amount.  There's an old adage that reminds us that 100 "1% costs" add up to 100%.  And these dollars can be put to better use paying for direct educational material costs that are being paid out of teachers' pockets at the moment. And need we remind you of the requirement that each middle schooler supply a ream of paper as part of their 'school supply list'?   http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2010/08/even-more-school-supply-shenanigans.html

Other Questions

• Do we need pay for 18 separate AWSA [Association of Wisconsin School Administrators] memberships?
•  Do we need pay for 17 separate Administrator memberships to ASCD [Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development]?
•  Do we need pay for 9 separate NAESP [ National Association of Elementary School Principals] memberships?  We only have 7 elementary schools!  Why are we paying for membership in an ELEMENTARY school organization for two MIDDLE school administrators?  For the half-time principal of SP4K? 
•  Do we need to pay for 4 separate NASSP [ National Association of Secondary School Principals] ?
• Why are we paying for 2 memberships to NCTM  [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics ] for an elementary school principal and  a Staff Development Program Manager?  A math teacher?  Math department head?  Maybe...but two administrators?

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION
Documents we have obtained from the district indicate that most stipends...such as Dr. Culver's $125/month for Dane Co. travel costs and $325/month for "miscellaneous" costs...are paid out along with salary.

So....if we are paying these people a stipend of $1,375-$2,000 per year to cover things such as memberships, why is the district writing so many checks for memberships?  Hmmm?  We didn't see any re-imbursement checks in the Deposit listings to cover these costs Does that mean that, in addition to these memberships, they are paying an additional $1,375 to $2,000 out-of-pocket for others?  Hmmm?  Enquiring minds are interested in knowing.

Wait!  It's all OK.  It's part of an Administrator's Compensation package!
That's right, folks.  It's all above board...right?  After all, the administrators' benefit package (which school board members have voted to approve) includes the following:

C. Professional Development Stipend

1. To promote professional growth each administrator shall be provided with a professional development stipend as follows:

a. $2,000 per year for Building Principals; Assistant and Deputy District  Administrators; and Directors of Student Services or Human Resources.

b. $1,375 per year for all other administrators. 

3. The professional development stipend:

a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals;

b. Will not be subtracted from the administrator's operational or building budget;

c. Will be carried over annually, up to a maximum amount of $4,000 per administrator;

d. May be supplemented by funds from the administrator's operational budget;

YIKES! eh?  Not only do they get up to $2,000 per year ON TOP OF THEIR FAT SALARIES...but

• they get to spend it pretty much anyway they like,
• they get to carry over and "stockpile" up to $4,000 per year,
• they can supplement the money from their own personal department budget,
• and there doesn't appear to be any real oversight.

Is it just us?  Or does anyone else smell at least the potential for shenanigans?


What exactly is a Stipend
(1) a sum of money allotted on a regular basis; usually for some specific purpose
   -- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(2)  a fixed or regular amount of money paid as a salary or allowance, as to a clergyman
[ from Latin stīpendium, from stips (a contribution) + pendere (to pay out)]
-- Free dictionary online

Ruh Roh, Raggy: 4K Is in the Gunsights

Maybe we won't have to worry about how $50,000 for busing 4-year olds became $250,000.
It seems that at least one Republican lawmaker has got the 4K program squarely on his radar screen.  Bombs away?

"It is important for Governor Walker to make it clear that the days of encouraging four-year-old kindergarten are at an end so local districts can plan accordingly," 

--State Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend

 Read the State Journal article

School Board New Years Resolutions You Should --But WON'T-- See

Sun Prairie School Board New Year Resolutions for 2011 that SHOULD be made...but won't be.


#1.  Do away with the phrase, "All in favor say 'aye'....all opposed, same sign".
If you're opposed to something, why on earth would you say, "aye"?  This phrase dates back to the days when voting was done by raising one's hand...as in, "All in favor (raise your hand), All opposed, same sign".  Get it?


#2. Get better quality KSUN *live* feed of meetings.
Seriously...if you've ever watched one, the sound quality is horrendous, and the board members are washed ou (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).  Diedrich, in particular, looks ghostly (note, for the record, we did NOT say "ghastly").  May we recommend that the board bring in a small TV and actually watch one of their meetings as it airs?  What's really weird is that if you watch one of the DVDs produced, the quality is better.


#3.  Create a standing agenda item for "Items of business at next school board meeting".
Currently the board president sets the agenda (actually it's mainly set by administration).  The public should know, with more than 3 days notice, what is coming up.  The public should also have input in this process.  Let's make the whole agenda-setting process transparent, eh?  And it should be sequenced before "Consent" items in the agenda.  We'll even start you off with a suggestion: grade inflation.  Let's have a school board table discussion regarding the percentage of kids making the honor roll/perfect 4.0 and how realistic that percentage is.


