Welcome to the Adminosphere

It's that time of year again, when the board starts discussing raises for the administrators and Admin Support. Recall that "policy" is for administrators to receive the percentage increase that the teachers (SPEA) received in the prior year. As some of them would say, then, they are entitled to a 3.8% raise.

The 28 administrators earn a cumulative total of $2,500,000 in 2009-10. 3.8% of that comes to about $95,000. Ka-chiiiing!

The Boy Who Cried "Ashley!"

Three times the Ashley field lockers & turf proposal has been on the agenda. And three times, we get a bunch of information, but no one is ready to have a real discussion. In fact, the whole subject has yielded WAY more questions than answers.

The bottom line is that eyes are looking at the school board to the tune of another $425K. Haven't we spent enough?

• Putting turf on Ashley field? Awesome idea.
• Make Ashley field less "hallowed" and open it to other community uses? Absolutely!
• Create more/better locker space? Sure...if you really think it's needed. But just don't tell us that visiting teams and referees need better "digs" too and then design something ONLY for the home team to use.
• (With all due respect to Joni Mitchell...) Pave Ashley's baseball field and put up a parking lot? Gee...not so sure about that one.

Here's how things have progressed on the Ashley Field proposal.

4/26/2010, School Board meeting (Informational Items):
Ok...here comes the pitch....high and outside, ball 1.
Stackhouse indicates that he'll come forward with more complete information for a full discussion and action (hopefully) at the 5/10/2010 school board meeting.

5/10/2010, School Board meeting (official agenda item):
He's in the wind-up..the stretch...a curveball low and away...swing and a miss...Strike 1
Looking around the room, we don't see anyone but the usual suspects. Hmmm...wouldn't one expect a big presence and comments from the football folks to help grease the skids for this project? Ah, grasshopper, well your eyes serve you. Briefly it is discussed that the plan needs more time; a motion is made to bring the item back for discussion at the next FTT meeting.

5/24/2010, FTT meeting:
He gets the sign, here comes the pitch...a knuckler...swing and another miss...Strike 2.
Again, we note the lack of any "football" people in the room. This doesn't bode well. We're predicting a bail. Indeed, for the second time, Stackhouse pulls the plug on the agenda item indicating that some more information came in that needs to be reviewed. Our take: Costs have probably increased markedly over early estimates.

Retiring from the Sun Prairie School District (2010) - the data

Click on an image to view it full screen or to download it.
Click the "COMMENTS" link at right to contact us if you'd like the data in a different format, or if you have any other questions.

Retiring from the Sun Prairie Area School District (2010)

"Retiring from the Sun Prairie school district" is consistently the single greatest search performed on the SP-EYE website. We get e-mails requesting for updates. People want to know. Subsequently, we try to update this data at least annually. It's time.

We have collected retirement data over the past 4 years. Our databank now includes 33 teachers, 12 AFSCME Local 60 members, and 2 administrators. This year we had 7 teachers (SPEA) retire. Of course, a $6,000 "golden handshake" incentive was offered to any teachers who filed retirement paperwork (effective June 2010) prior to October 15, 2009.

Retirement Statistics

The mean salary at retirement for teachers in Sun Prairie is $69,500; the mean $69,900; and the mode $70,000. Statisticians will tell you that for most data sets of at least 20 points, when the mean, median, and mode are all equal, it indicates a very consistent data set. In fact we applied Grubbs' outlier test, and n one of the data points was statistically identified to be an outlier. The range of salaries at retirement is $52,400 to $80,800.

The average teacher retires at 59 1/2 years old, has worked as a teacher for 32.4 years, and has a Master's degree. In our dataset, 77% of teachers retiring have earned their Master's degree. In addition to their average salary of $69,500, they also earn, on average, $27,100 in fringe benefits. Adjusted for 190 contracted work day, the hourly pay for a teacher at retirement is $45.72 (per hour). That number is obtained by dividing the retirement salary by 190 contacted days, and then by 8, for the number of salaried hours per workday.

Contracts: 260 vs. 190 days

For most occupations, the annualized standard is to work 2080 hours. 2080 hours divided by 8 hours per workday, translates to 260 "contract" days. Of course, some of these days will become paid vacation days. Where did the 260 days come from? 365 days in a year - 104 for the 2 weekend days that occur in each of the 52 weeks. That leaves us with (52) 40 hour work weeks. Teachers are only contracted for 190 days. That translates to 180 school days plus 5 days one either end of the school year to set up and take down.

"When I started in the district, I was paid only $10,000 per year"

We did get approached by one reader to address the fact that many of the more tenured teachers, may indeed be earning upwards of $70,000 today (at retirement), but these same staff were only paid as little as $10,000 per year at hire. Using the 190 contracted 8-hour days, that translates to about $6.57 per hour!

The reader is correct...but that average starting salary was pretty much what the rest of the world earned 30+ years ago. In fact, Mr. Average Retiring Teacher, who has worked for 32 years, with a starting salary of $10,000 actually earned an average annual raise of 6.25%! State workers receive an average raise of 2%, with many biennial contracts calling for NO raises.

When we talk about salary equity, the Consumer Price Index frequently comes into play. Frequently it is argues that teacher raises don't even keep up with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In fact, since 1940, the AVERAGE rate of inflation has been 4.48%. Therefore, teachers HAVE been ahead of the CPI. State workers have not.

State worker parallel

For a real life example, consider the situation of a state worker we'll call Notch...Notch Johnson. Notch started working for the state in 1973 as a Senior Scientist at a salary of.....drum roll.....$4.50 per hour. At the standard 260 x 8-hour days, that translates to a whopping $9,360 per year. ...and Notch thought he was rich! 36, years later,however, in 2009, Notch retired as a "Section Chief" at a salary of $75,200. Pretty equivalent, eh?

In fact, Notch's average annual salary increase only comes out to 5.95%. That's 5% less that the average annual increase (6.25%) experienced by teachers in Sun Prairie.

1978 Price Points for reference

Year End Close Dow Jones Industrial Average: 805

Interest Rates Year End Federal Reserve 11.75%

Average Cost of new house $54,800.00

Average Household Income per year $17,000.00

Minimum Wage: $2.65 per hour

Average Monthly Rent $260.00

New Car: $6,379

Cost of a gallon of Gas 63 cents

Dozen Eggs 48 Cents

Bread: 34 cents per loaf
Postage Stamp: 15 cents

Teachers work more hours/days that the 190 8-hour contract

The other argument which invariably surfaces is that teacher devote a great deal of their time for free...working beyond their 8-hour days and working on non-contracted days.

We agree...teachers (most, anyway) do work more than 8 hours a day, and often work on days when they are not required to be in school. But, ya know what? So do many folks in other occupations. In fact, the term "salaried employee" to the rest of the working world means, "We pay you X amount as salary; you do what it takes to get the job done". Many a relationship has been strained by folks who work nights and weekends to "get the job done" and keep that salary. Therefore, we think this argument should be considered a push.

...........................................................................

We're not expecting a lot of love from the teacher's union on this post....but we're not in this game to please the union...or anyone else for that matter. At the heart of this blog is the desire to present straight-forward factual information. Spin-free. We're not taking any sides, because there is no war. We just want to make sure that people have the facts.

And the facts are that teachers in Sun Prairie are retiring at a pretty decent salary...more than most occupations. What other occupation do you know that earns an average salary increase of 6.25% over 32 years? Or gets paid over $45 per hour?

17% Of The 800 lb. Gorilla

Caren Diedrich and Terry Shimek like to talk about the fact that nobody wants to talk about the "800 lb gorilla in the room". Funny...they don't talk about it themselves! All they do is talk about nobody wanting to talk about it.
Guess that's our cue...our raison d'être, s'il vous plait.

