More On SPASD Open Records Situation

Roger Fetterly, a resident of the Sun Prairie School District, and a noted scholar on state statutes, recently made a request for documents under the state's Open Records laws. Despite a clear conflict of interest, SPASD DA and Records Custodian Tim Culver denied the request (which would have brought Culver's own proposals to the light of day). The following is text of Fetterl;y's complaint to school board president John Whalen, who again denied his request.

In response to my request of 1/6/11 for records of communications between Tim Culver and the board members, he denied access to those records claiming exemption from an open meeting under Sections 19.85(1)(c) and (e) for reasons of negotiations with the school board and while under review by legal counsel.

First, I want to make clear that my request is to inspect records under Section 19.35 and not for access to a meeting exempt from the open meetings law under Sections 19.85(1)(c) and (e) where so called "negotiations" may take place.

Second, there are no provisions under Wisconsin law authorizing a non-represented employee of the district under Section 111.70 and the board to enter into negotiations regarding his compensation. Neither does the fact that the proposals are under review by legal counsel have any merit. I am not inquiring into any legal counsel you may receive. If the board was authorized to enter into negotiation with a non-represented employee, (which I think is questionable) both parties to the negotiations would be required to exchange proposals, and make them available to the public, in a session open to the public before entering negotiations.

Third, since Tim Culver already provided the board members with copies of an analysis of the 6 proposals, there doesn't appear to be a "competitive or bargaining reason" remaining to continue to withhold access to the records. Providing access to the public to inspect the records would have no effect on Culver or the board's competitive or bargaining considerations. Denial of access to the requested records only has the effect of preventing a persons entitlement "...to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. Further, providing persons with such information is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information." (S. 19.31)

Finally, I don't think Tim Culver's response to my original request would survive the required balancing test as described in the following Attorney General's Guide to Open Records:
1. The balancing test explained
a. The record custodian must balance the strong public interest in disclosure of the record against the public interest favoring nondisclosure
----. State ex rel. Journal Co., 43 Wis. 2d at 305.


i. The custodian must identify potential reasons for denial, based on public policy considerations indicating that denying access is or may be appropriate.

ii. Those factors must be weighed against public interest in disclosure.

iii. Specific policy reasons, rather than mere statements of legal conclusion or recitation of exemptions, must be given.
----- Pangman & Associates v. Zellmer , 163 Wis. 2d 1070, 1084, 473 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1991);


Village of Butler v. Cohen, 163 Wis. 2d 819, 824-25, 472 N.W.2d 579 (Ct. App. 1991).

iv. Blanket exemptions will not suffice.

v. The custodian must consider all relevant factors to determine whether permitting record access would result in harm to the public interest that outweighs the legislative policy recognizing the strong public interest in allowing access
-------Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a).

vi. The balancing test is a fact-intensive inquiry that must be performed on a case-by-case basis.
-----Kroeplin,  297 Wis. 2d 254, ¶ 37.


Whalen's written reply appeared to be written by an attorney (gee...another legal bill!).  As with everything else, rather than be open, the district continues to challenge residents to spend money for legal counsel.  The district knows that very few of us can afford to hire an attorney to force the district to present records in a timely manner.


Unfortunately, until enough residents band together, or state district attorneys take notice, the status will remain quite quo.


WisconsinPublic Records Law Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31-19.39

Culver Plotting His Exit Strategy???

Quietly nestled within last week's school board meeting agenda was the following agenda item slated for CLOSED [to the public] session:

Go into closed session for the purpose of discussing and reviewing the district administrator's performance evaluation; and consideration of negotiation of changes to District Administrator's employment contract and parameters related thereto [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

To make matters even more suspicious, a citizen's open records request revealed that good ole Dr. Culver recently submitted 6 "contract change proposals" to the school board for consideration.  Hmmmm...What do you suppose those proposals were?  When the citizen requested a copy of the contract proposal under the Open Records laws, Culver--the district records custodian -- denied the request!


