Opacity

“We want to make this as transparent as possible. We want people to understand our parameters and assumptions when developing the budget, discuss the budget and have you give us feedback.”

---Sun Prairie School Board member and Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt speaking about the school district budget for 2010-11

What Do We Mean By Transparency?

"...when budgets and financial statements are clearly defined and all assumptions are disclosed they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest."

OK...so...if they want things to be so "transparent", why is it that when a resident asks a question about the amount of the budget reserved for raises (???), the questioner was told that "legal counsel advised against revealing that information"?

How "transparent" is that?

Fly into the Danger Zone

One of two things can happen in this scenario; neither of which is good.

1. The electors approve a tax levy without ever knowing how much was hidden in the budget for raises to Tim Culver, Administrators, Admin Support staff, and the perennially screwed Local 60. In this scenario, it's tough tooties for we the people. District Admin will cry "naaah naaah", and declare that we were foolish to approve a levy without knowing how it would be spent.

2. The alternative would be for the school board to settle these contracts and raises BEFORE the annual electors meeting. In this scenario, they can then build the increases into the budget and declare transparency. Should any elector motion to reduce the levy, the board can then say that they need the full levy to cover the magnanimous raises they approved.

A third option would be for the school board to make a very bold move--much like the state--and declare up front the entire "purse" available for raises (if any). Keeping in mind that many districts are freezing all salaries, our school board could opt to do the same. Then, during negotiations, all they need to do is just say, "It is what it is...even if it ain't much". This strategy, of course depends on two things: (1) NO contract is settle or raises administered until AFTER the elector's meeting, and (2) the board be 100% above board and declare up front the total dollar amount being allocated for raises.

In fact, if they do it in this manner (rather than declaring a percentage), then no union or group of employees can use said "percentage" as a basis for their negotiations. But...what do we know? Newsflash. When state employee unions "negotiate" their contracts with the state, there is no real negotiation...not for money, anyway. The state dictates what is --or is not--available. That's it. There is no give and take. The unions simply take what is available to them. The only real "negotiation" involves changes to contract language or other non-monetary benefits.

Our View

We find Frei and McCourt's collective rallying cry of "Transparency!", while shielding the very monies they are allocating to the 800 lb gorilla to be nothing more than a version of "do as I say, not as I do".

Rather than transparency, they effectively created a budget which is perhaps translucent to the optimist, yet quite opaque for the seasoned realist.

Opacity

Etymology: Middle French opacité shadiness, from Latin opacitat-, opacitas, from opacus shaded, dark

1 a : obscurity of sense : unintelligibleness

b : the quality or state of being mentally obtuse : dullness
2 : the quality or state of a body that makes it impervious to the rays of light; broadly : the relative capacity of matter to obstruct the transmission of radiant energy

SP-EYE NOTE: We find the definition "state of being mentally obtuse" to be rather fitting.

Reader Feedback: Lessons in Context

There were a couple of statements at the budget public meeting that stuck in my head like speed eating a sno-cone. The stated purpose of the Sun Prairie School Board Finance Committee Public Meeting Jamboree and Revival is to encourage greater participation in the process. The hope of the board and administration is that if they can encourage enough right-thinking people to show up and outnumber the fiscal party-poopers, then all will be right with the world and they will get the money they deserve. This sentiment was evidenced at the meeting by a couple of quotes:

-“…taxes we had earned as a district.” -Jim McCourt

-“taxpayers chose to lower last years’ tax levy.” -Phil Frei

Two points that should be painfully obvious to anyone not addicted to the sweet, sweet nectar of other peoples’ money:

1. Schools don’t EARN tax money. Schools take money that formerly belonged to someone else. In Wisconsin, this must be approved by the very people you take the money from. If the people don’t like what you do with their money, you run the real risk that they won’t give you as much as you want next time.


2. Taxpayers in Sun Prairie did not LOWER last years’ levy. Taxpayers chose to increase the levy. The fact that they did not CHOOSE to raise it up to the level that Jim McCourt and Phil Frei think they EARNED does not change the mathematical truism that the $44.2 million that taxpayers chose to give them last year(2009-10) is greater than the $41.1 million they chose to give them the year (2008-09) before (that’s 47>44 for those of you who paid attention in math class and understand that the alligator eats the bigger number).

Another thing that was evident at the meeting is that there will not be enough information made available before the October voters’ meeting for the taxpayers to make an informed opinion as to how much money the district really needs to run a good school. State aid, potential pay raises for Local 60 and administration, property values, and a host of other numbers may or may not be decided with enough time for voters to make sense of it all. Add to that the fact that much of the relevant data is being hidden from the voters by “necessity”, and the levy decision is looking to be based more on faith than fact. The problem is that the board and administration have done some things over the past year to shake the community’s faith. My guess is that they will do things between now and October to shake it even further.

I guess the takeaway from this exercise is that a more informed and involved public is only good for the board and administration if that public agrees with them.

----------------------------------------

SP-EYE comments:

We agree with the reader. A couple of points worth noting....

1. The 5 year AVERAGE increase in the tax levy is 8.3%. Any of you get even a QUARTER of that as a raise over the past couple of years (OK...school district employees, hands down).