#4. It's time to return King Culver to the cheap seats.
It's the BOARD table, and he's NOT a board member.  'Nuff said.  Many times Culver has even responded to citizens requesting a response from the BOARD.  He also uses his "Administrator's report" time to poke and jab at public commenters whose comments he doesn't care for.  Bad form!


#5. Reconsider seating at the "administrator" table.
Are we paying administrators to attend?  Giving them "comp" time?  We hope not...because there are a number of them that appear religiously yet never speak a word.  If they are just interested citizens, they too should be in the cheap seats.


#6.  At committee meetings, treat other school board members in attendance the same as any other citizen.
If you've attended one of these meetings, when the chair turns and asks the public for comments, they routinely call individual school board members in attendance FIRST and ask if THEY have any comments.  Excuse us!


#7.  Re-arrange the agenda.
The administrator's report frequently contains some notable news, but more often than not is composed of self-indulgent or "rah-rah" items.  Frankly, it's typically as interesting as week-old turkey tetrazzini.  OK, maybe that was a poor analogy, 'cause we've seen some interesting developments in week-old anything.    The administrator's report needs to be moved to the back of the bus, with "Board member reports".


#8.  Votes of abstention should be reserved for those situations where a board member has a direct or perceived conflict of interest in the subject at hand.
No more of this ridiculous, "How many Yes votes does it take? Oh...I abstain!" crap.  VERY poor form.


#9. Streamline the meetings.  
On any business item, the routine should be: 1.Once --not twice-- around the table.  2. Be brief with your comments, board members.  3. Ask for public input. 4. Bring it back to the board, but only ask for any final comments (raise hands), rather than going around the table again.


#10.  Stop the closed-door shenanigans.
Look...we KNOW that more goes on in closed board sessions than is legally allowed.  STOP IT!   You can't possibly think that you're so clever that we aren't aware of the violations occurring.  Hell, the whole public knew all the silliness that went on behind the scenes with the Pool Manager hiring.  Newsflash, Ms. Diedrich...you can't change your vote once you've cast it in public session. 

ONE MEEEEL YUN DOLLARS!

The Sun Prairie Area School District general budget for 2010-11 is about $73M.
You know the old adage....what does "a million of [something] look like"?
Here's what ONE MILLION DOLLARS buys (or what costs $1M) in the school district:

• The combined salaries (excluding benefits) of the top 9 highest paid administrators: Culver, Frei, Dawes, Luessman, Mikula, Hery, Murphy, Heipp, Ruggles)
• The combined salaries (excluding benefits) of all 28.5 administrators for July - Nov, 2010
• The combined salaries (excluding benefits) of the top 12 highest paid teachers
• The district cost -- for ONE MONTH -- of Health Insurance ($936,250)
• The 2010-11 district cost for Dental Insurance
• The budgeted amount which state aid exceeds cost (aka "profit") of the 4K program in 2011-12
• The 5 YEAR busing cost to transport 4 year olds to the 4K program (currently 133 kids) 
• The District budget for "General Supplies" for the 2010-11 school year
• The budgeted sum of "Extra-curricular" and "Summer School" salaries paid to district staff above and beyond their regular pay for 2010-11 (actually $1.1M)
• ONE TENTH of the 2010-11 district payment for Capital Debt
• 0.6% of the total district debt ($171M) as of June 30, 2011.
• The Capital Projects (building maintenance) budget for 2010-11
• The budgeted district cost for electricity for 2010-11
• SIX MONTHS of  budgeted district cost for SUBSTITUTE teachers for 2010-11

Please Don't Go!!!

We understand that board member David Stackhouse is pondering whether or not to turn in papers for re-election.  We'd miss him.  After all...he provides so much fodder.

Most recently, at the Dec. 20th school board meeting, the subject was advertising in the schools.  Board member John Welke commented regarding an e-mail that all board members had received from "a citizen" (it was from none other than SP-EYE).  
Stackhouse commented to the effect that, he...

"...doesn't give any consideration to e-mails that don't identify the sender."

And THAT's what we love about Stackhouse.
He knows darn right well who SP-EYE is....after all....his good buddy Monte Couch has made it clear in e-mail and in the newspaper that "SP-EYE is none other Rick Mealy".   We even reported it ourselves!  (http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2009/05/sp-eye-aint-monte.html )  And Stackhouse is copied on all Monte's hodgepodge of correspondence (uh oh...hope that won't turn on the legal threats tap again!!!).