Curiouser and curiouser...eh?  That's not even the slightest bit conflict of interest-ish, is it?  The records custodian (Culver) refusing to release records about himself that he doesn't [obviously] want the public to see?????


We Don't Negotiate with Terrorists!
...and neither does the board "negotiate" with district administrators.  Hello!  This is not union-related collective bargaining!!!  A school board offers a district administrator a contract and said administrator can take it or not let the door hit him on the backside on the way out out the door...right?


And When We Get Behind Closed Doors...
Wethinks Dr. Culver dost protest too much.  There's clearly something there that he did not want us to know and wished to get board approval on behind closed doors.


Culver already has a VERY lucrative salary and perks package.  He makes $20,000 more in salary alone than the Secretary of the entire DNR!  Hmm...let's see...running a school district of just under 7,000....versus managing the entire natural resources for the entire freakin' state of Wisconsin!  


Culver's End Game

Culver already has just a hair under $115,000 tucked away in the "reserved" fund balance for his retirement.  His own District maintained tax shelter?  All he had to do for full vesting is stay on at the district for 12 years.  Guess what?  He's passed his 12th year.   And he turns 57 this year!  Could he be looking for more before hittin' the door??  A little sweetening of the 'ole retirement pot before he punches out?  Wonder how our elected leaders voted on those 6 proposals....You may want to give 'em a call...or e-mail.

That's Why They Call it a BUDGET, Jim!

At this past Monday's meeting of the school board's Financed Committee, the topic was "Initial Budget Parameters".  One of the key budget parameters is "mill rate increase".

" There's no way an increase to tax levy less than 4.5 percent would be able to support the budget." 

---School Board member Jim McCourt (as reported by the STAR)

Unfortunately, it was two of the three school board candidates (new-comer Tom Weber and incumbent Jill Camber-Davidson) that wanted to talk about setting a target ceiling on any mill rate increase.

“I’d like to throw out that we put a number out there.... It’s not that it can’t be changed, but I think it’s a starting point for the budgets”

--- (school board candidate) Tom Weber

Finance Committee chair Jim "SeaBass" McCourt was hesitant (to put it mildly) to set any limit.  In fact, the only way he was interested in setting any "parameter" on an acceptable mill rate increase was as a very loose "limit".

On the parameter affecting the local levy and mill rate, the committee approved on a 3-2 vote (Seabass, Diedrich, Rayford) putting a 4.5 percent increase as a current target to aim for while the budget process continues. Committee members Weber and Jill Camber Davidson voted against it because they thought the target percentage should have been lowered to 3 percent. 
 ----Sun Prairie STAR

Caren Diedrich added her typical zany antics to the meeting.  When it came time to vote on the issue of setting a 4.5% "soft target" for any mill rate increase, Diedrich commented, 

"Well, I'd like it to be less [than 4.5%] ...but I'm voting yes".

         -----Caren Diedrich (who could have voted no and forced a smaller target levy increase)

According to the current budget projections and forecast model, the proposed increase to the tax levy and mill rate would be 5.1 percent. And that is not factoring in any major hit to school funding that might come from the Governor.

Memo to Jim McCourt:
budget - a summary of intended expenditures along with proposals for how to meet them.

Jimbo...It's called a budget because you figure out what you can afford.  THEN you figure out how you plan to spend the money available.  WE --the people--- a at least 50% of your budget, Jim.  And you need to take the ability of the people to pay your taxes into account.  We all don't live in the lap of luxury.  We all can't afford to dine on sea bass.

Earth to McCourt!  If there's "no way" to support a mill rate less than 4.5%, then that means you need to get the big boy scissors out and start cutting that budget!

For the STAR's typical "    " perception of what went down:

Transfer? From WHERE?

Just a few teensy tiny words buried in the 2011-2012 Transportation Budget prompt all kinds of questions:

  The  projected 2010-2011 expenses will be approximately $5,500 over budget.  Some additional double routes for CHUMS and the HS were added in October to relive overcrowding.  A budget transfer will be made to cover the deficit.