2. If the electors had not stepped in and told the school board to cut reduce the amount of DESIRED levy, the levy would have been an all-time high FIVE MILLION DOLLARS more than the prior year.

3. It is the JOB of our elected representatives--the school board-- to do what the electors did last year. In even a semi-perfect world, our elected representatives are supposed to serve US. Had the school board been serving OUR needs, they would have instructed Administration to cut $2M from the levy.

4. For all the complaints...cutting $2M did not result in the loss of a single job. In fact, the "reductions" made were not even permanent! No lessons learned here. 14% of the "permanent" cuts effected (a mere $3,000) was effected by charging teachers a ridiculous "personal appliance fee". You think a birthday KitKat (or granola) bar can counteract the morale buster that appliance fees caused?

Second Verse...Same as the First

We received this from a resident who either attended or caught the video re-run of the recent budget hearing held on June 21st. Enjoy.

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

All indications are that the district spent this year doing the same thing they did last year—motivating the “wrong” people to show up to the October meeting. Between now and October it appears that they will overpay for a pool manager. Though it is difficult for most people to evaluate the wisdom of most expenditures made by the district, each of us has a pretty good idea of what a pool manager should make. If someone really cares, they could do a job search and find out what pool managers are making these days.

What they would find is that Milwaukee YMCA is hiring a manager for aquatic facilities at 2 locations, with a budget of more than a half million dollars and responsibility to about 10,000 members. They are hiring this individual in the $38k-44k range. Further searches show that that is about average nationwide for the position (a position less complicated than the one we need to fill).

On June 14th, the school board unanimously approved spending $51,250

to fill a pool manager position that pays 20% less everywhere else in the world. Since this is a number that is pretty easy to evaluate, it serves as a proxy for how smart they are being with our money. If they are being that careless with that money, they are probably overpaying other places too. Actions like this will make the October meeting a tough one for board members.

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

SP-EYE's take. We agree with what this resident presents. However, one teensey weensy little fact makes up for the apparent discrepancy in the hiring salary. You see...our Pool Manager (sorry...we're not falling for the touchy feely, use-big-words-to-justify-an-exorbitant-salary trick) will be an employee of a school district (ours). School districts are the Exxon-Mobils of the education game. Recession proof. Big Pay. Oh... and the CEOs cost us a fortune.

Sun Prairie School District...Like a $4.00 Bottled Water

Had the occasion to travel to central part of the Land of the FIBs over the weekend to attend the wedding of a very good friend's daughter (beautiful wedding, great reception, and the bride looked gorgeous in case you're wondering). We stayed as the hotel where the reception was held...a brand new, upper-scale establishment (which we won't name for fear of reprisal). As yesterday was quite warm and muggy, it was awesome to walk int the room and find a nice bottled water on the table for us. Very inviting. Except, just as the seal was about to be cracked, we noticed a little sticker that said something along the lines of, "This water is provided for your refreshment. If the seal is broken, your room will be charged $4.00."

$4.00 for a freakin' bottle of water? And not from some storied Fountain of Youth, either. It was bottled in like... St. Louis. It was just....water. And it's not like St. Louis is winning National or even Regional Water Taste championships. And, just like that.... the parallels to the Sun Prairie School District hit us like a ton of bricks. And then we thought about it some more as--muggy or not---we schlepped across the way to purchase a generic bottled water--ice cold already-- for under a buck.

Just as that $4.00 bottle looked so inviting, so too do the new high school, renovated "CHUMS", and two new elementary schools call out for attention. For many people, the sticker shock won't come until December, when they open their property tax bill. These will be the folks that remained disengaged from the district budget process and won't come out and cast their cote at the October 11 Annual Elector's Meeting. These are the same people that crack that inviting bottle of water in the upscale hotel room, only to be indignant when they see the $4.00 charge on their hotel bill.

Yes...we have a very nice school district. But bricks and mortar do not educate our kids. That is up to the teachers. Those same teachers that are being assessed embarrassingly silly appliance fees to generate a paltry $3,000 in "revenue" to offset a $72,300,000 budget, Yes...we have some outstanding teachers...but even the teacher's union will avoid answering the question, "Are all teachers outstanding"? Let's face the facts, people. We're not generating National Merit or even State Scholars at anywhere near the frequency that is expected of a district this size. Actually we're not generating any.

No scholars means one of three things: (1) a population of underachieving students, (2) a population of under-performing teachers, or (3) a watered down curriculum. Our money is on #3. Seriously...did any of you attend or watch the recent graduation ceremony? Did you take not of the huge volume of students achieving honors, high honors, and even perfect 4.0 GPAs through all 4 years of school???? And no scholars?? Hmmm.

Better read the label on this metaphorical bottle of water before cracking the seal.

Attend budget hearings.

Read budget documents.

Ask questions.

Become informed.

Then attend the Annual Elector's Meeting on October 11th.

And cast your vote for an appropriate tax levy for 2010-11.

What's appropriate?

Let's start with what's being proposed: a tax levy of $47.7 MILLION dollars.

Are you going to crack the seal on a $47.7M bottle of water without reading the label first?

[SP-EYE note...and be careful...we have reports that some of those bottles are contaminated with a certain flavor of KoolAid.]

Lawyerin' Up!

A very simple, yet obviously several hundred thousand dollar question was asked by a community resident last night at the 2nd budget hearing.