...and that's French for , "Yeah, baby! We'll talk about it!" We'll talk about whatever needs to be talked about.

We've said it before...that the SPASD budget is between 80 and 85% personnel costs. Roughly two-thirds of that 80-85% is salaries; the rest is fringe benefits--largely health insurance and dental insurance premiums.

How much? How about $11.5 MILLION just for the 2009-10 school year alone! That's right...and it's all public record. If you review the "check runs" from Finance Committee or school board meetings, you'll see that we pay about $870K per month on average for health insurance premiums, and another $100K per month for dental premiums.

And, for 2010-11, not only are we adding 22.4 more positions, but the costs are projected to increase by 5% for health insurance and 7% for dental insurance.

• A 5% increase to health insurance costs for existing employees means an additional $430K to the 2010-11 budget.


• A 7% increase to dental insurance costs for existing employees means an additional $80K to the 2010-11 budget.


• At an average cost of $13,400 per employee times 22.5 new employees, translates to an additional $302K to the 2010-11 budget.


• That comes to a grand total of $810K for the 2010-11 budget for health insurance and dental insurance premiums alone.

Funny...we don't recall seeing a slide that indicated that particular number at the budget hearing on May 20. Sure...people were told 5% and 7% increases...and that there would be 22.5 new staff. But never did anyone specifically say..."Oh, and hey, taxpayers...that all means an additional $810K to the --now---$72.3 M budget for 2010-11 for health insurance costs."

The insidiousness of these costs is, like a number of the nastier STDs, they represent the gift that keeps on giving. These costs INCREASE every year and with every new employee.

Sun Prairie's Very Own Silent Caste System?
You've heard of "stickin' it to the man"? Well, here in the Sun Prairie school district, we're sticking it to the very people (you know...the ones we value so much as demonstrated by Birthday KitKat bars) that are working deep in the trenches for the lowest wages: AFSCME Local 60 Support staff. These are the people that keep the buildings clean, cook and serve the breakfasts and lunches, playground aides, and serve as teacher and student aides.

They are paid the least amount for wages (well below the Adminosphere) and yet get stuck paying a phenomenally large portion of their health insurance premiums! These are the people that can LEAST afford to pay more out of their pocket. While those whose salaries are in the Adminosphere and the Culverosphere pay mere pocket change for their insurance "benefits", Local 60 members pay out "real money". To use a more recent analogy, while teachers and administrators fork over about the cost of a couple of large pizzas monthly for their benefits, Local 60 members fork over the equivalent of several MONTHS worth of grocery bills! Why are we stickin' it to Local 60?


What Needs To Be Done
First...we need to establish a benchmark for what percentage employees should pay out-of-pocket for their insurance benefits. Some will argue, but we suggest that a good place to start is state employees. According to 2009 data, Wisconsin state employees pay about 6.15% of their health insurance premiums. And, with the state budget woes, the potential to increase that percentage is high.

Poor local 60 is already paying 9% of their health insurance premiums and a whopping 14.5% of their dental, while teachers and administrators are paying WELL below of even the share that state employees pay. Those percentages need to be pushed back down to the zone of reason.

Second...we need to establish a level playing field. Eliminate the caste system mentality and have ALL district employees pay the same percentage. We value ALL employees equally...right? Then SHOW it!

Third...teachers and administrators are going to need to pick up a higher percentage of their health insurance costs. Oh, they won't like ole SP-EYE for this stance. But...you know what? Tough tooties. They have one hellacious deal, and we need to stop listening to the whining and start pushing. We understand and would push back on this ourselves, but it's fair and just.

Fourth...we need to do more to work towards joining with state employees so that the cost of these premiums is lowered.

The most important thing to understand is that Rome wasn't built in a day, and similarly, creating a level playing field will not be an overnight solution. We need to establish the benchmarks and communicate to the unions a plan for moving contracts to equity. What's good for state workers, is most certainly good enough for school district employees.

There...NOW the 800 lb gorilla has been (at least partially) exposed. Let the fireworks begin.

SP-EYE disclaimer: Administration will probably declare: All those figures are wrong! But they will offer no attempt to correct them., So let's just head that one off at the pass. The monthly district premium costs come directly from the last 12 months of district check runs. Those are fact. The average administrator salary, $93,000(2009-10) comes from DPI data. Same for teachers... average salary is $47,991 . Premium shares come directly from employee contracts obtained from the district website. The only question mark in the bunch was coming up with an "average" salary for Local 60 workers. (These folks get paid somewhere between $11 and 18.00 per hour, and retire at an average pay of about $17 per hour). They all get paid hourly (vs. salary) and work different numbers of contract days. We took Support Staff salary costs from the annual budget documents and divided that by the number of Local 60 staff. Then we checked some HR tables from school board packages. Subsequently in the worst case scenario, we believe the "average" local 60 salary used here ($24,000) to be biased high.

Tim the Builder

Dear SP-EYE,

I was thinking of a good analogy for the current school district situation, and remembered an article I read back around the time of the referendum vote about Dr. Culver and his hardhat collection.

Sun Prairie Votes for New High School (NBC15.com)

Culver has a hard hat for each school groundbreaking he's presided over. He's hoping [this] vote will allow him to add to the collection, this time for a long awaited new high school.

It didn’t really mean much to me at the time, but as I see the administration’s priorities in spending I have found it to be good place to start thinking.

I was at a school board meeting a year or so ago when a man got up during public comment and said that the district seemed to be spending on a lot of projects and administration and talking less about educating the children. We hear all the time about the new building or program or computers, but not as much on what our kids are really learning. I guess that you don’t get your name on a brass plaque for producing smarter kids, better teachers, or a better learning environment like you do for a new building. Which brings me to the hard hats.

Who do you suppose paid for the hard hats? I don’t know how many there are, but in Dr. Culver’s tenure he has probably swung the gold shovel 4 or 5 times at least. Are these ANSI Z89.1 and OSHA 1910 certified, or just whatever came in the Bob the Builder playset (ed: hey, free saw that makes real cutting sounds). I’ve worn a hardhat to work for years, and I know that they are not terribly expensive. If you are not looking for comfort you can get by for about ten bucks or so. Since these groundbreakings don’t last terribly long, I could see where Tim the Builder could get by on el cheapo. No sweatband insert, no accessory slots to accept hearing protectors, no screens and no chinstrap attachments. All this would just mess up the hair for the post-dig photo-op anyway.

Ten bucks times 4 is $40 dollars, a pittance over this many years, but I wonder if it ever occurred to Tim the Builder that if he reused his last hardhat he could put another book in the library or buy nutritious meals for a couple of kids at lunch that day. I’m sure he didn’t work hard enough at the groundbreaking to wear one out, and though I’ve had some that started to stink I have never known one to spoil with age. No, reusing a hardhat would be the thought of a Tim the Educator.

The big point I’d like to make is that there are a lot of guys and gals in the Sun Prairie School District who are at work before Dr. Culver is out of bed and who put on a hardhat every day to make a better life for their families. Part of this is getting the best possible education for their kids so that their kids don’t have to spend their life under a hardhat unless that is really what they want to do (Like Bob the Builder). Another part is coming up with the property tax money to keep a roof over their head. The district should respect that struggle.

The focus should be on educating the children and not on anything else we tend to think of as an “accomplishment”. The building is just to keep the rain off kids so that they can focus on learning, and it would reflect better if the space on the hardhat shelf were filled with news clippings of Sun Prairie students who are National Merit Scholars or receive national or state accolades in academics or student organizations. Collecting those clippings can be as addicting as collecting AO Smith’s finest yellow plastic and it will help leep our eye on the ball.