Check out the 2011-2012 Transportation Budget! The school board will discuss this tomorrow night.


Hmmm...WHERE are we transferring the money from?
What about 4K?  Wasn't that over-budget too?
Wherever do we get this money from?  We swear...Phil Frei has more than Our-Dough pants...he has MAGIC pants!


Memo to the STAR...we're looking at this stuff...are you?

Reader Ruminates Over Rumors

Dear SP-EYE,
In reading your post about the baseball bleachers and dugouts, I had a few thoughts. I do not have all the information, so i thought I'd run them by someone who has had an eye on Sun Prairie longer than I have. I would appreciate any corrections of a factual or logical nature to help me get my head around this.

When I read about the bleachers, I was reminded of a couple of other things I have heard in the past year that follow in the same vein. One incontrovertible case of rectal-cranial inversion involves the swimming pool (actually more than one, but one at a time). They plan for no pool, then pool, six lanes, then eight lanes, and in the process it seems they never talked to anyone who has ever been to a swim meet. As a result, we end up with room for a tremendous swimming tournament, provided we don't want spectators.

In the haste to put up that great big pool they forgot to include a door! Next thing you know, somebody who once saw a swim meet in a movie happens by and says "huh, the swim meet I saw had like...people watching it...and...a door or something for spectators". OOPS!!! Eco-friendly light bulb comes on!

To fix this problem, we put in a new hallway. Because it is bond money (and because competitive bidding=bad; relationships=good), the work needs to be done as a modification to the existing contract, and we end up paying something north of $160k for a hole-in-the-wall that would have been there in the first place if someone on the design team had been paying attention or if (*gasp*) we had looked at multiple architectural bids. The builder knew we were a captive audience with a critical need and a checkbook, and I am sure the contract modification was priced accordingly.

Another comment I heard in the past year was from a parent of a child in another district, who had attended a swim meet at the Sun Prairie pool. She was impressed with all the pretty concrete, and liked the initial look of the great big pool. What she didn't like were the bleachers, which she commented were unlike any she had ever seen before (and she had run multiple kids through decades of swim meets, so she is not the "oh, my back" type...she is the "@$$ in the car with 3 tired kids at 5 am off-to-the-pool" type). The bleachers were extremely low to the floor and uncomfortable. As we discussed the fact that the bigger pool was not in the original plan, she wondered if the torture-rack, pants-on-the-ground bleachers were a result of the design change that left less floor space. It'd be interesting to track how the bleachers were designed and purchased in relation to the pool.

Mistakes happen. Hopefully, when there is big money at stake you have many smart people look at designs so that big mistakes don't happen. You have professionals give you their best ideas, and you select the best one. Athletes run faster when there is someone in the lane next to them, and lack of competition hurts the final result. I bet architecture is no different.

We spend too much money on facilities to hire someone who doesn't know that baseball diamonds need dugouts and large swim meets need a way to get to the pool area without a mom having to drag the 4-year-old little brother of the next Mark Spitz through the woman's locker room to get from the spectator area to the overpriced snacks.

We also need to look at these projects big picture, so that the architect doesn't push it off on the excavator who pushes it off on the concrete guy who pushes it off on the bricklayer who pushes it off on the installer who chops/adds a little to the legs of the bleachers to make it fit in the allotted space. That's how I built my secret clubhouse when I was nine, but that was a clubhouse and I was nine. These are grown-ups spending tens of millions of dollars of other people's money, and those other people deserve more for their money.
_______________________________
SP-EYE responds...

If you climb into the WayBack Machine, we can tell you there was an Ad Hoc Pool Committee.  Said Committee 

drew up a great pool plan with all the trimmings for a reasonable amount.  It wasn't quite WIAA top notch competition worthy, but it was a nice pool. All that got tossed aside for "the good of the [high school] referendum".

About a year  or so later the board resurrected the plan, but now it would cost considerably more.  That would put the total referendum over $100M, so the board started snipping.  They upped the lanes to 8, but trimmed down the spectator area and cut out the original hallway that was planned.   You know what happened after that.