Question: Can you tell us what the district used as a percentage in the budget for potential raises for administration and Local 60?

Answer: Phil Frei and Jim McCourt paused, looked at each other, and then jointly said, "Our legal Counsel has advised us not to share that specific information."

WTF?

Excuse us...but you want us to VOTE on the tax levy which results from this budget but you're not willing to tell us how much you might potentially dole out in raises?

We don't freakin' think so.

Let's get past the fact that what you said was legal counsel "advised" you...not instructed you...not mandated. It was advice. You can take it or leave it. Obviously this is kind of a game of poker where the district is afraid to "share" what it put in the budget as a "placeholder" because it represents a conservation/high, "worst case" percentage to which they would agree. We get it...you don't want Local 60 or the administrators to feel entitled to exactly the amount that you factored into the budget. So...why don't you say THAT instead of that lame, "our lawyer says we shouldn't tell" line.

But, on the other hand, we are the shareholders of this "company", and we have a RIGHT to know how you plan to spend our money. And that RIGHT trumps your "advice from legal counsel".

Suckering in the Electors?

So ...is the game here to get the electors to pass your tax levy with some 3 or 4% raise craftily hidden within the budget (dum dee dum...let's see...artificially inflate this line here and that line there...) and then...once it's passed in October, then you can dole out fat 3-4% raise to your Administrator pets and screw Local 60? And all the while laughing, "Ha Ha...we got 'em to approve the tax levy!".

This school board continues to find new ways to piss off the public. They must WANT to see the tax levy given a Mr. T style mohawk again this year.

What's so silly

What's REALLY silly is that it doesn't take all that many brain cells to "tease" out of the salary lines what was factored in for raises. What may be a little more difficult is identifying the slush money in the budget that could be privately earmarked for raises. So don't look fo\olish. It pains us as much as it must pain you. Just answer the question.

What? School Board members and administration...you don't like the insinuations here?

Tell you what. Be above board. Answer the public's questions with the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth. And maybe you might get treated differently.

Treat us like mushrooms...and you most definitely better get your Worry Dolls out come October 11th.

Hey, Big Spender!

They say it takes a village to raise a child.

We think they also say that it takes a lot of years to build up to a $72.3M expenditures budget.

Or not...

If one tracks the expense side of the budget ledger over the past 7 years, we see the trend of spending. Frankly, the 2010-11 budget does make a case for some degree of fiscal restraint. The degree to which expenditures are increasing over this past year, are the 2nd lowest over the past 7 budgets.

But...on the flipside...remember that despite it being the 2nd lowest increase in 7 years, it's still a $3 MILLION dollar increase.

The devil, however, is often in the details. If one looks at the expense side of the ledger in the standard "65.90" budget format, expenses fall under 3 main categories: Instruction, Support Sources, and "Non-Program Transactions". The increases in each of these "subheadings" can also be reviewed.

Kinda makes you wonder how things track on some of these sub-subheadings--like "School Building Administration", doesn't it?

So...How's That Appliance Fee Workin' For Ya?

We've asked administration a number of times: HOW MUCH DID YOU ACTUALLY COLLECT in appliance fees?

You know...that HUGE --genius--permanent budget reduction initiative designed to save us $6,000 per year on a $72.3 M dollar budget. That's 0.0083% for you folks keeping score at home.

Well...the only answer we ever got out of administration was, "All that money goes into the one pot". So...how much went into that pot? No answer.

Well...we have the answer for you: A whopping $3,001 dollars.

Since admin refused to tell us, we smelled something rather ripe...so we decided to review all the accounts receivable and check registers for the past several month and filtered out of them all records related to appliance fees. Here's the actual data.

2009-10 Appliance Fee Collection

-------->Collected - Refunded
February -- $ 120
March ----- $1,256
April ----- $1,235 ----- $180
May ------- $ 585 ------ $ 15
------------------------------
Sum ------- $3,196 ----- $195
Net -- ----- $3,001

Accordingly, we have a few follow-up questions for administration.

1. WAS this ridiculous appliance fee assessed equitably? Or are there staff members (and we don't blame them) that just said, "No frickin' way am I paying your stupid little fee!". And if that's true--and we believe it is-- how fair is that to those that paid?

2. How come those that have been through the building tell us repeatedly that they see personal appliances without the de rigueur "super special SPASD approved and paid personal appliance fee sticker"?

3. How much did all the monitoring, invoicing, accounts receivable, and stickering COST?

4. Are you really serious about continuing to implement this two-bit, cheesy budget reduction initiative? (we apologize if we indicated our feeling about this in any way).

5. Assuming your pride is going to once again get in your way and you continue this practice...how do you plan to make up for the shortfall in projected budget reductions that you sold to the public?

We have an idea. If the school board insist on this silliness, let;s exercise our power of the electors and reduce school board member salaries by $3,000 in October!

Maybe that will drive the message home (and we apologize to the 1 or 2 school board members that DO think that appliance fees are silly).

2010-11 Budget - the Question That Needs to be Asked

Dear Sun Prairie School District...

I read daily about other school districts making massive cuts to their 2010-11 budgets. Most are freezing salaries and even cutting staff, particularly the highly paid administrators. What PERMANENT cuts have you included in your 2010-11 budget proposal?