One hardhat is good enough for Bob the Builder, and he is a movie star. Then again, his focus is more on educating children and less on collecting trophies.

Paul the Plumber

Budget Whoas!

From yet another "long time listener, first time caller". Gee...anyone get the idea that a lot of people were less than pleased with information received from the recent budget hearing as well as how the meeting itself was (mis)handled?
..............................................................................................................................................................
I regrettably was unable to attend the budget meeting on May 20, 2010, but I did attend the voting meeting last October. I have just now gotten the opportunity to review the presentation by Dr. Culver, Phil Frei, and Jim McCourt. Perhaps I missed something in the translation by skipping the song and dance and just reading the script, but it did allow me to focus on those things that they felt were important enough to write down. A few quotes caught my eye:

...Is $900,000 under the state-imposed revenue cap!!

Excellent data point, and the only bullet in the entire presentation to be awarded the coveted second exclamation point. This is obviously the point that they are going to emphasize. This will make up what in advertising parlance is known as the theme, in auto sales parlance as the sticker price, and in other sales circles as the elemental tactic of “showing high”.

This is the benchmark from which all discussions should be started. Don’t ask us what the car costs or is worth, ask us what number has been hung on it and we can work our way down from there. That number has been set by the manufacturer, in a manner that may be more or less arbitrary than the levy cap set by the state. That is not the way to approach a budget. The public is not terribly interested in what you don’t intend to do, but rather what you do intend to do.

Let me suggest a more honest way of approaching this issue. Instead of celebrating the money you are NOT asking to spend, work your way up from the bottom by justifying the money you ARE asking to spend. I personally don’t care what the state revenue cap is unless it becomes a referendum issue. I am not favorably impressed by the man who steals my wallet, spends the money on hookers and lottery tickets, and then comes back to me bragging that he did NOT steal my watch too. Let the man ask for help to get a meal and an education, show me that the money is going for that, and I will gladly help him.

Current budget contains a 7.8% increase; mostly due to the “rebound” effect of last year’s Annual Meeting vote.

Laughable. This is like a child saying that there is no change from the twenty because the “rebound” effect of seeing a movie is popcorn and a drink.

The current budget contains a 7.8% increase because that is the amount of money the administration is proposing to spend this year. They might be proposing to spend it this year because they were not allowed to spend it last year, but this isn’t a rebound anything. Since they seem to understand basketball analogies, let me give them one that really describes the situation.

After time ran out we did not have the points we wanted, so we are going to try to come out in the second game and score enough points to make up the difference. Our only other option is to play defense (reduce spending) so that we do not have to score as many total points, but we want to be the Michael Redd[1] of school districts and score, score, score!!! My analogy fails. So does theirs.

If the tax levy had not been lowered by the $2M last year, this year’s increase would be 1.6%.

This is the administration’s way of saying “if you had given us more money, we would have spent the same or a lesser amount of money”. Anyone who believes that can take a look at the discussion of what to do with the “leftover” referendum money. They are like a pig on full feed—the only way to stop them is to load them on the truck. That’s what happened last October.

The message from the voter’s meeting was that those present thought that the school district spends too much money. This message was either not received or not believed. Had it been, the board and administration would have been making a greater effort to spend wisely and in a way that the public can understand and agree with.

The message that the board and administration DID receive was that they need different voters and had better work to that end. They may be right, and they may get enough free spenders to carry the day next October. If they are wrong, however, they are doubling down on a losing hand by not taking the concerns of ALL members of the community seriously. They will have hurt their credibility to the point where citizens who want to do the right thing will not trust them to carry it out. And those citizens will quit buying feed.

---

[1] G: MICHAEL REDD, Milwaukee Bucks.
-Possibly pound-for-pound, minute-for-minute the worst defensive player in the NBA on sheer talent and effort. For instance, last year he had a mere 13 blocked shots and 65 steals in 2,702 minutes

"Hungry" Reader Writes About the Expanding Budget Wasteline

OK...pun most definitely intended. A reader identified as "the Thin Man" offers the following take on the ever expanding budget and the commenter who feels that "just forgoing 2 pizzas a month" is worth the price.


I'm finally catching up on my "light "reading and I thought I'd comment on the young woman's remarks about forgoing a couple of pizza's. I've lived here long enough to tell her that...

• I had to forgo four large pizzas a month when we built the two new middle schools,
• then I had to forgo another large pizza when we built Horizon,
• then I had to forgo another large pizza when we built Creekside,
• Now I'm forgoing four large pizzas for the new High School,and
• I'm forgoing two large pizzas for the upgrade of the Upper Middle School,and
• I gave up my bread sticks for the Pool.

As you can see I'm starting to get pretty damn hungry so I don't need to sacrifice any more "FOR THE CHILDREN." I guess if anyone could convince me that our children are getting a better education for all my pizzas I could live with our spending, but I guarantee you that the quality of education has gone down in the last ten years yet we continue to throw more money at it. Our test scores are not comparable to other districts our size and we are a laughing stock among Dane County schools. At least my weight is down but my blood pressure is off the charts.

WAKE UP SUN PRAIRIE !!!!!

Sincerely,
the Thin Man

SP-EYE Note: We couldn't agree more. We've become a renowned sports district, but we're growing very few scholars and far between. We're hungry too. Maybe we can live without pizza and bread sticks, but when we lose our Cinna Stix, THAT is the last straw. We're mad as hell. Throw open your windows, Sun Prairians and scream at the top of your lungs, "We're mad as hell...and we're not gonna take it anymore". Then come to a budget hearing...and tell the school board.

Oops, They Did It Again...

So many possibilities for title to this entry:

• WTF!
• Here They Go (Yet) Again
• Everybody (Back) Into the Pool (Manager)

What's the hub you ask bub?
How could anyone forget the shenanigans associated with the hiring/compensation of the Aquatics Facility [Pool] Manager?

Well...after the board met in closed session Monday night...and presumably came to some conclusion...they're doing it all over again tomorrow (Thurs May 27) nite!



So...what happened Monday? It has been eerily quiet.
We know the board met. We suspect decisions were made and actions taken.
Then why the need for ANOTHER closed session for the SAME purpose as Monday night?

Do they just enjoy those backroom, closed sessions so much that they're doing it all over again?
Did the person they tried to hire decline the job?
Was it STILL not enough money (after they presumably upped the ante)?

We can't wait to hear the results of all this.
You just KNOW it's gonna be a gigglefest.
Perhaps the Dark Forces of Mordor should hang out for this session tomorrow night...

Did anyone notice...
That the "Notice" was sent by Culver for "psoting" on Tuesday...but wasn't sent to Key Communicators until 24 hours later? WTF!
And what that means is whatever happened Monday night...they knew fairly quickly Tuesday that something else had to happen and another meeting was needed.

Ours's a tale that can't be told,
Open government we hold dear;
How years ago in days of old
Since shenanigans filled the air,
T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor
we cherished transparency so fair.
But Seabass, and the evil one crept up
And slipped away with her.
---all apologies to Led Zeppelin for fracturing their classic "Ramble On"

Fetterly Decisions McCourt

One of our friendly neighborhood community residents provided this summary of the McCourt-Fetterly tiff at Monday night's schoolboard meeting:

Things got a little heated at the school board meeting when concerned citizen and junkyard spending dog Roger Fetterly accused the administration of running a “shadow government”, and trying to limit the community budget meetings to the inner circle of true levy-and-spend believers. Mr. Fetterly’s characterization of the…hmmm…shall we say…”targeted marketing effort” of the administration’s budget meeting enterprise elicited an admonition from President Whalen to sit down and be quiet and the honest-to-goodness “crap” word from the ordinarily mild-mannered and jovial Mr. McCourt. A couple of observations:

First, I think that it is all that the board and administration can do to run the government they have, let alone figure out how to run a “shadow” government. That said, the structure of the meetings and notices appears to be geared toward increased participation by people likely to support large levies and program expansion.