The end game was to come up with a plan that was $3.5M or less.  That was deemed the magic "approvable" number.  For the record, there were several pool people in the group, at least three who were quite knowledgeable about pools and swim meets.  Sadly a committee of 20 was down to about 4 people at the end. 

In the immortal words of somebody, "It is what it is".

Tapping the Rumor Well

While we anxiously await the dinner receipts from the WASB conference, we thought we'd recount a couple of interesting reports relayed to us:

From the "Should've Measured Twice and Cut Once" Dept:
Rumor has it that our fantabulous new Taj MaHigh School is in the market for new bleachers for the baseball diamond. Word has it that SOMEBODY forgot-- when they bought our brand spanking never-been-used new bleaches-- that our dugouts are in front of them and now we need newer ones that will sit high enough for the fans to see over same dugouts

From the "Let's Just Scrap Ashley" Department:
Ever wonder why incumbent school board candidate David "Don't I Look Like Billy Joel" Stackhouse has only offered brief verbal updates after the hoohah regarding $750K to turf Ashley Field and build new locker rooms?  Well...what we're hearing is that talk has turned away from Ashley and now SOMEBODIES are talking about building a new football field and complete new bleachers etc at the TajMaHigh School site.   Guess the economy HAS improved!

And speaking of Ashley...We're really glad to see that Ashley Bartow is flourishing at her new school: Verona.  It was a damned shame what that girl went through last year.  She deserved better treatment (as did her (assistant coach) dad and coach Liz Hrodey).  Ms. Bartow is tearing up the Big 8.  Good for her.  Whatever happened to that other girl...hmmm...what was her name again?  Exactly.

From the "Do As We Say, Not As We Do" Dept.:
We've heard several reports now regarding a belated holiday party chaired for SPHS coaches held at the Cannery Grill here in town.  We have it on good faith from those who observed that, "...the pitchers of beer were flowing".  Now, we're not about to begrudge any adult a little adult holiday cheer.  BUT.....it seems a little hypocritical for the very mentors that preach abstinence from alcohol--and certainly the dangers of drinking and driving-- to be seen in public consuming and then driving off in their vehicles.  We're not suggesting that anyone drank to excess--or even beyond the legal limit.   But it's the principle behind this issue.  Certainly there are waitstaff that attend SPHS.  Certainly there are members of the public with kids that had occasion to dine at the Cannery Grill that day.  Come prom time or graduation time, it's going to be difficult to say, "Please..Don't Drink, and Drive". 

These kind of celebrations are best left outside of the public eye...dontchathink?  SOMEBODY should've had another think about holding that gala...dontchathink?

And....we're hoping the taxpayers didn't pay for this shindig...ya dig?

Waiter...I'll Have the Seabass!

It's only two days away! The annual Wisconsin Association of School Boards convention.
Bored Treasurer Jim McCourt has been pretty clear that it's his intent to attend the whole shebang. The only question in our minds is: will he tone down on his insatiable desire for haute cuisine?
In 2009, McCourt made big headlines with his two-night dinner tab total of over $80:

See the dinner tab and dining locations!

Really! Really, Jim? How many of you have actually had an opportunity to dine at "Umami Moto"? Wait...those of you that were dining on someone else's tab, put your hands down.

Getting to Seabass in Milwaukee
We've done Seabass a favor and highlighted his options to satiate his passionate proclivity for pescatorian provisions.
Bon appetit, Jim!  Take bold steps.

Oh...and somebody oughta just go on ahead and make copies of the receipts...cuz we WILL be askin' for them! The public wants to know: how extravagantly did you eat on our dime?
We can't wait...can you?

Jeopardy Answer: $80,000

The Jeopardy Category?  Imponderables.
Not even Ken Jennings would get this one.

The Jeopardy Question?  How many dollars, above and beyond the high salaries and big bountiful bennies, do district administrative staff get according to Administrative Benefits portion of their contracts? 