Answer: $21,000

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING US?

Your $72.3M budget contains exactly 21 THOUSAND dollars of permanent reductions?

Did you slip and fall and hit your collective heads causing amnesia regarding what happened at last year's annual elector's meeting?

The economy is still in the tank and you're still feeding the 800 lb gorilla?

Good luck with that.

Spotlighting the 2010-11 Budget

Tomorrow is the 2nd of 3 public hearings on the school district's 2010-11 budget. This is YOUR chance to speak your piece and comment on the budget. The first budget hearing had a least the appearance of being a little too...well...staged?

So to perhaps whet people's appetites, and to provide data in a format a little different than the one "spun" by district administration, we offer you this:

The net increase in budgeted expenditures of 2010-11 over this past year (2009-10) comes to $3.1 MILLION dollars. That's a figure the district doesn't highlight.

When asked about it, they usually will quickly revert to their defense posturing and blame the increase on "opening the new high school". That is quickly followed by a lot of yada yada about no school district opening a new school under the revenue limit. Hard to buy that when they also tell us that we're one of handful of schools that don't levy up to the revenue limit. Yet another statement that collapses when one looks at actual DPI data instead of taking the district's word for it.

So...$3.1 MILLION dollars in new costs. According to their own budget data, we can only see that $1.5M of those costs --slightly less than 50%---can be attributed to the new high school. So...what's behind the other $1.6M?

We call it "keeping up with the Jones". It's all tied up in food to feed that 800 lb gorilla...which is quickly gonna become a 900 lb gorilla at this rate.

This gorilla needs to be put on a diet...stat!

SP-EYE note: Yes...we don't truly KNOW what some of these costs will be, but the Administrators are "entitled" to 3.8% (just ask them). We even projected low (2.5%) for Local 60 (currently in negotiations) because the screw always gets put to Local 60. The SPEA number comes directly from the contract costing sheet provided with the contract last year. The 5% and 7% increases to health and dental premiums have been stated by the district and applied to what our CURRENT costs for 2009-10 were. We welcome data from the district to refute these numbers. Because basically, we just want to know...where exactly are we spending $3.1 M MORE dollars? Oh...and yes...those of you that do the math will see that the numbers add to 3.19M...not $3.1M. That's because OTHER parts of the budget have slight decreases built into them to accommodate the fat in the gorilla's diet.

Terry Shimmerek...Captain Administration Affirmative

OK....after this past week, how can one NOT notice the uncanny ability of Terry Shimek to constantly waver in what he supports...or does not support?

He claims (largely falling on deaf ears) to be a fiscal conservative, yet supports nearly every spending initiative brought forth by administration.

He wants to tackle the "800- lb gorilla" (personnel costs) but doesn't want to talk about it. And he usually abstains from any personnel cost votes because his wife is a teacher. But...it's only a conflict of interest if his vote SUPPORTS a raise which his wife would receive...right? He could vote "NO" without conflict...right? Not gonna happen, folks.

The, finally---when he has a chance for a defining moment--- he WAVERS FROM HIS VERBAL COMMENTS and becomes the deciding vote on hiring yet another overpaid administrator (another assistant principal for a new high school with one less grade). Where was the fiscal conservative there? Administrative personnel costs are like a lot of STDs...forever.

In yet another defining Shimek moment, he recently voted (part of a 5-2 vote) to reduce the initial salary for the Pool Manager from $45,000 to $40,000. That would be the fiscal conservative. Of course...we know now the vote didn't end there. THEN, in a completely flip flop, once he got behind closed doors-and outside the public eye--he CHANGED HIS VOTE (along with the newly crowned Flip Flop Queen, Caren Diedrich) and voted to authorize administration to offer UP TO $54,000 for said Pool Manager. So...Terry...$45,000 was too much in public, but in private, $54,000 was not? Or are you just a little dyslexic? Alrighty then...behind closed doors, Shimek again reverts to his alter-ego, Captain Administration Affirmative.

He claims to be concerned about safety, yet this past Monday night vocally refused to support the one-time $60K initiative to hire a second Police Liaison Officer (PLO) for this coming year. This coming after he initially spoke in favor of spending money on Ashley Field, and later supported $88K for 8 traffic safety simulators. So...Shimek is concerned about safety of the students outside the school in cars...but in the school....not so much?

Shimek feels that all the many cameras and Youth Advocates --oh, and another assistant principal--provide enough safety in the schools. Newsflash, Terry....how many of the expulsion hearings you attended over the past 2 years involved acts of violence that weren't thwarted by cameras, administration, or Youth Advocates? Here's another newsflash, Terry....the PLO offers something that cameras, Youth Advocates, and administration cannot: restraint. ONLY the PLO can physically restrain a student who is so out of control that others are endangered. And don't tell us that doesn't happen. We know better. And so do you.

Terry Shimek has gone AWOL. In his place, we have an administration loving pod person who wavers and shimmers. The dictionary defines "shimmer" as " To appear as a wavering or flickering image, as in a reflection on water or through heat waves in air.".

Perfect. we have a name for this pod person. call him Terry Shimmerek.

June 25 is deadline for School Board Committee Applications

Got a few hours a month?

Concerned or interested in the inner workings of the school board?