The administration understands that the taxpayer meeting did not go their way last October. They understand that the financial situation for the district and the average resident of the district is not better this year than last, and in fact is worse. They understand that they need a game-changer if they are to have any hope of outnumbering the shortsighted child-hating rubes that showed up last year to ruin their party.

That game-changer needs to come in the form of rallying the troops. They can count on most teachers and district employees and their spouses to help carry the day, and that has been borne out by the participation of teachers at the first budget meeting. But the numbers of those on the outside are significant, and the dark child-hating forces of Mordor may be building their army too.

Second, shortly after delivering the double-heapin’-helpin’ of sanctimony on Fetterly, the one who would dare question the body’s openness, they proceeded to go into a closed session. A closed session that had to be rescheduled because they did not adequately inform the public the first time. A closed session to discuss secret reasons for reversing a spending decision that was made publicly. A closed session that likely discussed a number of matters that were entirely inappropriate for closed session. The notice said that the reason for closed session was to go into closed session to consider the employment and compensation of a specific applicant for the position of Aquatics Facility Manager. The qualifications of the applicant are appropriate for closed session. The employment and compensation of the position is not. Salaries are public record, and if this position justifies a higher salaries, such discussion should be had in the sunlight.

Short version: “Sit down and shut up Roger, we are the most open and accountable school board ever. Now if you’ll excuse us, we need to talk amongst ourselves and you are not invited.”

Solid Comic Gold—You can’t make this stuff up, people.

The takeaway from the Fetterly spat is that the board is of the opinion that there are two kinds of people in the community,

• those who will give them any levy they ask for, and


• those who want the school kids on work farms during study hall to pay the bills so that they can have that property tax bill that approached zero.

There is no use in attempting simple communication with the savages in the second group because they cannot converse on our level anyway.

The board and administration are wrong. There is a third type. There are those in the community who do not mind paying for a good education system so long as the district is open with regard to how and why the money is being spent and that the money is being spent in a responsible manner. By the time October rolls around we will have been barraged with midterm election ads and the community will be in tune politically. These people just might show up, and in numbers that could make a difference.

When that happens, the district will need to convince them that they are wise stewards of the public purse. This will be difficult to do with some of the expenditures and practices of the last year.

I'll See Your Little Blue Scoops and Raise the Ante

We couldn't sleep in the heat, so we offer this tasty tidbit. It came in smokin' hot over the wires just begging to be posted. Another reader writes about their perspective recent public hearing on the proposed budget. Enjoy...

BIG Blue Scoops
There is an item that a couple people touched on at the hearing, but nobody really wants to go there. I am talking about health and dental benefits and premiums.

For those that don't know the district has an extremely nice benefit package, that most people would love to be on. In the next years budget, the total cost of these two items is approximately $9 million dollars (thats a whopping 12.5% of the budget just for those premiums). [SP-EYE note: that might be a little low. The bill for April was $870,00 for health insurance and $98,000 for dental. Do the math, people] Those of us in the real word either pay for our coverage, if it can be afforded, or we usually pay a portion of the premium and our employer picks up the rest. It is not uncommon to pay 10% or more of that premium.

So, if all employee groups paid 10% of the premium, we would be saving $900K / year, and that is a permanent savings. Now the actual amount would be less than that because the employees already pay some of the health premium (none of the dental). For example, L60 pays 9% (why do they always get the sharp stick), admin and admin support each pay 4%, and teachers pay ....... wait for it......, yes, a fixed $100 / year!! [SP-EYE Note: our copy of the current contract states that the total amount paid is either $200 or $400 per year for a family...the lower amount being paid if the employee agrees to go through a --taxpayer funded---"Health Risk Assessment. Similar, annual out of pocket for a single employee is $75 or $150 ] Yes, in the last contract, they got 3.8% raise two years in a row and did not have to give anything up, great negotiating.

So, why not put a stake in the ground, and say that all groups WILL pay 10% starting in their next contract year, not negotiable, and start your contract negotiation from there? Of course the McCourts and Shimeks of the world will immediately say that they can not do that because we will lose in arbitration, [SP-EYE note: Fear not, citizen! For at least Mr.Shimek has to abstain from any employee contractually related votes because his wife is a district employee.] but they really need to open their eyes to what is going on around them.

There is another little anomaly that this would help get rid of as well. Today, if teachers choose not to be in the plan (i.e. say their spouse has a plan with another employer), we pay them! [SP-EYE: the reader i correct. We PAY employees $300/month---$3,600/yr to NOT take the health insurance] I don't know how many of those people there are, but this practice has to stop. The logic is that if it is free (or really low cost), then they will just sign up if we do not incent them to not sign up. If they have to pay for the benefit, problem solved.

At the end of day, no one wants anything taken away, but the above is reasonable, and it would fund most of the new teachers at the new buildings this year.

---Citizen That Would Rather Keep Their Two Pizzas A Month

Readers Write: The Pool Manager Shenanigans

From a reader who wishes to remain confidential...

People may not understand why someone would be so worked up over a small salary increase for an aquatic center manager. After all, it is $5,000.00 out of a $75,000,000 budget, so what's the big deal? A couple of observations:

1) That extra $5,000 does not include the extra FICA, workers comp, and other expenses that go along with a raise every time someone gets one. Then, every year in the future that a (for example) 2% raise is given, that is 2% of a larger number. In just a few years, the $5,000.00 has grown by half, and keeps growing. It also applies upward pressure to similar positions in the district. If a pool manager is worth $45k, then MY job is worth...

2) Notwithstanding #1 (since even if the $5k climbs a substantial amount it is not a huge deal considering the size of the budget), there is an unwritten, unspoken social compact between the community and the school district that has been broken. The community pledges (albeit under threat of seizure of their property) to support the education of the students in the district. Smart kids make good citizens and good communities (for the compassionate and altruistic), and good communities help property values (for the more cynical). The district's end of the bargain is to spend the community's money in a responsible, open, and accountable manner. The board, in open session, assigned the administration the task of finding a pool manager and gave them $40k/yr with which to do it. The administration held a search, identified (a) candidate(s), and is now wanting to go into closed session to up the salary. The justification finally given is that they have somebody they reeeeealllly like.

At this point, the right way to do things is to go into open session and the administration should explain in front of Mr. Whalen and everybody why they have failed in their quest to find a qualified $40k pool manager. After outlining the unsuccessful efforts and explaining why they were unsuccessful, they need to make a case that the board was short-sighted in giving them so little money. They need to point out that an aquatic center manager in Virginia with 3 pools and 64 employees makes $38,800, but that this is not a good comparison. They need to run down a few more examples of places that were able to find sub-$40k aquatic center managers for facilities and situations much more demanding than we have and explain why they don't apply either. If the primary reason is that they really like a particular guy/gal for the job, then AND ONLY THEN should they retire to the smokefilled backrooms to make the deal that they will consummate after emerging from behind the curtain. I can appreciate that Dr. Culver has found his Speedo-clad soulmate, but if he wants the board to reconsider a thoughtful and reasoned decision on the salary for the position he had better bring more to the table than than love-at-first-interview. And he should make his case to the community as well. I would like to get Pamela Anderson and David Hasselhoff to co-manage the pool (pretty good swimmers and people like them), but we won't because they won't work for what the position pays. The alternative is to find someone who will. If we fail in our quest, we ask the personnel committee to help with recruiting suitable candidates, and if that doesn't work we put on our best Oliver Twist face and THEN give 'em the ol' "please Sir, might I have some more???"