Big juicy melons!  That's right, folks...$80,000 dollarinos.  Or, as a good friend's young daughter used to put it,  80,000 buck dollars.  We taxpayers foot the bill annually for $30,000 in mileage stipends, and $50,000 in professional growth stipends.  

They are divided into two forms: Mileage stipends--which are paid out in one check each month; and "Professional Growth Stipends".  The latter is a bit harder to pin down.  It seems that the professional growth stipends are budgeted for, funded by our tax dollars, and "held" in reserve in special accounts--29 of them.  Then, as an administrator exercises his/her option to expend from their accounts, they do so.  Like a little sub-checkbook within the master checkbook, money is moved out of these accounts to pay for magazines, membership, tuition, and conferences.

The big question is:  what happens to money left over?

The CarryOver Clause
You've heard of the "Santa Clause"...well, the administrator contracts contain a "carryover" clause:

3. The professional development stipend:

a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals;

b. Will not be subtracted from the administrator's operational or building budget;

c. Will be carried over annually, up to a maximum amount of $4,000 per administrator;

d. May be supplemented by funds from the administrator's operational budget;

e. May not be used for travel, conferences, or tuition during an administrator’s final year of employment with the school district

That's right, sports fans...to make those 29 checkbooks within a really big checkbook even checkier....each administrator is allowed to carryover up to $4,000...which could be more than 3 years worth for the administrators who only get an annual stipend of $1,375.

But....wait....what happens to any money that eventually doesn't get spent?  Where is THAT accounted for in our budget?  More to the point - when were we ever told about the fact it even exists?  Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes will probably blame Mealy and McFrei for this one too.  

Let's use an example.
Administrator "X" gets hired, and gets  his $2,000 stipend.  He doesn't spend anything in Year 1, so he carries over the $2,000.  Year 2 goes by...he "earns another $2,000, but again spends nothing...so he carries over $4,000.  So now comes year 3.  "X" earns another $2,000.  And let's say he goes to a local conference, gets a subscription to Mad magazine, and even gets a membership to some local club.  "X" spends $500.  That means there's $5,500 in his "checkbook" at the end of the year, and he can only "carryover" $4,000.  What happens to the $1,500 in that case?  Inquiring minds want to know.

What are Teachers?  Chopped Liver?
Maybe we missed something, but isn't it TEACHERS that should be having professional development opportunities?  Why are we providing already overpaid administrators with stuff with which to pad their resumes?  Shouldn't we be promoting professional development for the ones that are actually teaching our kids?  Why is everything in this district so bass ackwards?

We Don't Know What We Don't Know -- and Neither Does the STAR

Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes offered the following in his editorial this week:

"During the most recent Sun Prairie School Board meeting on Dec. 20, the board learned that the cost to bus the participants in the program will be $192,124 for the 2010-11 school year.  ... The dimension of that expenditure is compounded by someone who, as a member of the board’s Finance Committee, ostensibly did not know what the heck was going on.   

How else could Rick Mealy make a statement like, “How did we [sic] quarduple that amount [originally estimated to be $50,000]?”

Or, for Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei to say, “Did we underestimate transportation? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that. We did the best budget we could at that time.”

And, thanks to the watchfulness of folks like Mealy and Frei, the district taxpayers are now stuck with the tab for their lack of mathematical skill."

Frankly, we think Mertes displayed poor journalistic form (to say the least) by calling out a private citizen and singling out Deputy District Admninistrator Phil Frei.  As a community resident with family ties to the school  district, and editor of the STAR newspaper, we are disappointed that Mr. Mertes used the resources available to him to report this matter in the way that he did--- which is more typical of something from a paper with a name like the Hooterville Humper.

That being said, Mertes is 100% correct.  Mealy did not know that the 4K program busing costs had increased from the initial projection of $50,000 to nearly $200,000  But, unfortunately, the information was compartmentalized.  The information was buried within the budget, hidden from view.  $200K for the cost of busing roughly 130 kids!  We CAN do the math on this one, Mr. Mertes; that comes to over $1,400 per kid.  The cost of busing K-12 kids is more like $400 per kid.  And we completely agree with you.  There's something just plain wrong with those numbers.  In fact, the reason Mealy spoke up was that he had only recently learned of this issue. 