David...you even e-mailed us directly to specifically suggest we use Billy Joel for your "celebrity look-a-like".   How come you knew who to e-mail it to, but suddenly you forget who SP-EYE is?  A little senility creeping in?  


Remember the old Trix rabbit?  Silly David, nice of you to pontificate...but the whole world knows who "runs" SP-EYE...so it doesn't become you to play coy now.  But...that being said...we love the opportunity to point out how ridiculous your chest-puffing is/was.  Don't hate on the player...hate the game, baby.


The school district world is a much funner place with you in it...especially after you started voting against McCourt, McWhalen, and McDiedrich because you weren't voted into an officer position.   So here's hoping you file your candidacy papers.  Go on...you KNOW you like the limelight!

Note: While we would love to lay claim to all the intelligence and tidbits we post here, we maintain what we have maintained from the get go.  SP-EYE may well be written by one individual...but we rely on the eyes and ears of the many of you who have supplied us with critical intelligence to truly know the details of what's going on inside the district core.  And we thank you all for your continuing contributions.  Without you, SP-EYE would not be nearly as strong.  And the community would not be so well-informed.

4K Transportation: What Kind of Accounting is this?

In December 2008, district administration presented the school board with its budget for the costing of the new 4 year old kindergarten program (SP4K).
Year 1 (2009-10) projected transportation costs (busing): $50,000
with projected increases of 4% per year.  Notably, this is the budget which was approved by the school board in agreeing to implement 4K.


In October 2009, a revised "estimate" was generated (with no fanfare, despite a 150% increase over the projection 10 month prior:  $125,000.  Neither the school board (nor the public) was informed of the severity of the under-budgeting of the 4K transportation costs.  The cost was buried within routine "budget adjustments".


Actual cost for 2009-10:  $ 259,848
Projected Cost for 2010-11: $ 261,124


How does a projection of $50,000 swell to $125,000 in just 10 months and then again to $261,000 ?
That's an under-budgeting of 500%!


Phil Frei's answer:
"Well....we don't just budget for a program...like we don't budget for the cost of the science program"


Um...Phil....the problem with your logic is that it's not logical.  Science is PART of an entire curriculum which is and always has existed.  The SP4K was a NEW addition to the school district.  As would be expected of ANY new curriculum, an accurate accounting is required.  Being off by a factor of 5 just doesn't cut it.


If we're off this much for the SP4K busing, maybe that explains how we wound up with a surplus of nearly $3M AFTER the community voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M.


Hmmm...the original budget called for a $600K deficit for 2009-10, a $300K "profit" (surplus) for 2010-11, and a $1.3M "profit" for 2011-12.  


Our questions:
1. Would the board have approved the 4K program had they know that transportation would cost FIVE TIMES as much as projected?  With up to a 60 minute (each way) ride time?
2. Whatever happened to the concept of "fidelity to funding"?  If we are "making a profit off of 4K....why should there be a 60 minute ride time for 4 year olds?  Oh ...wait...we know...because they want to use the "surplus" for other things.


We're hoping Governor -elect Walker has his radar screen focused on DPI and state aids as well as he has it focused on nailing state employees.

WHO Ordered the Code Red?

We have heard multiple reports from sports fans that there's some spanky new scorer's tables in use this year.  Nice tables, but apparently some part of them are being covered up.
Whatcha got hiding under that sheet?
Wouldn't happen to be a Pepsi logo, now, would it?


Enquiring minds want to know:

WHEN were these tables purchased? (how soon before/after the board decision on Pepsi contracts)
With WHAT money? (referendum funds? Fund 10?)
WHO authorized the purchase?
HOW much did they cost?
WHAT are we going to do with them if they have Pepsi logo (which we should NOT be displaying)?

...and Visions of Sugar Plums (???) Danced in their Heads

What are our school board members and top administrators hoping to find under their holiday trees this year?

Statewide, School Portion of Property Taxes Rises 3.4%

In a report by the Wisconsin State Journal, the school portion of property taxes increased 3.4 percent this year. This represents the smallest change since taxes dropped a half a percentage point in 2006.

The average school tax rate is $9.11 for every $1,000 in property value. That is up 55 cents from last year.

The report says part of the reason for the increase is a 3 percent drop in the value of property taxed.

Nearly $4.7 billion was levied in taxes by school districts this year. That is 1.6 percent below the maximum that could have been sought under the law.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/article_2d1010a8-0ac8-11e0-9602-001cc4c03286.html

Pint-Sized Passengers -- Hefty Cost

The School Board will review SP4K busing tomorrow night.

This started out as a simple issue...a parent complained (rightfully) that their 4 year old was spending 2 hours a day on a bus for about 2.5 hours of instruction.  But...as with many school board issues, this one became another bloomin' onion....the more layers you peel away, the more information that comes clear.

