Third Time to be the Charm for Pepsi Contract?

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

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


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


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


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


Just wondering...

Are SPASD Administrators Textually Active?

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

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


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


We have nothing but questions:

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

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

It's time for ACCOUNTABILITY!

Pepsi Contract Foiled Again

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 Vending Machines!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps Teachers Will Soon Feel the Furlough Pain?

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

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

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


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

Where's the Pepsi?

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

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

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

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

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

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

T Minus 16 Days and Counting...

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


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


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


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

Uh Oh Spaghetti O! 4K Busing Coming Under Fire

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


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


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



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


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


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


Transportation cost comparisons

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

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

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


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

Post Election Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned...

Culver Talks Diversity

Interesting column in today's State Journal regarding Dictrict SuperNintendo Tim Culver's participation on a panel forum focused on the challenges of diversity:
Chris Rickert: Tiptoeing around race issue doesn't solve anything