Frustrated with the "3-minute" rule yet want to have input on school issues?

Hugely supportive of all the school board shenanigans and want to be a part of it?

If any of those rings a bell for you, please consider sending in an e-mail letter of application for one of the four (4) Citizen Representative seats available on School Board Committees.

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

School Board Committee Positions Available

There are currently four standing committees of the Sun Prairie Area School District Board. Each committee is made up of school board members and two community members. Terms of appointment are two years beginning August 1, 2010 – July 31, 2012. We are currently seeking individuals to fill the following Citizen Representatives for School Board Committees positions. Application Deadline: Friday, June 25, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Click here for Application. Facilities, Technology & Transportation 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Facilities, Technology and Transportation Committee reviews maintenance and construction projects, bus routes and transportation program, and district technology plans. Committee meets the second Monday of each month. Finance 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Finance Committee reviews budget, investment portfolios, bids obtained by the school district, and purchases. Responsible for long-range financial planning. Committee meets the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Education & Policy 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Education and Policy Committee reviews curricular and instructional programs and services offered to students. Responsible for long-range educational planning. Committee meets the first Monday of each month. Human Resources 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Human Resources Committee reviews new staffing recommendations and makes recommendations to the Board on human resource matters, excluding bargaining unit negotiations. Committee meets the first Monday of each month. Any adult resident in the Sun Prairie Area School District is eligible to apply for appointment. If interested, please mail (or deliver) the attached application (or a letter) containing your name, address, telephone number, and a statement not to exceed 500 words with your qualifications and interest in appointment to a specific committee. You may mail (or drop off) the letter to the Sun Prairie Area School District Office, 501 S. Bird Street in Sun Prairie. You may apply by separate letters for appointment to more than one committee. However, if selected, individuals may serve on only one committee. The deadline for filing applications is 4:00 p.m. on June 25, 2010. Copies of policy BCE, Board Committees, and procedure BCE-R, Board Committee Procedures, are available upon request at the District Office weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. or on the District website at www.sunprairie.k12.wi.us. (To locate the specific policy or procedure, choose “Seach Policies & Procedures” on the right sidebar of the School District website. When searching policies, enter policies “BCE” or “BCE-R.”)

Warming Up the Leftovers

By now you've had a chance to digest the statistics on salaries and raises. Realizing that most of you are still grabbing for the antacids after meal that may still be threatening to re-emerge....

It's time to snack on leftovers!

Yep we threw a lot of data, graphs and statistics at you, but just maybe, some of you are thirsting for more...for the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say.

Our posts were not intended to inflame the teacher community..or the community at large. But we have a problem, people, and neither the state, nor the Feds are going to fix it for us anytime soon--if ever. If we really truly are a district worthy of renown, we need to take the 800 lb gorilla firmly by it's fur.

We've said it before, but perhaps it's been glossed over. Our 800 lb gorilla--salaries and benefits--is not a problem isolated to Sun Prairie. Like the H1N1 flu, this is a virus that has spread across the state and the nation. In fact, as SPEA has pointed out, Sun Prairie is much lower than most districts in the salaries it pays teachers. We know...sad but true.

Rather than focusing on the age-old Dane County, whose 16 school districts vary dramatically in both size and challenges, we prefer to focus on the 20 school districts most similar in size to Sun Prairie. THESE are the districts with whom we share size and socioeconomic challenges.

If one compares "average" salaries, only 2-3 of the 20 have averages below that of Sun Prairie Teachers. That is a fact Jack.

Are we just paying less? Could that be true? Or is it something else? Remember than an average is just that. A great many small values will drag an average down. Is THAT what's happening here?

What we DO know is that if one considers the total number of years of teaching experience, Sun Prairie is a young district. Over 2/3 of SP teachers have less than 15 years of teaching experience. If you recall from our linear regression, 15 years of experience translates to a salary of about $51,000 per year ($33.50/hour) of . Our average salary of 48,000 similarly translates to an average of 13 years of teaching experience.

We do not have the data to confirm our theory, but it is quite possible that our "young" teaching staff translates to a lower "average" salary in Wisconsin.

Cut the Budget Fluff...NOT Safety

Newly elected school board member John Welke will attempt to get at least three other board members to see reason at tomorrow night's meeting. We know...fat chance..right? But we appreciate that he's making the effort. That's more than can be said for other board members.

While other board members are desperately seeking ways to spend more money on athletic fields, Welke's message is a simple one: Safety first. Those among you with kids -or friends/neighbors with kids-- in the high school or upper middle school know that that one of the dark, scary secrets is that Sun Prairie High is no Beverly Hills 90210. Adding fuel to the already smoldering fire within is that next fall, high school freshman will be situated in the new "CHUMS", while grades 8-10 will go on to the new high school. Including the "Prairie Phoenix Academy (SOAR) alternative high school, that means THREE buildings for ONE Police Liaison Officer to monitor. Let's not even talk about the two middle schools.

The board already approved adding Youth Advocates numbers 3 and 4 for the upcoming school year, so clearly they see the need for increased monitoring and involvement. Youth Advocates are nice. They represent the touchy feely, kinder, gentler approach to dealing with what can frequently be a powder keg of young adolescent emotions. But they cannot ever be a police presence, and sometimes we need that. Today's schools are not the schools of the 60's or 70's. Times have changed.