That's not what happened here. The entire process looks like someone was trying to accomplish something without the community being fully aware of the situation. Only after realizing they had a pathetically inadequate notice given for the closed session did the notice of the hearing change to something that would almost pass for an appropriate use of closed session (still no mention in it of a plan to increase the salary for the position). Note to the board: Discussion of upgrading the position is open session talk; discussion of a particular candidate is closed session talk. Keep that in mind when you start pulling the levers behind the curtain.

Maybe the candidate they have identified is worth the money, and maybe the position justifies a higher salary (in spite of the fact that everyone else seems to get by for less), but this case needs to be made to the board in the daylight to the extent that respect for that individual's privacy will allow. Who knows, the Taj Mahighschool is the most expensive school in Wisconsin, maybe it needs the most expensive pool manager. Convince us.

BBallGate: Legal Papers Served

This week Sun Prairie High School head varsity girls basketball coach Liz Hrodey’s personal attorney served a Notice of Circumstance to Sun Prairie Area School District. Specific individuals served were: District Administrator Tim Culver, SPHS Principal Lisa Heipp, Director of Human Resources Annette Mikula, and Athletics Director Jim McClowry – and Sun Prairie School Board President John Whalen.

The “Notice of Circumstances Giving Rise to Claim for Damages” is a preliminary step in a potential lawsuit. The next step would be a formal Notice of Claim, on which the school board would act. If a formal Notice of Claim is denied a lawsuit can be filed within six months following receipt of such disallowance of a formal claim.

The Notice of Circumstance alleges that Hrodey was not provided with a safe working environment and that the district failed to protect her from an ongoing pattern of harassment and interference with her coaching by parents and players.

The notice also alleges that the investigation following the receipt of complaints from parents and players appeared to be biased.
---excerpted from the Sun Prairie STAR report

Hrodey Press Release (Sun Prairie STAR website)

Formal Notice Of Circumstances Giving Rise to Claim for Damages

This is not an official Notice of Claim...but it is definitely a Notice to Get the District Checkbook Ready.
Hmm...wondering how any settlement will impact the 2010-11 budget and mill rate. Might want to call ask your school board member.

Shenanigans Encore - The Pool Manager Salary

In our last episode, the school board had planned a closed door session to discuss the hiring and compensation for the Pool Manager (OK, the more officious title is "Aquatics Facility Manager"...but let's not split hairs, it's a Pool Manager.)

We posted our concerns that this was a stage 5 Shenanigans alert, and a number of community residents wrote or called to share their concerns. The main question was, "How can the school board set the Pool Manager salary --in fact LOWERING it $5000 from what Administration recommended---in open session one night (Monday May 10) and then schedule a closed session (May 19) to re-consider the compensation!!!!

So they cancel the May 19th meeting. We never heard a reason, but we're willing to bet that Culver and the board received a few e-mails and phone calls declaring "Shenanigans"---not to mention a significant potential for a case of violation of open meetings laws. But now they have RE-scheduled a closed session for tomorrow, May 24th at the conclusion of the school board meeting.

What's the Difference This Time?
The devil is in the details, as the say. And here, the detail is in the phrasing used. What should stand out

"...consider the employment and compensation of specific applicant for the position of Aquatics Facility Manager"

Seems rather innocuous...doesn't it? But the difference means a great deal in meeting the letter of the laws that exempt certain meetings from being held in open session.

What do the Open Meeting Laws Require?
The statute in question is chapter 19, specifically, 19.85(1)(c). The law states that...

19.85 Exemptions.
(1) Any meeting of a governmental body, upon motion duly made and carried, may be convened in closed session under one or more of the exemptions provided in this section. … A closed session may be held for any of the following purposes:

(c) Considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility.

History:
Sub. (1) (c) does not permit closed sessions to consider employment, compensation, promotion, or performance evaluation policies to be applied to a position of employment in general. 80 Atty. Gen. 176.

---

The devil in the details here is that there is no Aquatics Facility Manager yet, so there is no public employee. The reason for the allowed secrecy is to protect the privacy of the employee...particularly if they are being "called on the carpet".

The meeting can now--legally--be held in closed session because they specifically spelled out the fact the meeting is to discuss hiring salary for a specific applicant, rather than a generic salary for the position, as was voted on 2 weeks ago. Arguably, this was the intent all along--even for the 19th--but the public meeting notice was not written in a manner that clearly met the letter of the statutory exemptions.

So the shenanigans remain, but this time, its legal shenanigans.

By the way...a shout goes out to Sun Prairie's very own Nancy Harms, who we understand is a candidate for the "Aquatics Facility Manager". Ms. Harms coaches the girls swim team, and has been very involved with swimming. She and her husband Matt, owner of Harms Insurance, also get kudos for their very recent donation of $16,000 by Harms Insurance for the naming rights to the pool scoreboard. From the interaction we've observed between Ms. Harms and Tim Culver and some board members during some committee meetings as the Pool Manager position description has been solidified, it seems she would work very well with the Administrative team. Good Luck, Ms. Harms!

What Budget Questions Are People Wondering But No One is Asking?

1. Seven (7) Teachers retired this year at an average salary of $72,500 and benefits average of 27,500. That comes to $100,000 per staff member. The number used for new teachers is $50,000 (including benefits). That translates to a net replacement "savings" of $350,000. Where is it? How come THAT wasn't a bullet point in the budget presentation?

2. Utility costs are still increasing 43% ($350K). How come no one is mentioning that this year we are finally done paying $9,000 per month ($108K per year) to an Energy Education service to teach us that shutting off lights and lowering thermostats in the winter saves us money?

3. Why do the documents indicate that Fund Balance will drop to $6.1M at the end of 2010-11? The data show a reduction in fund balance of $1.9M. Hold on thar! Weren't we only taking a maximum of $800K from Fund Balance? Shouldn't this data show that? Or are we trying to subliminally suggest the community can't affords to lower the tax levy again?

4. How come no one is talking about the projections used for administration and Admin Support salaries? Hmmmm? Many districts are freezing these salaries. "Policy" is form administrators to "get" the same amount of raise as teachers got the prior year. Well...that was 4.2%. Is the board planning to give them 4.2%?

5. Ditto for Local 60 contracts. Are these folks going to get poked in unmentionable places again? What projections do we have for pay raises for this "class" of personnel?

6. Why are we budgeting $200K for property tax chargebacks? Yes, a little over $100K is being paid to Sun Prairie after July 1...but where is the rest projected to come from?

7. Why are "Dues and Fees" up over 20% to $33K?

8. We understand that Admin is planning to again collect personal appliance fees (about $3000-6,000) from staff. Really? Come on! You'll fight to add $5,000 in salary to a Pool Manager. You'll pay over $6,000 (so far) in legal fees because someone had the bright ideas to remove a coach in mid-season based on complaints from the players that the coach was too rough on them. You'll continue to pay a Construction Manager $7,300per month after the keys to the TajMaHighSchool [we'd love to take credit for that one...but it belongs to someone else] have been handed over? You'll buy not one but TWO newspaper subscriptions for district office staff and put fancy gold name plates on their doors. But you want to squeeze staff for appliance fees? Break ME off a piece of that Kit Kat bar. Oh...wait...credit where credit is due: Operation Birthday KitKatBars has been deep-sixed until further notice.

