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!
Posts