Welke is right on. The priority should have been hiring a 2nd PLO over ANOTHER Assistant Principal. The cost of a 2nd PLO is about $60K, about half the cost of the assistant principal. The district has already announced unexpected savings from increase in SAGE class sizes of $200K. The board has only quietly begun discussing raises for administrators. An expected 3.8% raise will cost the district--and taxpayers-- about $100K.

Bottom line people...would you rather spend $100K (further) lining the pockets of (already) overpaid Administrators? Or would you rather spend only $60K NOW to ensure the safety of our kids? And, unlike the administrator raises, which only cost us more each year as they in turn get "raised", the district has already committed to adding the 2nd PLO NEXT year. So all Welke is talking about is a one-time $60K investment to bridge the gap.

Makes perfect sense. No wonder why the other 6 board members don't get it.

Welke Recommends Adding a 2nd Police Liaison Officer for THIS year (2010-11)

In his situation report available on BoardDocs, Welke recommends:

For the reasons cited above I am recommending that the School Board:

A) Approve the 2nd SPLO position for the 2010-11 school year and use SAGE program savings to fund the position.

B) Direct administration to write a letter of intent to the City of Sun Prairie Police Department indicating the SPASD’s desire to add a second School Police Liaison Officer by the beginning of school in the 2010-2011 school year (i.e., after July 1, 2010) so they can consider how to plan for their portion of the budget for this position.

C) Direct Administration to continue to seek out and apply for grants that may offset the costs of the SPLOs.

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

Excerpts from SP STAR 5-26-10 "City, SPASD discuss ways to cooperate

The liaison officer interfaces with prevention and social services and is proactive to prevent violence. Wilkinson is responsible for working with staff at the high school, both middle schools and the alternative learning center in the former junior high.

“Our way of thinking is that when the new school opens, [he will be responsible for] five buildings,” [Police Chief] Anhalt said.

Beyond the additional responsibility, the SPPD favors it because of community priorities. Anhalt said he is asked constantly in the community about the schools, drugs and gangs.
“I get a sense this is a priority for the community,” Anhalt said. He said he also believes it is a great place to devote more resources because the officer provides prevention. The chief said he also support it because it fits with the mission of SPPD and that a second liaison officer is a big part of that.

“What [Police Liaison Officer Wilkinson] Jack does so well is he really builds those positive relationships with kids,” [Sun Prairie High Principal Lisa] Heipp said. Wilkinson is in the school during lunches, and is visible with kids to build positive connections.
“He is actually that supportive person who can help problem-solve with kids,” Heipp said. But when Wilkinson is spread so thin, the officer turns into reactive position.
“The more area he has to cover,” Heipp added, “the less powerful that proactive presence is.”
Board members and District Administrator Tim Culver reiterated the previous discussions about the position, which was essentially that the board has planned to add the second liaison officer for the 2011-12 school year.

New board member John Welke disagreed, saying the district needs to hire another officer. “I’m very concerned about how watered down . . . that’s going to get,” Welke said.

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

Quotable Quotes

[Deputy District Administrator and Business Manager Phil Frei] "... the board voted to forego adding a second police liaison officer for the 2010-11 school year due to budget concerns."

--Phil Frei, Budget Hearing May 20, 2010

“It’s a lot of money for the second liaison officer, know we’re trying to get it under a grant, but long term, I don’t think we need a second officer.”
--former board member Al Slane (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

“Youth advocates great, but liaison officer I’m not totally convinced. That’s a bigger price tag.”
--Board member Jim McCourt (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

“[the district should go a year without the officer first to see if it is really necessary.] With the youth advocates, we might not have that need,”
---Board member Terry Shimek (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

[ the board has been asked for years for a second liaison officer and] “we’ve always said no. [ the message the board should send the city is that they’ll go without a second liaison for 2010-11, and then see if a second officer is needed. ]”
--Board member David Stackhouse (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

The board approved the letter of intent for a second police liaison officer for the 2011-12 school year 5-2. Shimek and Slane voted against it.

Going Out On a (Not So) High Note

Well...the 2009-10 school year is in the books. Graduation is over, and the summer parties have begun. What many may have missed--and certainly not something you'll ever see discussed on the district website or at a school board meeting--was a teensy little article in the State Journal this week.

Several Madison schools fail to meet No Child Left Behind standards.
DeForest, Middleton and Sun Prairie high schools also missed one or more testing benchmarks.

Statewide, 145 schools and four districts, including Madison, missed one or more adequate yearly progress targets. Under the law [like it or hate it], schools and districts that failed to meet the same progress targets for two or more years are identified as needing improvement.

Read the Journal article
See the data from the DPI website

School Board Facepalm

You know it's bad when despite all meetings being held in closed session, we've heard the precise details of the Pool Manager hiring process from nearly a dozen community members. How could they know? NOTHING has been publicly announced!

And to prove it, we thought we'd post this BEFORE the school board package gets posted tomorrow. Check out the Personnel table.

We know WHO was hired. (hint: Middleton had a pool manager).

We know WHEN the offer was made....and when it was accepted.

We know HOW MUCH the offer was for (less than $51,001; more than $49,999).

We know that Terry Shimek is no longer the Flip Flop king.