9. Why do 14 of the 16 Dane County districts have a Fund 80 for Community Service and we do not? 15 of the 21 similar sized districts operate a Community service Fund (Fund 80). And don't tell us that you don't because Fund 80 would allow you to raise taxes. Yes, a tax can be levied for Fund 80, but a district is not REQUIRED to do so. All it takes is a little restraint. The important thing is that the district DOES take on costs related to community service related activities, and we should show that. More to the point...we take in a lot of revenue from field and facility rentals...and will be doing so even more with the pool and PAC. It's time to show where all this money is going. Oh...and don't tell us that all the districts that operate a fund 80 tax up to the revenue limit...because they don't. In fact, 50% of the similar sized districts that have a Fund 80 tax UNDER the revenue limit (by as much as $1.2M). So let's just keep that horse in its stall.

10. Why are postage fees increasing by 43% to $96K? Postage rates aren't increasing. No referenda are planned...right? And, if you want to do Outreach...shouldn't we be doing more thing electronically to save costs? Being a high-tech district and all?

Cutting the Cord

Hopefully we all know by now that the keys to the new high school were handed to us back in late February. The pool is up and running. The PAC has even been used for a number of meetings & events.

What you likely didn't know....is that the district is still paying the Construction Manager a hefty sum of $7300 PER MONTH. That's means we' ve already spent over $20,000 for management of construction that is virtually complete, save for some things going on the "CHUMS" this summer.

Are you kidding us?

This issue came up at the Finance Committee meeting several meetings back, and on Monday will be discussed at the FTT meeting (what a great way to keep paying these charges...just shuffle the issue between committees!).
FTT agenda item 5-24-10 regarding Construction Manager
A motion was made at the Finance Committee to "cut the cord", but the motion failed (fancy that!). A successful motion was subsequently made to have the FTT committee review the issue.
It seems that the contract between the district and the Construction Manager does not guarantee a sunset date; it just vaguely discusses severing the relationship at the conclusion of the construction project. The Construction Manager feels that the intent was to contract with them through at least September 2010, as the original plan was for us to not take ownership of the new high school until sometime in August.

The “engagement period” was defined as November 15, 2007 through completion of the projects and October 1, 2010 was noted as the anticipated contract termination date.
---Construction Manager

So...people...with money as tight as it is, should the cord be "cut" to free up these funds for other projects (or savings to the taxpayers!)?

The Case for cutting the Cord
1. $7,300 per month for the next 4 months is a lot of money that could be returned to the taxpayers or put towards those additional projects that have been discussed.

1. The large part of the construction ($84M for the high school/pool and much of the $16M for the CHUMS renovation is complete. What's left could easily be monitored by the Buildings/Grounds Manager (as has been done in projects past).

2. We have never received a single report pointing out specific costs savings resulting from interjection by the Construction Manager. That was a key part of discussions at the FTT meetings when the decision was made to hire the Construction Manager. The intent of the FTT committee was to obtain reports which clearly indicated that the Construction Manager position clearly funded itself in terms of cost savings suggested by said Construction Manager. Yes, the high school project came in under budget, but there is NO documentation that that is in any way a result of actions by the Construction Manager. Perhaps Findorf was very conscientious in its own right.

3. The historical FTT meeting record should show that committee discussions of hiring a construction manager were geared towards hiring a PART TIME limited term (LTE) employee (not employeeS or contractorS). Do the math, people...$7300 per month, assuming 160 hrs per week comes out to about $45/hour!!! That may not be up in the Culverosphere, but it's certainly well within the Adminosphere.

4. We're nickel and diming (or is it dickel and niming) the teachers for "personal appliance fees" to extort (high estimate) $6,000 to offset the budget crisis, yet we can afford to pay a consultant $7,300 per MONTH for a $100M project which is virtually 98% complete?

5. The plan is to maintain the 5% budget cut per school for teacher supplies in 2010-11, "due to the budget crisis", yet....oh...you get the point.

6. Are the remaining modifications to the CHUMS worth nearly $30K in oversight costs?

The Case for continuing payments
1. The construction is not 100.0% complete. Some modifications are still occurring st the CHUMS.

2. The Construction Manager indicates that the project was bid assuming work through September 2010. We don't think that's a strong enough reason...but we'll put it out there anyway.

3. The contractor believes that the project would have been bid differently if it was known that the contract would be terminated before October 2010.
Read the Construction Manager's position statement from the 4-26-10 Finance Committee Meeting.

SP-EYE says: The district should thank the Construction Manager for the services provided during the High School construction and CHUMS renovation project, but terminate the contract effective May 31, 2010. And don't say, "there isn't enough time". We've seen how quickly you've revised public notices. The board has several meetings scheduled for the week of May 24. Certainly the agenda for one of those could be tweaked to take a vote.

From 2 Large Pizzas to Little Blue Scoops

Last night's public hearing on the budget had it's ups and downs. In the credit column, about 40 or so people turned out (normally we can count the attendees on one hand). There was also some good discussion and comments. In the debit column, we have the microphones that weren't working well (nothing new there!) and nearly indecipherable handouts of the budget information slide show.

Two commenters in particular stood out, because they provided diametrically opposed views on the school district budget. Our very own Tale of Two Cities.

The first young woman spoke excitedly about all the wonderful things that the school district has to offer our children. In fact, she gushed so much, the Vegas odds have her heavily favored to either be a district employee, a spouse of a district employee, or someone who's annual income is the the Culver zone. She ended her comments by stating that the proposed property tax increase, a mill rate of about $12.00 , represents a monthly cost of $13 to $15 for a $200,000 home. She liked that to having to her family having to forgo 2 large pizzas per month. And she can live with that.

Then the other shoe dropped. Another woman got up and offered her comments. We didn't catch every word, but it sounded like her message was that her salary had been cut by 15%, health care benefits were reduced, and remaining staff were forced to take one unpaid furlough day every month. She was thankful she had a job.

She also recognized the value of education offered by the school district but shared a little anecdote. If we captured this correctly, it seems that a company known for making cocoa had established a trademark of sorts by including a "little blue scoop" inside the container that was sized to prepare the perfect cup of cocoa. When times were tough,m the company sought ways of cutting costs. One such idea was to cease including the little blue scoop. It seems the little blue scoop--as nice as it was-- was equivalent to a tablespoon which can be founded in virtually every household. Said company was able to weather the economic crisis by making this small cut in its costs. The woman challenged the school district to seek out and eliminate its own "little blue scoops".

We're pretty confidant this unidentified woman is not a school district employee. Nor is her household income in the Culverosphere. She makes do by pinching pennies where she can.

Which one is right?
So...who's right? The woman who insists the proposed tax increase is only "2 large pizzas per month"? Or the woman who challenged the district to find its own little blue scoops?

Ha! It's a trick question! They both are, of course. Each spoke quite candidly about the world they live in...and we sincerely appreciate their coming forward an d offering comments. They just inhabit two very different economical worlds. They both value the education provided by the district. One has enough disposable income such that doing without 2 large pizzas per month is very "doable". For the other, life has become a more prolonged struggle to do things more efficiently, making do with less.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics, Part 2.
We are endlessly amused at how the district attempts to present property tax increases in the most positive light. With the pool referendum it was a battle cry of "For only 6 of your favorite coffee drinks...".

We're a little confused by the math this go around however (must be more of that :"new" math). What we learned last night in consecutive slides doesn't seem to add up.

Slide 1: We were told that the projected mill rate (assuming 1% increase in Equalized Value) would be $12.00.
Do the math, folks, for a 200,000 home, that translates to 200 x $12.00 or a $240 increase to the property tax bill of a home assessed at $200,000.

Slide 2. Then we were told that the increase translates to $12.67 per month on a $200K home.
Wait! $12.67 x 12 months (there's still 12 months in a year, right? They didn't mess with that with "new" math...did they?). That comes to $152.04. What happened to the rest of the $240?

Well...see...that's where the statistics comes in. Or...as we said in school...the art of making numbers look like you want them to look. The district isn't wrong...they just chose to show a slice of the pie. A slice that made the pie taste more like apple pie than fruitcake, if you will.

