How do YOU Think the School Board Did?

Examining Critical Votes of 2009

1/12/2009 6.02 Sun Prairie Four Kids: A Community Early Learning Program
Supported: 6-1. Camber-Davidson opposed
This vote established a 4-yr old kindergarten program.

Despite 50-50 public sentiment at best, and the fact that we already have the original HeadStart program, the board supported this. It caused a $600K budget deficit for 2009-10, but promised to be a "cash cow" in future years. So...did we do it "for the kids"? Or did we do it because we'd get more money from the state than it costs to run the program? Does this board even know the meaning of "fidelity to funding"?

2/9/2009 6.06 Budget Forecast Model
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The 2010-11 budget (the year the new high school opens) projects an $801,374 deficit.

This was the first warning that NEXT year's budget was going to be hellish. Yet they went ahead and voted to support these measures.

2/9/2009 6.08 District Administrator Contract Extension
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Gave Culver a 1-year extension on a contract that was already valid through June 2011.

" The Board hereby employs the District Administrator and the District Administrator hereby accepts employment for a term commencing on July 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2011. This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2011-2012 school year unless either the Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2010, that such extension shall not apply. Each January the Board shall review this paragraph as part of an annual evaluation to determine whether to extend this contract by an additional year. "

Why on earth would a board extend a contract that hasn't expired? This isn't exactly Barry Alvarez here!

4/13/2009 7.06 Conversion of Administrative Support FTE
Supported: 6-1 Shimek opposed
In anticipation and preparation for opening the new secondary buildings in the 2010/2011 school year, administration would like to convert 1.0 FTE from the Administrative Support Group (Partnership Principal) to the Administrative Group. Administration would like this change to occur in the 2009/2010 school year so a secondary assistant principal can be hired. The cost would be net zero.

Just what we needed...MORE administration! And what, exactly, IS a "Partnership Principal"? In the real world, these are the kinds of positions that get CUT in tough economic times.

4/13/2009 7.07 Naming Rights Committee Recommendations
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Diedrich opposed
"Price" List for Naming rights generates $3,084,314 (of the total $100M cost) plus any monies derived from selling "bricks" leading up to the new high school.

A 3% return on a $100M investment is the BEST we can do? And someone should ask the questions: who gets the money? And how will it be used? And how will it be accounted for in the budget?

5/16/2009 5.01 Converting Contracted Security Guards to District Employed Youth Advocates
Supported: 4-2-1 Shimek, Stackhouse opposed; McCourt absent
This proposal maintains positions to supervise student safety and security, but reframes them and strengthens them to focus on building relationships in addition to basic “guarding.” The key research supporting this decision came from a study from Baylor University entitled the “Violence Free Zone Initiative: A Milwaukee Case Study.” (See attached or go to http://www.isreligion.org/pdf/case_milwaukee.pdf ). The district also looked at similar programs in Janesville and Madison.For all of these reasons, on April 29, 2009, the Management Team decided to recommend that instead of contracted “security guards” the district put in place “youth advocates” starting with the 2009/10 school year. (See job description in attachment 2.) This program would be carefully monitored and adjusted frequently to determine that it is providing best practices for the safety and security of students.

Let's see...safety at the high school. Security guards? Or "Youth Advocates"? Kinda sounds a little "spare the rod and spoil the child"-ish, doesn't it?

6/22/2009 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement
Supported 5-1-1 Slane opposed; Shimek abstained
A fundamental component of the new contract is a 3.8% increase in the total salary and benefit packages for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 contract years. The salary schedule provided is tentative pending final dental rates which will be available in July.The final agreement was reached on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 after 6 months of negotiations.

NOTE: waiting till after 7/1/09 would have enabled a stronger negotiating position for the district as the 2009-11 biennium state budget removed the QEO.

Hmmm...budget crisis. Budget is about 85% personnel cost. The rest of the world is getting pay CUTs, furloughs, or just plain lay-offs. So 5 of 7 board members supported 7% raise over 2 years???? And remember, folks, a "3.8% total package" means actual salary increases of over 4%.

7/13/2009 6.02 Reduction to Previously Approved Administrator Salary and Benefit Total Package for 2009-2010
Supported: 4-2-1 Camber-Davidson, Slane opposed; McCourt absent
On May 27, 2008 the School Board adopted changes to the Administrative Contractual Benefits and Evaluation Plan that included a 4.5% total package increase. However, the administrative team felt that in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle, it would be best to ask the School Board to reduce the salary and benefits package from what teachers received last year to what teachers received for 2009-2010: a 3.8% total salary and benefit package.

Do these people even understand what they are voting on? How does one manage to OPPOSE a reduction in pay increases?

7/27/2009 6.01 Personnel
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
Hire a principal for SP4K program: at a cost of $45,000 for a half-time role.

Routine Personnel not through Personnel Committee
Position__________________________Hiree_____Salary__Comments__FTE
------------------------------------------- ---------------------
Principal – Sun Prairie 4 Kids__Ward, Karen__$45,000__1-Year__0.50

So....for a program of 2 hr instruction time, we hire a person to work half-time and then pay them $45,000 for the school year. Any of you make $45K for FULL-TIME? And let's not even talk about the fact that "full-time" means 9 months out of the year.