Notable facts:

1. We, the people, and the school board were sold a bill of goods with the 4K program.  We were told that busing costs were projected (and budgeted) to be about $50K.  The number of students is as projected, yet the busing costs are FOUR TIMES higher than projected at just under $200K per year.

2. The cost to bus each student is a whopping $1963.34 per year, which is just more than FOUR times the average cost to bus a K-12 student.

3. There are FOUR times fewer kids per bus than for K-12 kids.

4. Here's the silver tuna...the school district expects to make a profit of about ONE MILLION dollars off the 4K program.  Shhhhh...keep that one under your hat.  They don't want YOU to know that...and they certainly don't want Scott Walker to find out that DPI is giving out $1M more for 4K than the program actually costs ...for ONE district

WTF?

Didja Miss Us?

We're baaaaaaa- aaaack!

Sorry folks....had to take a time out to deal with some family medical issues.
Some of you probably think we deserve a time out for other  reasons :)

Not to worry...there's always stuff brewing in the SPASD....and we'll bring you what we know

Third Time to be the Charm for Pepsi Contract?

The Sun Prairie STAR's headline regarding Monday night's Beverage Bid vote appears to suggest that it will be coming back to the board yet again.

Board delays district-wide beverage bid for second time
http://www.sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=21&ArticleID=6399


Our friends at Merriam-Webster tell us that the word, "delay" means to "put off", "postpone", or "to stop [for a period of time]"


...as in "this is just a temporary setback"?


Hello!  What part of a second board NO vote didn't the STAR hear?
No means NO...doesn't it?
Or...does "No" mean that if you want something bad enough you get to press forward until you get it?


Just wondering...

Are SPASD Administrators Textually Active?

Is ANYONE looking at district cell phone bills?
Are ANY of the district policies and procedures followed?
District policy/procedure (GBCBB-R: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION RESOURCES USE) states, "Employees must reimburse the district for any charges that accrue from unavoidable personal cellular telephone use. Such reimbursement shall be made within the regular billing cycle"

It occurred to us that we see a few "reimbursement for personal use of cell phone" items in each month's deposit listing. (Does anybody ever look at those?)


The district's monthly cell phone charges are about $675.
17 district administrative staff have reimbursed the district for some degree of personal cell phone use in the past 12 months.


We have nothing but questions:

• Exactly HOW MANY district employees have district paid cell phones?
• Of those, how many really use them?
• Could we save money by cutting out those that have phones but don't use them much?
• Procedure GBCBB-R also states that, "Cellular telephones may be provided to employees whose job functions require mobility and immediate accessibility. Cellular telephones should not be used if a conventional telephone is readily available. " Arguably, a principal is pretty immobile. Shouldn't they be pretty much tied to their school and therefore close to another phone? Do they even NEED a cell phone?
• Neither of the "dynamic duo" (Culver and Frei) have paid a personal use of cell phone reimbursement in the last 12 months. Does that mean they haven't made a single personal call? Or do they not have a cell (which would seem weird).
• Reimbursements of $84.77, $119.40 and $140.19 seem a tad high to be related to "unavoidable" personal calls..dontcha think?
• Not a single reimbursement was recorded in September. So NOBODY used a district cell phone for personal use in August?
• In fact, even the 'usual supects' don't seem to be making monthly re-imbursements. Are they not following policy? Luessman wins for at least making reimbursements in 8 of the last 12 months.
• Ms. Dawes wins the award for highest amount of personal cell phone use racking up well over $400 in reimbursable charges over 12 months. That's an average of over $35 per MONTH! Kinda makes one wonder if she doesn't bother paying for a personal cell phone at all...perhaps choosing the less expensive option of (infrequently) payinging a reimbursement.
• What kind of plan does the district have, anyway? $35/month seems to suggest a very high per-minute charge.
• At what point does this represent a taxable benefit, if employees pay only for their calls (minutes?) and taxes on those calls? No basic charges? As taxpayers, aren't WE paying for this? How do WE get a piece of this action???
• We've been told that some employees have a long drive to Sun Prairie and use their phones to "work while commuting". If administration is tacitly approving such a situation, doesn't that pose a potential liability issue. The insurance industry tells us (and those of you that talk and drive know...don't you) that even using a 'hands free' phone, drivers are distracted by a phone conversation. If an accident should occur while performing district business by cell phone, could the district have some liability?
• What about district liability in the case of an accident which occurs while the driver is using a district-provided cell phone for personal use?
• Is it 'micro-managing' for the school board to look into this?  Or is it apathy?