How the District got their numbers of "Estimated Monthly Property Tax Increase"
Here's the deal. What the district was trying to convey with their slide was that LAST year, the mill rate was $11.24. THIS year (2010-11) the mill rate is PROJECTED to be $12.00. The difference between the two mill rates is $0.76. Then, if you multiply 76 cents (per $1000 of assessed value) x 200 you arrive at the district figure of $152. And $152 divided by 12 months is $12.67...,,,or the cost of two medium Pizza Hut or Domino's pizzas (if you stiff the delivery guy).

Why stop there?
Hell...$12.67 per month translates to about 43 cents per DAY! So...is funding the school district budget worth a little more than half the cost of your daily newspaper?

You can twist numbers anyway you like...but at the end of the day, a $200,000 home is going to pay $2,400 in property taxes JUST FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. And you can add in another $2,000--at least--for the city portion, MATC, and Dane County.

Compare that to a certain home we're aware of on Cape Cod...yeah...THAT Cape Cod....right across the road from the water. It's assessed at $550K, and the TOTAL property taxes are only $3,900. That's a mill rate of about $7.10.

And their test scores are better, too.
93% proficient in Language Arts, 88% in Math. Now of course some will cry, "The tests aren't the same!". And they're not. But you get the point. Massachusetts and Wisconsin tend to be mirror states.

You decide...is everything roses, and we should cut down on our pizza and just smell the District roses? Or does the district (as managed by the school board) need to dig a little deeper and find some of thoise "little blue scoops"?

People are still hurting. Well... at least those whose incomes are well outside the Culverosphere. Yes, the school district offers some wonderful things. But that's chiefly due to the teachers and support staff.

Same Old Story...

Funny how many Aerosmith song titles seem eerily appropriate when describing the school district and its budget process.

Same Old Story (Same Old Song and Dance)
Train Kept A Rollin'
S.O.S (Too Bad)
Cryin'
Crazy
Just Push Play

There's a million of em'. All great classic rock n' roll tuneage. Too bad we can't say the same for the district budget process.

So here we are...admittedly earlier than last year's August 13th date for a public hearing on the budget....but then again, we have no significant contract issues this year.

More importantly, it's T Minus 48 hours till the budget hearing and there are NO BUDGET MATERIALS for the community to review prior to the meeting. And who's to say there WILL be anything until just prior to...or even at....the meeting.

Rewind to last year (which was itself a repeat of the prior year):

Public Hearing on the Budget this Week (Aug 9, 2009)
08/12/2009 SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 p.m., at the District Office, Yep....at long last there will be a public hearing on the budget. However,...just like last year...there's no information for you to review. Can you say "SHENANIGANS"? What a great game plan: if the district doesn't make all these numbers available to the public until just before the meeting, then there's no way the public can make enough sense of them to formulate an opinion. Therefore, the District can march ahead and do what they want and say, "Well, we held a public hearing and received no comments".


How is the community supposed to provide input on the budget if they don't have anytime to REVIEW the budget?

Or is it that we just talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk?

Is it too much to ask to give the community information and time to digest it and formulate questions? [We guess it must be]. How would the school board like it if their board packets weren't made available until the day before a board meeting. Scratch that....we know at least some of them wouldn't care because it's clear they don't read them beforehand anyway.

And while we're at it....how about a change in format? How about we truly hold a HEARING....you know which implies that the community talks and the Finance Committee listens (hears)?

Ahhh...never mind, as that other Aerosmith tune goes,
DREAM ON.

[P.S. we bet a buck that after they read this, information gets posted to the website by noon tomorrow]

Budget Hearing THIS Thursday!

• Want to see how the school district plans to spend your tax dollars?


• Want to learn what your property tax bill will look like come December?


• Have a few questions you want to ask about the school district budget?
  
  Then have we got a meeting for you!

FINANCE COMMITTEE PUBLIC BUDGET HEARING
Thursday 5/20/2010 6:30 p.m.
at the Performing Arts Center, New High School,
888 Grove St., Sun Prairie.

Topic: Discussion and Public Hearing on the 2010-11 Budget

Yes...even though initial notices of this meeting went to district employees and "insiders", it really is PUBLIC meeting.

And just so we all understand what what a public hearing is...

Public Hearing: Definition
A public hearing is that portion of a meeting designed specifically to receive input from the public. A public hearing may be required by ordinance, charter or statute. The time, place and subject of the hearing must be posted as required by the ordinance, charter or statute. The hearing may be scheduled before, during or after a regular meeting of a council or committee, or may be the subject of a special meeting called specifically for that purpose.

Ssshhh! Let's Not Say Anything About SAGE Changes

As we navigate the budget waters, one thing that is NOT being discussed is pending changes to the state's SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education) program. As budgets have become tight, the SAGE program has come under fire in districts across the state and even here in Sunny Prairie.

The SAGE programs requires that districts maintain a student:teacher ratio of 15:1 in grades K through 3, in each school designated as "SAGE". In Sun Prairie, both Bird and Westside elementary are SAGE schools. You might also recall the hubbub surrounding the last boundary change, as both Bird and Westside were caught in the crossfire.

The good thing about SAGE is that we get additional state aid for every child eligible for free/reduced lunch at SAGE schools.

The not-so-good things is that lower student:teacher ratio can tend to cost us more money than we receive in return from the state.



What would SAGE Changes Mean in Sun Prairie?
As one would guess...if you increase the class size, eventually it comes to a point where, at most grade levels, less teachers would be needed. Think about it...if class sizes are limited to 15 kids (as with SAGE) and a sudden budget decision calls for class size maximums to now be 30 kids, you could potentially cut 50% of teaching positions.

Reducing teaching positions is not a happy thought...especially for those whose jobs would be on the chopping block. The grim reality, however, is that these are still tough times, and tough times call for tough measures.

How many positions would be at risk? Our guess is that about 4 positions would/could be cut as a result of SAGE changes. If one "does the math", we have 135 1st graders at Bird and Westside this year, resulting in 135 kids and 9 positions. At 18 kids per classroom (instead of 15), we would only need 7.5 teachers. Of course, we round up because we only hire whole teachers. So in 1st grade alone, we'd create one position reduction.

If you do that for all 4 SAGE grades, it would seem that we could "cut" 4 teaching positions at a net budget savings of about $200,000. While it is difficult to make these tough decisions, we don't feel the change from 15 to 18 kids per SAGE classroom would result in a decline in the quality of education being delivered. And realistically, there has been talk, on a number of occasions, of eliminating SAGE because the SAGE program DOES cost us more than it yields in aid.

So, it all boils down to a $200,000 reduction in the budget, which translates to lower property taxes. And--since these cuts would go towards the 800 lb. gorilla, i.e., personnel costs, we would be making a permanent cut to the budget instead of the one year fixes adopted last year.
Worth playing for?

Now we just need to trim administration.

You Can Put Lipstick on a Pool Manager...

OK...we can't get this whole Pool Manager salary thing out of our craw. That's right...Pool Manager. As our President so eloquently put it when he launched one of those quotes that will be forever etched in history:

" You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. "

So you can use your creative writing skills to call a "Pool Manager" an "Aquatic Facilities Manager"....but at the end of the day, they still manage a frickin' pool!

Call us crazy...but it would seem that there are far more critical, far more challenging occupations in our district for which we pay far less. And apparently, we're OK with that...so why do we feel the need to "make it rain" for administrative positions?

Why is it that the minute we include a position under the umbrella of "Administration" or Administrative Support", there is a sense of entitlement to a whopping salary?