We know that the actual decisions were made during the 1st closed session.

Somebody (or bodies) is (are) talking outside of school!

Welcome to Sun Prairie, sir.

Did we mention that Family Circle named us one of the top 5 places for families?

DIS-Connectedness?

So...we were a bit surprised to see this meeting notice:

L E G A L N O T I C E

Sun Prairie Area School District

Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Agenda for

Thursday, June 10, 2010

SOAR GRADUATION, 11:30 a.m. at Prairie Phoenix Academy, 160 South St., Sun Prairie.

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

So....

1. The SOAR kids no longer get to "graduate" with their classmates (on Friday evening)?

2. Who attends a graduation in the middle of the day?

While it's possible the kids wanted to separate themselves from the rest of their flock, we wonder if that is the case. Or are we just making these kids further "dis" connected?

Hrodey Grievance Hearing Tomorrow

Agenda for

Thursday, June 10, 2010

SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Closed)(Revised)

6:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 220),

501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.

President: John Whalen

1. Opening Items
..... 1.01 Call to Order, Roll Call, Affirmation of Public Notice

2. Closed Session
.....2.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of 1) conducting expulsion hearing(s) and/or deliberating in regard to the matter; and 2) conferring with legal counsel regarding a Level III SPEA grievance, followed by hearing and deciding said grievance [Wis. Stats. 120.13(1)(c), 19.82(1) and 19.85(1)(a), (c), (e), (f), and (g)].
3. Discussion/Business Item
.....3.01 Conduct expulsion hearing(s)
.....3.02 Deliberation and action on expulsion(s)
.....3.03 Conduct Grievance Hearing
.....3.04 Deliberation and action on grievance
4. Reconvene in open session
.....4.01 Action from closed session, if appropriate
5. Adjournment
..... 5.01 Adjourn the meeting
.................................................................

Note the difference from the earlier public notice issued 6-3-10:

L E G A L N O T I C E

Agenda for

Thursday, June 10, 2010

SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Closed), 6:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 220), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie. President: John Whalen

1. Opening Items

1.01 Call to Order, Roll Call, Affirmation of Public Notice

2. Closed Session

2.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of conducting expulsion hearing(s) and/or deliberating in regard to the matter [Wis. Stats. 120.13(1)(c) and 19.85(1)(a), (f), and (g)].

3. Discussion/Business Item

3.01 Conduct expulsion hearing(s)

3.02 Deliberation and action on expulsion(s)

4. Adjournment

4.01 Adjourn the meeting

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

Notice anything different? Why the two notices? Colonel?

Gee...it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that FINALLY the board's feet are going to be held to the fire with respect to complying with Open Meetings Laws

Do You Like Apples?

Well...how do you like THESE apples?

As the school board gets to thinking about pay raises for administration, let's look at how administrators have fared over the past 7 years.

7 years...

22 Administrators...

An AVERAGE raise of 4.6% per year

And these are the people that are making --on average-- $90,000 per year.

No wonder!

The starting salary for administrators is $70,000.

7 years of 4.6% per year raise increases $70,000 to $96,000

8 years as an Administrator...and you're in the $100K club.

And...just for reference...during at least 3 of those years, state employees received 0.0% increases, and NEVER received an increase of more than 2.5-3%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

NUMB3RS

"We all use math every day; to predict weather, to tell time, to handle money. Math is more than formulas or equations; it’s logic, it’s rationality, it’s using your mind to solve the biggest mysteries we know."
---from the CBS TV show, Numb3rs

Math is a priority goal for the school district. As a community service effort, then, we offer a very simple lesson in statistics, specifically linear regression and correlation. It all starts with a hypothesis, or theory. Our theory for today is that SPASD teachers salaries are so well correlated to years of experience, that we can generate a valid mathematical formula to calculate future salary!

First we plot the data: salary ($/hr) on the "y" or vertical axis, and years of experience on the "x" or horizontal axis. Then we perform a linear regression analysis on the data. We will "regress" the dependent variable, salary, against the independent variable, years of experience. The result of a linear regression is the equation of a line, in the form Y= mX+b (remember that?).

For SPEA, "Y" = salary ($/hr) and "X" = years of experience. Our data yields the regression equation, Salary = 0.8752 × years + 20.311. Recall from your math days that the "b" term is the 'y'-intercept. The "y' intercept represents the value on the "y" [salary] axis where X [years] equals zero. Here our "y" intercept is $20.311 per hour. Converting that to annual salary (multiply by 1520 hrs/yr), we get a salary of $30,873. Fancy that! That's just about precisely the base salary on the SPEA grid for 2009-10: $30,800. This is the bottom run of our SPEA salary grid. So far our regression equation is looking pretty accurate.

Another way we can evaluate the accuracy of a regression equation is to review the "correlation coefficient" for the data. The correlation coefficient is a mathematical equation that represents how well two variables [e.g. salary vs. yes of experience] correlate to one another. The value of the correlation coefficient is limited to values between −1.00 and +1.00. A perfect, positive correlation, where both variables rise at the same rate, is represented by a correlation of +1.00. Our correlation coefficient, denoted by the mathematical symbol "r", is 0.943. For a dataset of 540 points, a correlation coefficient of 0.943 is like having a credit score of 825. Money in the bank.