We're just askin'.....which is really what somebody ELSE should be doing. Or is this like the District-wide beverage contract....nobody complies... and nobody cares.

It's time for ACCOUNTABILITY!

Pepsi Contract Foiled Again

Remember the movie (or book), "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"?
We have our Sun Prairie school board version: The Chronicles of Egomania: The Smirk, The Flipflop, and the Abstention.
In our last episode, the board voted 4-3 AGAINST approving the 7-YEAR Pepsi contract, with Diedrich, McCourt, and Whalen the dissenting votes (i.e. IN FAVOR of the contract). In a Hail Mary attempt, a vote was passed to send the contract back to the Wellness committee for review and approval (the committee was bypassed initially).


So here we are back to square 1. The interesting development was the absence of David Stackhouse, who originally voted against the contract. This, of course, opened a door of barn-sized proportions for Terry Shimmerek (some tenderly refer to him as Turncoat Terry) to do what he does best: flipflop his vote. If Shimek held firmly to his original position [a crapshoot at best given his history] on the issue, then the likely ending would be a failed vote on a 3-03 -1 tie. (It was clear from the get go that neither Jill Camber-Davidson nor John Welke were budging from their contrary position.) It was equally clear that McCourt and Whalen were putting the pedal to the metal to make this contract happen. Would Shimek (yet again) do his best imitation of Charlie Waffles? And what zany things could we expect from Caren Diedrich???


The Smirk
Early on in the proceedings, Jill Camber-Davidson reiterated her initial concerns about responsibility to promote wellness, and the dangers of approving what amounts to mass-marketing targeting our kids. Camber-Davidson also did her homework and pointed out that Pepsi had not met the RFP bid specifications. Following up on Camber-Davidson's revelation, John Welke took the floor and proclaimed that, since Pepsi had not met the bid specs, the board had no other recourse but to reject the contract. In response to Welke's passionate plea, board member Jim McCourt was clearly chuckling. [Note to Chris Mertes of the STAR: say, Chris, was this the element of "decorum" you praised in your support for McCourt's initial school board candidacy? We're not aware that this kind of rude body language being associated with the concept of decorum. Looks more to us like boorish behavior of someone who isn't getting their way.] Of course, the cameras never show this stuff, as they zoom in on the speaker.


To his credit, Welke politely called McCourt out on his poor form, by saying, "Jim, you're over there smirking...I'd love to hear what you have to say". McCourt responded something along the lines of "I'm just enjoying the creative ways you're finding to reject this contract." Welke had a response for that which effectively squelched McCourt: "Jim...let's do this the right way". Got a comeback for that, SeaBass? While some may consider it poor form to call out a fellow board member's reprehensible behavior publicly, we'd say that sometimes, these things MUST be addressed publicly. Board members need to be held accountable for the behavior at the big table, and if they know that someone will call them on it publicly, sometimes that's the only way to nip bad behaviors in the bud.


The Flipflop
Terry Shimek pulled off the equivalent of a double gainer in dive competition last night. When the contract first came up, he voted against it. In his initial comments at the board meeting last night, it was clear he was flip-flopping his vote once again. Before public comments were taken, Shimek said, despite acknowledging receipt of about 18 e-mails from SCO and booster parents opposed to the contract, "I'm leaning towards this contract...it provides revenue the schools could use and doesn't really change the status quo". He followed that up by seconding McCourt's motion to approve the contract.


During the public comment period, community resident Rick Mealy made mention of Shimek's clear indication of intent to reverse yet another vote on an issue. That's when the double gainer set in. As he cast his vote rejecting the contract, Shimek admitted that he was indeed, "flipflopping here". Suddenly he made reference to the 18 e-mails and the 3 community members that spoke against the contract (only Athletic/Activities Director --and the person behind the contract--Jim McClowry spoke in favor of it) and suggested these as rationale for changing his mind about changing his mind form the initial vote. Interesting. He knew about the 18 e-mails initially yet still voiced support. So...what moved Shimmerek to stop in mid-waffle?


The Abstention
A needed bit of levity during a tense meeting was provided by board member Caren Diedrich [can someone PLEASE explain to us how she got re-elected last spring?]   She's a nice lady, but her board table antics are getting old if not sad]. In the midst of some heated discussion, Diedrich shouted, "I call the question!" -- a Roberts' Rule mechanism to cease discussion and proceed to voting on a motion before a group. Unfortunately, no motion had been made!