Unfortunately, that’s where Mr. Mertes strays from the facts and simply resorts to casting a narrow beam of blame on a couple of easy targets (Frei and Mealy) rather than using his investigative reporting skills and resources to determine who really is to blame. 

Mertes was clearly wrong to blame any two individuals for the matter.  


Just the Facts. Sir
Let’s examine the facts that Mr. Mertes failed to disclose in his editorial.

1.  – There are 3 Board members and 2 citizen reps on the finance committee.
2.  – There are 7 total board members
3.  – The FTT committee has 3 SB members and 2 citizen reps.
4.  – The district administrator is, by policy, responsible for all district operations.
5.  – School Board president was aware of the situation yet never mentioned it to anyone; NOR was he concerned enough to bring it to the board table so that it could be discussed.

Mertes was equally wrong to call out Phil Frei.  If Mertes wants to assign culpability, then he needs to assign it to the one accountable for the district...and that's Tim Culver.

Beyond the fact that he is a newspaper editor, a position which one would associate with "being in the know", Mertes also has family ties to the district.  Shouldn't Mertes have been aware of the exorbitant transportation costs?  After all, the STAR published the district budget documents and covers budget hearings and committee meetings.

So let's get the facts straight.  What Mertes apparently doesn't know that he doesn't know is the following:

1. Mealy was but ONE member of the FIVE member Finance Committee.
2. The school board's Finance Committee has no authority to make decisions.  In fact, an item can be (and has been) voted down at the Committee level, only to be approved at the Board table.   If you want to lay blame, Mr. Mertes, you should include the entire school board--most of whom you supported during elections.
3. The issue of 4K busing costs was never an agenda item reviewed or approved by the Finance Committee.  True, the Finance Committee RECOMMENDS approval/forwarding the entire budget onto the full school board, but those "revised" busing costs were buried within the "complicated details" of the district budget.  In the grand scheme of accounting, the raise in 4K costs was buried within the much larger total "transportation" budget, and therefore never revealed.
4. Now that we mention "Transportation", Mr. Mertes should understand that the "transportation" budget is assigned NOT to the Finance Committee, but to the FTT (Facilities, Technology and TRANSPORTATION) Committee.  We didn't see Mertes calling out any of those folks.
5. We're not sure how Mertes could have missed the inaccuracy of his statement, " During the most recent Sun Prairie School Board meeting on Dec. 20, the board learned that the cost to bus the participants in the program will be $192,124 for the 2010-11 school year."  How could it POSSIBLY be that the board "did not learn until December 20th",  when this issue had been raised earlier at an FTT Committee meeting.  (Remember, Chris, issues begin at the Committee level and THEN go to the full board for formal approval?)  As with Finance, the FTT Committee includes THREE board members.  So, using your logic, THREE board members apparently SHOULD have known about the busing costs from Finance Committee meetings, and THREE more from FTT!!!
6. The only people that we KNOW were completely aware of the increased busing costs were those within the district business office.  And those folks report to Tim Culver, who in turn reports to the board.  Board president John Whalen publicly acknowledged that he knew...but couldn't recall WHEN he was informed.

What we like about the STAR Editorial is that it brings to light the fact that many similar issues are buried within the district budget.  Recall that neither the school board nor the public had any inkling of a $3M budget surplus at the end of the 2009-10 school year until very late in the budget process.  Those are the issues on which we need to focus the spotlight.

We'd like to see the STAR and Editor Mertes refocus their journalistic powers to sorting out the wheat from the chaff within the school district budget.   Perhaps instead of singling out two people, Mertes should be calling out the entire to school board to demand that these kind of "mathematical" issues get raised properly and publicly BEFORE we spend the money.  How about expending some of your journalistic ink to help uncover the things which need to be uncovered rather than assigning blame to two individuals?