So, folks...wanna calculate your future earnings? Since contracts have been like clockwork, just multiply the number of years of service for that date in the future by 0.8752 and add 20.311. That represents your projected salary ($/hr) at that point in time.


Why should you care? Because here is the proof that it's not just a few lucky souls that earn a salary of over $70,000 at retirement. Just follow the arrow up from where it begins at the 30 years experience mark until it hits the (red) regression line. Then follow an arrow straight across to find a salary of about $46.50/hr, or $70,680 per year. So...you come out of school at age 24, work 30 years, and you're not even 55 and earning a salary over $70,000. And those are TODAY'S dollars.


As we continue the status quo, actual salaries are certain to continue to rise.
And that's why this should be more aptly termed, linear DEpression.

Houston, we have a Pool Manager

...or so we're told by a community member who appears to be "in the know".
Word is that the offer was made and accepted this past Monday.

" The job was offered at a very high salary originally, but the second closed session was due to Caren Diedrich flipping her vote and [the Board] did not want it to be offered and then pulled when it came to open session. Not sure where the offer ended up. "
---The Cigarette Smoking Man

Assuming our source has good information, we're wondering if all the school board members are aware of this update. Apparently, at least SOME of the school board members know...for how else would a community member know?

Also interesting is that this indicates that Caren Diedrich was effectively the "swing vote", which means that the original votes was 4-3. Hmmm...the board member who claims to be a staunchly fiscal conservative? Wonder which way she voted???? Oh wait...she most have voted BOTH ways.

If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem...

Our posts related to salary and retirement information have generated a pretty sizable level of...shall we say...discussion? We received this e-mail commentary. This is a great example of someone offering solutions. Instead of just mentioning that there is an 800 lb gorilla in the room about which n o one wishes to speak, here's someone at least suggesting ways to deal with said gorilla. And that's what SP-EYE is all about. Let's get everything on the table so that we can take stock of our situation , and deal with it. While others ENRAGE the community, we prefer ENGAGING the community. Get the community informed. Nothing will change with an uninformed electorate. Knowledge is power.

Power to the people!

SP-EYE

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

Now that we’ve exposed a little of the 800 lb. Gorilla, we may as well starve him, poke him with a stick, and turn him loose in the city. Let’s talk about salaries-

We have an elementary school librarian making $88,435, or roughly double what a new teacher gets paid (and roughly what the Director of the Library of Congress gets paid http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Library-of-Congress-Director-Salaries-E22696_D_KO20,28.htm). I don’t know this individual, nor do I begrudge this individual for reaping the benefits of his/her dedication to the district. What I will say is that I think the district could go further towards educating children with a brand new librarian and a brand new teacher. Two for the price of one has always been a deal I could never pass up.

Now there is nothing we can (nor should) do about this salary in particular. It’s just an example. Promises were made when people were hired and should be kept (although, in fairness to the contrary argument, promises were made when this person was hired that by now we’d be taking our high-speed floating car from domed city to domed city http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/24/what-will-life-be-like-in-the-year-2008/). So what’s the answer?

One humble suggestion (in 3 parts)-

1) Increase starting salaries to attract the best students right out of college and early in their teaching careers.

Once a teacher gets established in a system, they are less likely to leave for small differences in pay. The costs of moving and learning a new system and changing textbooks and finding the last remaining safe place to sneak a smoke are high, and it’s easier to just stay put for the small amount of difference.

2) Compress the step pay schedule.

To fund the higher starting, make each salary increase smaller and really compress it on the top end. That difference between $42k and $47k means more to a young teacher trying to start a family and buy a house and pay off student loans and take care of aging parents than the difference between $82k and $87k means to someone with a few more years (and, if they are like the rest of us, pounds) under the belt. Also, the extra money is less essential to retaining someone with a couple years left, since they are less likely to leave in their last few years.

3) Skip steps in the pay scale for a significant number of great teachers each year. I know that this sounds a whole lot like merit pay, and maybe it is. I know that teachers will scream about being judged on test scores and administration will scream about not being able to properly evaluate in a fair manner. Too bad. You people are in the evaluation business. Administrators used to be teachers, and somehow they figured out a way to determine which kids did well and which ones didn’t. For the most part, people know who the good teachers are, and a combination of parent feedback, student evaluation, administrator evaluation, student progress, extra contribution, and other factors would give a pretty good idea of who deserves the extra carrot. Will this cause some veteran teachers who get passed over to leave? Maybe, but that would let us hire a superstar anyway, and it makes the salary step compression more palatable for those doing great work. If each step raise were cut in half and the top 50% of teachers get to double their progression (4 new steps), then this would be more-or-less budget neutral. It would also give a superstar the motivation to go the extra mile to teach kids and work with administration and families to improve the school.

If anyone is still reading, they are probably well aware that this would take an effort more monumental than even that required to build a pool with a door on the first try. Old teachers, not bright-eyed young dynamos, run teacher’s unions and if there is one thing that the entrenched power knows how to do it is stay entrenched.

Can’t stop us from dreaming, though.

These opinions not necessarily shared by SP-EYE. I’m sure there are problems with this theory, and I’d like to hear them. Agree/disagree, drop SP-EYE a line and let them know how you feel. All comments anonymous unless requested otherwise.