Then....during the roll call vote, when her number was called, Diedrich responded by asking how many votes were needed to pass. Um...hello! You've been on the board for over 15 years and you don't know that a majority with a 7-member board is 4 votes? Stackhouse's absence didn't change that! Then....drum roll...Diedrich ABSTAINED! Audible chuckling was heard throughout the audience. Admittedly, poor form. But...sometimes it's hard to stifle that stuff. What was the point of abstaining? With McCourt and Whalen voting YES and Camber-Davidson, Welke, and Shimek voting "NO", if Diedrich cast a YES vote--as she did in September-- the motion would still have failed on a 3-3-1 tie. If she had cast her vote with the 3, the motion would still have failed 4-2-1. With her abstention, the motion to approve the 7-year Pepsi contract also failed 3-2-2. Her abstention was meaningless.   You know what an abstention means


The Aftermath
So that was it, folks. The Pepsi contract was rejected on a 2-3-2 (For-Against-Abstain) vote.


Our take: We agree completely with 4 very solid arguments against the proposal: (1) nutrition/health concerns, (2) the contract promoted mass-advertising to our kids, (3) the contract would mean less revenues and less flexibility for booster clubs and no money for elementary schools, and (4) 7 years is too long. But in the end we point to one concern that trumped all of these. The simple fact is that Pepsi did not meet the bid specifications. We appreciate McCourt's comment that none of the bidders met every tenet in the RFP, but his point doesn't move us. In fact, it underscores what John Welke said. The board had no other recourse but to reject the contract on the grounds of INTEGRITY. Sun Prairie does not do business as Mr. McCourt apparently would like us to. The foundation of the Sun Prairie School District MUST be integrity. And in the spirit of integrity, even an arguably lucrative contract proposal must be cast aside if the proposal does not meet specified criteria. In fact...shame on whoever brought this forward KNOWING that bid specification had not been met.

Selling Our Kids' Health for $130/day???

After being voted down 4-3 (Diedrich, McCourt, & Whalen in favor) on September 13, district administration is bringing back the idea of entering into a 7-year commitment with Pepsi for advertising rights as well as being the sole source vendor in the school district.  Are they sniffing the ability to sway Turncoat Terry Shimek onto their side?   

204 beverages sold per school day!
The contract is based on assumptions, one of which is that, over 7 years, nearly 260 THOUSAND beverages will be sold from the district.  Wow!  That's an average of 204 per school day.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby
The driving force behind the proposal is money.  Pepsi is offering as much as $165,000 over 7 years.  That comes to about $23,000 per year, or $131 per school day.  The guaranteed money, however, is only $94,000...only $4,000 more than Coke offered.    Only $18,000 is guaranteed in each of the first 3 years.  The rest is made up through sales.  In years 4-7, the district only gets $10,000 upfront money.

But...but...look at all the cool stuff we get!
The contract calls for us to receive the following each year. Care to guess what is driving this bus?

Promotional Items. On or before September 1st of each school year during the term of this Agreement, Pepsi-Cola shall furnish Gatorade equipment to the District (estimated value $500.00) including: six (6) five-gallon sports drink coolers, twelve (12) sports drink bottle carriers with bottles, 250 towels and 1,000 eight (8) ounce cups for use by the District annually for seven (7) years. Upon delivery by Pepsi-Cola, such Gatorade equipment shall become the property of the District. Pepsi-Cola shall also provide twenty-four (24) Pepsi-Cola recycle barrels to the District to replace current competitor barrels. 

31 Vending Machines!

1	at each Elementary School	(7)
2	at each Middle School	(4)
4	at CHUMS	(4)
2	at Prairie Phoenix Academy	(2)
14	at the TajMah High School	(14)

We didn't see mention of the district office.  Are those folks outside this contract???

No More Root Beer Float Days!
One of the silliest aspects of this contract is that the district is barred from bringing in ANY non-Pepsi products for sale or events for the life of the contract.  We understand that a number of elementary schools hold "Root Beer Float" days.  Not any more they won't.  Pepsi apparently doesn't offer a root beer product, so there will be no more root beer floats.

Arguments FOR the contract
Those pushing for the contract will tell you that vending machines with student access will only dispense sports drinks, flavored water, or bottled water.  So...what's the big hairy deal?  The district is simply maximizing the kickbacks they can earn in providing what the kids are going to get anyway.

Arguments Against
Clearer heads will see this as a mass marketing campaign aimed at our kids.  If we bombard them with Pepsi signs and machines for 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, it WILL have a subliminal effect on their purchasing for years to come.  And we are providing the vehicle for that subliminal advertising.  Of course, Caren Diedrich will tell you that healthy choices and decisions on whether to buy bottled water or sports drinks, or flavored water is the parents' responsibility.  Of course it is.  The school district shouldn't have any involvement...right?  In fact, let's do away with offering breakfast...isn't THAT the parents' responsibility?  What's next?  Cutting physical education?  Maybe THAT is the responsibility of parents as well.   And given the new dangers of chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic bottles and simple fiscal responsibility, shouldn't we be advocating drinking good old tap water in environmentally friendly reusable containers? The bottom line is: should we REALLY be sliding into be with ANY vendor?  What exactly does this teach our kids?