Editor Mertes should also recall the old adage that when he points a finger, he has three other fingers pointing back at himself.  If you're not part of the solution, you're only part of the problem.  


Mr.  Mertes has contributed in a positive way over the years to the greater Sun Prairie Community.  We appreciate and respect what he has done but unfortunately with this episode of situational ethics he has tarnished the really good things that he and The Star have done for the community.     

Update
The District Office has amended the busing contract and it will be going to FTT and the Board on Monday night.  Hmmmm, why was that?, Oh that’s right they screwed it up and omitted some important language and attachments and now they want a “do over”.  This really underscores the underlying illness:  a series of egregious errors/miscalculations further hampered by  a lack of proactive transparency by the administrators.

A Survey Monkey On Our Back?

Preface:  This is the 3rd installment of our analysis of administrator contract stipends.  For this piece, we looked at "professional" journal/newspaper/magazine subscriptions purchased during calendar 2010.  We're hearing back from our earlier posts on the stipend issue.  Let us remind you that we are not suggesting that any of these expenditures violate contractual agreements (we'll leave that up to the community --or perhaps the school board--to ask).  We merely want the community to be informed as to the lucrative "perks" nestled within inflated administrator contracts.  We want YOU, faithful readers, to ask the questions:  (is it even appropriate for these "perks" to be included in contracts?  Do we compensate these people enough already?  Are we maintaining a caste system of sorts where various employee "groups" [the "haves"] are getting a much sweeter deal than others [the have nots]?)


Let's Review the Contract Language on Stipends: 
C. Professional Development Stipend 
1. To promote professional growth each administrator shall be provided with a professional development stipend as follows: 
  a. $2000 per year for Building Principals; Assistant and Deputy District  Administrators; and Directors of Student Services or Human Resources. 
  b. $1375 per year for all other administrators. 
2. The professional development stipend may be used by an administrator for: 
  d. Other professional growth or learning activities and/or materials (for  example, professional  journals) as approved  by the supervising  administrator.  Any such materials shall remain the property of the school  or department. 
3. The professional development stipend: 
  a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals; 


Subscription Summary

• 34 Total  subscriptions - $4560/yr
• 10 "District" subscriptions --beyond those in library--- @ $2,049 ( $205 ea)
•        7  "Group" subscriptions  $1,223
•        3 School board subscriptions  $570  (Does the school board know they have these?)
• 24 Individual subscriptions:  $2,765/yr
• A total of 9 individuals (mostly administrators) have subscriptions:  avg of 2-3 each;   ~ $300 ea/yr
• 25 DIFFERENT journals/magazines....and that's just for administrators.  Never mind that at least some of these are already available in , say, the high school library.

A Note from the Department of Repetition & Redundancy
We are purchasing multiple subscriptions of a particular journal in several cases.  Besides the fact that some of these may already be part of the high school library collection (in which case do we need individual subscriptions), can't we all get along and share?  Frei, Murphy, and Dawes have offices that are a stone's throw from each other.  Can't they share ONE subscription?


Why do we have FOUR "Survey Monkey" (an on-line survey tool) subscriptions?  ($300, $200(2),  $239.40)?    Subscriptions are held in the names of Culver, HS Athletics, HS Guidance, Brian Dean [Social Worker, ATODA/At-Risk Coordinator].  Why does Guidance pay the higher monthly rate?  Instead of $1,000 per year, we could get ONE "Pro" subscription for a mere $200.  Better yet...couldn't we just use the BASIC (*free*) subscription?  Do we really do surveys of more than 10 questions to more than 100 respondents?  The question needs to be asked.

• Why do we have THREE "Education week" subscriptions? Stocks-Glover ($59.94), A. Murphy ($59.94) , Culver ($74.xx)
• Why 3 subscriptions for WASB's " WI School Laws": Frei, Dawes,  Murphy ($85 each)
• Why 2 subscriptions for WI Taxpayer Alliance, "Focus" Culver/Board ($99), Frei ($43)

Does Anybody LOOK at these purchases?