7/27/2009 6.05 Appointment of Representatives to Standing Committees (Student, Staff & Citizen)
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
The board violated its own policies and disregarded deadlines to name someone to the Finance Committee with lesser qualifications than a candidate that met all requirements.

Why do we even write policies if we're not going to follow them? Why set any rules at all? Why even bother going through some false "application" process? Why don't we just let the school board president name anyone he/she wants as citizen representatives for board committees. Oh...wait...that's what John Whalen did. Never mind.

8/24/2009 6.06 Administrative Support Study and New Salary Structure
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.1. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend adoption of the new pay plan.2. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase for the Administrative Support Staff group at a cost of approximately $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.

This from the Department of Redundancy Department: Budget bad...but raises good?

9/14/2009 6.02 Approval of the Sun Prairie Substitute Teachers Association (SPSTA) 2009-2011 Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
Highlights of this contract include: a 0% increase in salary for year one (2009-2010) and a 2% increase for year two (2010-2011).

This from the "So What Are We? Chopped Liver?" Department: So we give Teachers, Admin, and Admin Support 3.8% raises and the put the screws to the SUBSTITUTE teachers...the ones we frequently depend on! Talk about establishing a caste system!

9/14/2009 6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent

So…they ALL (well, you can't hang this on McCourt) approved of the raises, the huge budget increase, and the proposed tax levy increase!

9/14/2009 6.08 Proposed 2009-2011 District Administrator Employment Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
The District Administrator has requested that he receive no base salary increase for 2009-2010. As part of this agreement the District Administrator has requested two things: That it is made clear that the purpose of getting no salary increase is not necessarily a reflection of the Board's evaluation of performance for 2008-2009 and an additional 3 days of vacation be added to the employment contract.So, they gave him NO raise, but then gave him 3 MORE paid days off!

"The District Administrator has requested"...doesn't that sum it all up? This is the very picture of the tail wagging the dog. Our only question is: why didn't Culver ask for more...maybe an increase to his monthly, exempt-from-receipts $425/month stipend? It appears the board is his personal genie, granting his every wish.

10/26/2009 6.02 2009-10 Budget Adoption
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
This vote says it all, folks. If you approve a budget that requires a 12+% increase to property taxes, you get what you deserve.

10/26/2009 6.03 2009-10 Tax Levy Approval
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Despite posturing that McCourt and/or Slane might propose to overturn the vote of the people, the board voted unanimously to implement the tax levy (reduced by $2M) set by the electors at the annual meeting.

This was actually the first sign that the board realized that the public meant business by its actions at the annual meeting. Perhaps some of them feared for their re-election hopes in April if they voted against this.

11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 6-1 Diedrich opposed
Motion as amended TO APPROVE THE BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING AS OUTLINED IN SECTIONS I, II, AND III.

Caren Diedrich wanted to dig deeper for cuts!....and even got testy with Culver and Frei in the process. This from someone who has typically voted in support of EVERYTHING coming from Administration. Does she really "get it"...or is this a clever advance tactical ruse to garner votes for her re-election in April. Go ahead...roll the dice...do you feel lucky with her on the board?

11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
It was moved by Al Slane and seconded by Jim McCourt TO SCHEDULE A CLOSED SESSION OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPEA REGARDING SALARIES.The result of the vote was: Unanimous

Geee...too little, too late? Can anyone blame the teachers for NOT agreeing to a voluntary ONE-day furlough? I mean really...if your boss asked you to voluntarily work one day without pay, would you? No...of course not. The thing about furloughs is that no sane person would voluntarily agree to them....unless a knife were held to their throats. Furloughs MUST be a decree...not an option.

The budget problem is related to school funding, and a solution coming from the legislature is simply NOT going to happen. Being the smart politicians they are, they are pushing those decisions down to the local level...as in ELECTED school boards. Furloughs are not an answer....negotiating more reasonable contracts IS.

11/23/2009 6.05 2010 Sun Prairie Chamber of Commerce Membership
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Shimek opposed
Motion made to NOT renew COC membership…at a cost of over $1300.

Look...the Chamber of Commerce is a great entity...but the school district is NOT engaged in commerce. In fact, it's a non-profit organization whose sole goal is education. Sure, good schools help get people to locate here, who will subsequently support local businesses. So school districts should logically be a part of any chamber of commerce....but how about waiving the membership fee? Or...at the very least...offer a VERY paltry fee...as other local Chambers of Commerce do. It's called negotiation, school board members, and you may want to brush up on the concept.

11/23/2009 6.06 State Education Convention
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Motion made to NOT re-imburse any board member for attendance at the annual conference!

Most common sense vote ever coming out of this board. This year, if McCourt wants to go and eat seabass, it comes out of HIS pocket! We're betting he passes on attending (and actually having to PAY for seabass).

12/14/2009 6.10 Addendums mutually agreeing to a voluntary one-day reduction in each administrator contract during the 2009-2010 contract year
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent


ONE furlough day? THAT is the best they could do? State employees, who got their 2009 raise (2%) repealed and will NOT receive raises in 2009-10 or 2010-11, are being furloughed SIXTEEN days over the next 2 years! RUFKM????