Who Gets the Money?
Download the Incentives summary
The “Fee” income will be utilized to supplement funding of new building initiatives, programs, and workshops for students and teachers.  This money will also be used to support extra-curricular programs.

The “Booster” income will go to the club or group that is running the concession for that event.  Pepsi will send the check directly to the Booster Club.
The “Commissions” will go to the school where the vending machine is located.  Pepsi will send the check directly to the club or activity.
Will the original vote be sustained?  Or will there be a vote switch?  We all know Terry Shimmerek is a frequent vote switcher.  Come out Monday night and voice your opinion.

Perhaps Teachers Will Soon Feel the Furlough Pain?

Wisconsin Teachers May Face Furloughs Soon
New Senate Leader Proposes Cuts For Next Budget Cycle
Updated: November 19, 2010

Incoming State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said a teacher from his district gave him the idea, pointing out that students are in school for 180 days by law, but teachers work for 185 days by many district contracts (In Sun Prairie it's 190 day contracts). That means there could be five days possible for furlough that wouldn't affect teaching time.

"It is something that I think may have to be done in an effort to balance this budget," Fitzgerald said.


While we support teachers and education, we believe they also need to "feel the pain".  While teachers are guaranteed a 3% salary increase each year by virtue of "the grid", state employees have been operating under a 3-5% pay CUT for the past 2 years.  Newsflash, teachers....the word on the street is that state employees will be getting no raises for another 2 years, but they will get 16-26 extra days off (the unpaid furlough kind).  If state employees get stuck with 16 to 26, surely you need at least 5.  You still get your 3% raises.  State employees go Oh for Four...as in 0% for FOUR years.

Where's the Pepsi?

Certain school board members and district admins are back once again trying to push their Pepsi agenda.

We expect some fireworks Monday night, but the big question is:  how come the Coke and Dr. Pepper RFPs are posted but not Pepsi's.( to whom they wish to award the contract!)

Let's make sure our kids have plenty of caffeinated beverages (as long as they're Pepsi products) and bottled water (can you say BPA?)...eh?  Oh...and no more Root Beer Float days...because they aren't a Pepsi product!

What we won't do for money...right?

After all...it's not the school district's job to have kids eat and drink right.  That's the parents' job!

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/public

T Minus 16 Days and Counting...

... until school board nomination papers can be taken out and circulated.


Seats up this year are David Stackhouse and Jill-Camber-Davidson
We've heard conflicting indications on whether either will be running for re-election.


Will this be an election like the recent mid-term elections?  Out with the old and in with the new?
We need interested candidates who are willing to become engaged.  
District administration has already told us to prepare for a double-digit tax levy increase next year.
Must that be the case?  Who we elect to the school board will make that call.


100 signatures is all it takes to get on the ballot.

Uh Oh Spaghetti O! 4K Busing Coming Under Fire

It seems that ride times for the little nippers can be as much as ONE HOUR...EACH WAY.
As one parent put it--and any parent knows--- a 1 hr ride for the average 4-year old means that a snack and games (and perhaps even a potty break) are mandatory accoutrements.  On a school bus?  We don't think so.


According to school district busing czarina Rhonda Page, the length of ride time ranges from two minutes to one hour, with an average ride time of 29 minutes.  The average sounds OK, but as is often the case with statistics, the standard deviation can speak volumes.  If your child has the 2 minute ride, you're loving it.  If your child has the 60 minute ride.  Not so much.  Of course there's also the point that it seems rather strange for kids to spend 2 hours on buses for 2.5 hours of education.


At what cost?
For the 2009-10 school year, 391 students were enrolled in SP4K, and 155 were transported by bus. The cost to transport those students was $259,847.63. [ $1,676 per child]



As of October 2010, 462 students were enrolled in SP4K for the 2010-11 school year, and 133 were transported by bus.   This year's busing cost is $261,124.30.  [$1,963 per child]


Using this year’s data, if the maximum time on the bus were shortened from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, the best-case scenario would add two additional SP4K routes at a cost of $70,296.16.   Increasing costs to $2,492 per child.  That also amounts to cost of about $5,000 per minute shaved off the maximum ride time.


The worst-case scenario would add four routes at a cost for $141,058.32   That would mean busing costs for 4K rise to $3,024 per child.  And shaving the maximum ride time costs $10,000 per minute.