More importantly, the second a position falls under school district administration, it seems to carry with it a premium salary. Just a quick scan of the internet located a "Swimming Pool Manager" opening for the City of San Diego--that's right, in high priced southern Cali. It pays--drum roll--$15.12 to $18.19 per hour

Swimming Pool Managers lead, evaluate and supervise

the work of subordinates and volunteers; administer and teach

swimming classes; perform pool maintenance; administer first aid

and CPR as needed; keep records and write reports; publicize and market

new and existing aquatic programs; develop fund raising activities;

plan and conduct special aquatic events; coordinate staffing

schedules; conduct specialized staff training; and provide

information to the public...

Tell us how this position differ so much from our own "Pool Manager" position.

Who called this meeting, anyway?
So...did school board president John E Whalen call Tim Culver and say, "Hey Tim....set up a meeting, we need to rethink that salary that I got outvoted on" ? Or did Culver just set the meeting up because the "fish on the line" declined the salary after learning that the school board lowered it? Ya know...is the tail wagging the dog here? Or did the 5 school board members who voted to reduce the salary call John E up and say, "Hey John...can we hold a closed door session to rethink that Pool Manager salary"? Just askin'.....

Channelling Chopped Liver Here!
Um...hello...as school board members head into their closed door session to discuss "beefing up" the Pool Manager salary to "get their person", we suggest they keep in mind the teachers. The starting salary for a teacher...you know...those people that actually EDUCATE our kids...earn less than $32,000. But we're paying a Pool Manager $40,000? And the "desired candidate" apparently has turned the offer down --likely because they peruse the website and know that the original salary was slated to be $45,300.
Think about that.

Job Specs
The "Pool Manger" job description is:
A.Manages and supervises employees to assure that the facility and programs are staffed as required to provide safe and effective programs.
B. Manages the aquatic facility.
C. Coordinates all aquatic program activities.
D. Maintains compliance with state regulations and certification standards.

Compare that if you will to a bare bones position description for a teacher.
- Formulate lesson plans
- Teach 15-25 kids, at varying ability levels, per class for 7-8 classes every day
- Maintain certifications
- upgrade curriculum as district standards change
- attend training as required

Really? a pool manager is worth 25% MORE than a teacher as the school board already voted?
And now the "desired candidate" thinks the job is worth more like 40% more compensation than that of a teacher?

We don't think so.

Oh, When the Seabass Strikes...

At the school board meeting Monday night, community resident Roger Fetterly chastised the school board for incompetence...for first not administering the oath of office correctly to newly elected school board members, and also for "sloppy" minute-taking, as the minutes incorrectly stated that John Whalen (rather than John Welke) took an oath of office.

SCHOOL BOARD MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010
M I N U T E S
1. Opening Items
1.01 Official Oath of School Board Members
School Board Clerk Jill Camber Davidson administered the Official Oath of School Board members to Caren Diedrich, Jim McCourt and John Whalen [N.B. should read: John Welke, not "Whalen"].

Tempted by the fruit of another bait offered by Mr. Fetterly, Jim "Seabass" McCourt decided this week to "jump" the bait and "strike" back at Fetterly with the following e-mail which we obtained.

James McCourt [jrmccou@spasd.k12.wi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:10 PM
To: fetterly@charter.net

Just as an FYI Roger, you might want to review the tape of your public comments about the minutes being wrong, you stated that the minutes should have read John Whalen - you made the same mistake....I know what you meant and it was an oversite,[look who else is having spelling problems] but perhaps you can understand how honest mistakes can happen since you made the same mistake! I am thankful you pointed out the error so our minutes are correct. For that I chose not to point out your error, perhaps I shouldn't have missed that opportunity in public?

Perhaps you also might like to learn how to spell peoples names in your emails, or is it just incompetence?

-Jim

Jim McCourt

Treasurer

Sun Prairie School Board

jrmccou@spasd.k12.wi.us

---

Ole Seabass correctly points out that Fetterly himself repeated the error when he tried to correct the school board, but like Tim Culver, Seabass appears to have missed the point--and got "fished in" in the process.

Seabass leaped to the defense of school board member and board Clerk Jill Camber-Davidson. What Seabass --and Fetterly--forgot was that the board Clerk does not even record minutes of school board meetings. That duty is assigned to Culver's Secretary. Should Camber-Davidson have reviewed the minutes for accuracy before they were posted? Certainly. But seriously...how much of ANY of this stuff really, truly comes from school board members? Situation Reports, which provide the foundation for school board meeting agenda items, come from administration.

Seabass also threw decorum out the window by launching this e-mail response to Fetterly. His e-mail comes across as nothing more than a glorified playground quality, "Naaaah, Naaaah... I got you" sort of taunt. Model of decorum? We think not. Frankly, we think McCourt's response serves only to further tarnish the already heavily mottled image of the school board.

Jim...you and the rest simply need to be doing it better than the other guys. Period. No excuses. YOU are the elected official. YOU are our public representative. And, until you and the board fix your image, stop enRAGING, and start enGAGING the community...you will need to sit up there and take your medicine.

Poor form!

Oh Yeah! Even MORE Shenanigans!

A funny thing happened on the way to hiring the Aquatics Facility Manager....

First of all...the district pushed hard (and of course the school board agreed) to running parallel processes: the district would recruit for an Aquatics Facility Manager (aka Pool Manager) even while the job description was still being formulated.
That's right....the district was trying to hire someone for a job description that was still very draft. Oh...and no salary had been discussed. Well aren't they just the models of efficiency!

Act 1 - the OPEN meeting agenda
On Monday May 10, the school board had as an agenda item, the finalized job description and salary for said Pool Manager:

7.10 Aquatics Program and Facility Manager Job Description
Meeting: 05/10/2010 REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised)

The proposed starting pay is $21.78 per hour or $45,302 per year.

Act 2 - the OPEN meeting decision

During the school board meeting, the board voted 5-2 (Whalen and McCourt voting "NO", i.e. wanting the higher salary) to approve the job description for the aquatics program and facility manager, but lowered the salary to $19.23 per hour, or $40,000 per year .

Act 3 - the CLOSED meeting Shenanigans

Now fast forward to Thursday May 13.

Suddenly a "Special" school board meeting is announced for next Wednesday, May 19, only this time the meeting is closed to the public.

Agenda for 05/19/2010

SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING,

8:00 p.m. at the High School, 888 Grove St., Sun Prairie.

3. Closed Session
3.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of considering the employment and compensation of an Aquatics Facility Manager [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c)].

So clearly they had/have a fish on the line, so to speak, all along. 'Cause we KNOW they didn't just recruit, interview and decide to make an offer between Monday and Thursday...right?

So...what happens when NORMALLY makes a new hire. You know...that is all dealt with by the Director of Human Resources...right. They type up an offer letter, and welcome the person on board...right?

Not so fast, Everlast! Why on earth would the school board have to have any meeting at all--let alone a closed session---to discuss the hiring of a new staff member? What exactly is there to "discuss" about the compensation? Perhaps we could see that some concerns may have been raised regarding the potential candidate...concerns which should appropriately be aired only behind closed doors. But "compensation"? Those are OUR tax dollars you're playing with. And the only reason for closed doors when discussing compensation is...well...shenanigans.

Oh...golly gee...you don't suppose that the "fish on the line" noticed that the salary was reduced and has said, "Thanks, but I wanted the $45K"...do you? What does that tell you about this wonderful "parallel process" idea? Perhaps in the future, you don't even POST a position until the job description is complete and the salary is cast in stone.

And so, the school board has to have a closed session, so the public can't make any comments when they completely reverse their decision of May 10, and re-up the offer to 45K.

And who decided that this salary was even negotiable? It's not like we're making a pitch to hire Steve Jobs! We're hiring a Pool Manager.

Consider Captain Picard's take...