Transportation cost comparisons

In July, we he;d a special electors meeting to discuss reducing the busing limit for middle schoolers from 2.0 to 1.5 miles.  The change would have affected 135 bus riders from Prairie View and 45 bus riders from Patrick Marsh. The cost for the additional routes for those children was approximately $89,650.  That would have cost $498 per child.  But it was voted down.

The average cost per child transported by bus in the district is about $350-$400.  How come it's so much more expensive for 4K.

Poor Projecting
Looking back at the original "plan" for SP4K costs, we see that the projection for busing costs for this year was only $52,000.  In fact, as far out as the 2013-14 school year, the busng cost was only projected to be about $56,000.
Hmmm...how did we get from a projection of $54K bus cost to over $260K?  Was the school board even informed?
That's more than a 500% increase over the program budget estimates!
That's further off than even the weatherman gets!


What's sad is that had the school board members known that transportation cost were going to be this high, they might not have been so quick to support 4K.

Post Election Observations

OK...so the mid-term elections are in the can.
We have a new governor. We have a complete change in leadership in the government.

50 Lashes for State Employees
State employees are bracing for a firestorm. Scott Walker has preached for months that state government is simply to porky. He's talked about cutting positions (hopefully mostly ones yet unfilled). Several articles have talked not about maintaining furloughs, but INCREASING the number of furlough days. There are rumors of across the board wage cuts (although such a move must come via union negotiations). There is serious talk about carving deeply into employee benefits, including state payment of retirement contributions.

One cannot balance the budget on the backs of state employees alone. Sure salaries and benefits can be cut. Furlough days can be handed out. But what those eyeing things from the 50,000 foot level seem to miss is the fact that state employees are taxpayers as well. Cut their salaries? Give them unpaid holidays? That adds up to less income and that means less revenue for the Department of ...well...revenue. One can't be taxed upon what one does not earn. Funny how that works. All we hear is that we need to "get people back to work". Doesn't more furlough days mean NOT going to work?

Our personal favorite is the effect of furlough days on the thousands of state employees that are not even paid out of the state coffers (called General Program Revenue, or GPR). What many do not understand is that The state saves no money on the front end and actually LOSES money in the form of income taxes. Sheer brilliance. Of course, as our outgoing governor believes, we have to treat all individuals alike...apparently even if it hurts the state to do so.

How does this impact school districts?
That's the $64,000 question...isn't it? Certainly, less revenues collected by the state means less money available for school districts in the form of state aids. That's a fact. So...if the new Guv cuts state employees off at the knees, there will be a negative effect on state aids.

The new Guv is not necessarily a believer in spending money on education at all costs either, now is he? We have heard talk about loosening the restrictions on how one gets licensed to teach. That could open up the teaching profession for a lot of folks. Supply and demand folks. When the supply of teachers is high, how do you suppose that affects the demand for salary?

Why 0% increases May No Longer Mean a 3% increase
Many districts have cut way down on salary increases this year. Funny how a sour economy works that way. Sun Prairie has already cast in stone a 1% salary increase paired up with increases to the employee paid portions of health and dental insurance for administrators and administrative support staff. Local 60 is in contract negotiations right now. Care to guess at the salary increase figure that has been tossed out as part of those negotiations?

Teachers are next. This winter/spring, negotiations will begin on a new teachers contract. It would seem that the writing is fairly indelibly etched on the wall. Logic would suggest that a 1% increase is on the table. GASP! Only a 1% increase? But those teachers won't be able to put food on the table! Don't cry for them, Sun Prairie. The truth is we never leave them empty handed. Raise your hand if you knew that based on the standard "salary grid" that teachers receive an automatic salary increase of 3% every year?

Didn't think so. That's right, folks. How many of you have it built into your contracts that even if management gives you a 0% increase in tough times, your salary automatically increases by 3% anyway? Not to be repetitive but...didn't think so.

Solving the Problem
We've all (hopefully) heard the gloom and doom about NEXT YEAR's expected double digit tax levy increase. Wanna guess what that means for a mill rate increase? If we're going to beat that down, people, it has to start with these contract negotiations. Perhaps its time to end the automatic 3% increases? There is no question that entry level teachers are underpaid. So...we need to raise the floor. But there is likewise no question that it's simply fiscal lunacy to be paying kindergarten teachers and elementary school librarians more than $80,000 per year. So the ceiling has to come down as well.

Self-Serving Interests
What we always find interesting is that complexion of any bargaining teams is generally heavily weighted with those union members that have more seniority. Hmmm...you don't suppose that that would lead to sacrificing the needs of less tenured members to ensure big salaries for senior members? We're just wondering...

Stay tuned...