• For 4 Survey Monkey subscriptions, we're paying THREE (3) different rates  Why?
• For 3 Education Week subscriptions, we're paying TWO (2) different rates.  We researched Education Week subscriptions and found two websites offering it at $40/year.  So why are we paying $59-$75?
• We have 2 subscriptions to the TaxPayer Alliance publication, "Focus".  The cost for Culver/the Board is $99, while Phil Frei's personal subscription is $43?  Why is that?   Can't they share a subscription?
• At least we're paying the same price ($85 for each of our 3 subscriptions to "WI School Laws")

...and from the "Really!?" Department
Newsweek?  We get it.  It's a great "current events" magazine.  Maybe we could see it for a high school social studies class (who would use the library's subscription).  But for an elementary school principal?  And why are we paying three times as much for it as it is available for online?


Wisconsin State Journal?  We've asked this question before.  The school district administration feel entitled to have the taxpayers provided them with something for the "reading room".    7-Day Delivery, 26 weeks,  $65.  Do we REALLY need to provide a 7-day newspaper?  Hey...who gets the Saturday and Sunday editions?  Hmmm?





Hues? ("Hear Us Emerging Sisters") Our particular favorite.  We kinda get it.  This is a "girl power" mag, aimed at building self-esteem in young girls.  But what we don't so much get is that which you find if you Google it:  HUES is hip, smart, and down-to-earth. A woman's guide to power and attitude, HUES promotes self-esteem and self-sufficiency among young women, ages 16 - 30, of different cultures, sizes, and lifestyles. The publishers, Identical twin sisters Tali and Ophira Edut—known as The AstroTwins— are professional astrologers with over 15 years experience in astrology, publishing and coaching

Maybe if we purchased these from Publisher's Clearing House we could at least win $10,000,000!

Stackhouse is in; We Got Us a Race!

Tom Weber, who has been a great addition as  current Citizen Representative to the School Board's Finance Committee, is a worthy candidate for school board.  Early indications suggest this is a race between Weber and Stackhouse for the 2nd seat.  


Many feel that Jill Camber-Davidson has come on strong of late as a board member who will take a stand against fiscal irresponsibility.  Ms. Camber-Davidson has also been leading the charge against advertising in our schools.  We believe her tenacity and attention to detail merit a 2nd term.


Tom Weber is very well spoken and has a strong financial background.  Incumbent David Stackhouse has provided some spark in the last year as he has rebelled against a board majority that gave him no love during officer elections.  During a number of officer votes, only a single vote was cast for Stackhouse for each board officer slot.  Hmmm...whose was it?  Stackhouse's  checkered history during his last board term has seen his stature reduced from board president to simply a board member at large.   Will the community vote for the refreshing air of change that Mr. Weber offers?  In the past, Stackhouse relied on strong support form the youth football community.  Is that support still there? Stay tuned.

Both incumbents Dave Stackhouse and Jill Camber Davidson will be joined by a third candidate, Tom Weber of Sun Prairie, in their campaign for the Sun Prairie School Board. Seats on the board are elected at-large within the Sun Prairie Area School District.

Candidates had until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 4 to submit their nomination papers for elected offices. The general election will take place on Tuesday, April 5.

http://www.sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=52&ArticleID=6629

Exactly How Swollen is Your Membership?

Bear with us...but there are some more details about professional memberships we need to share with you.

Let's look a little more closely at one membership in particular: the ASCD, or Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  Our school district is shelling out for SIXTEEN individual memberships at a taxpayer cost of $2,410.  Why, we ask?  Why do SIXTEEN different people need to hold a membership to this organization.  But let's get back to that in a minute.  Let's ask a different question.  WHY are we paying for the top tier memberships instead of more basic memberships??  Hmmm.  Let's zoom in on this one, shall we?

ASCD offers the following INDIVIDUAL membership options:

Premium Membership:  ($219/yr): we believe we're paying for 4 of these

Select Membership:  ($89/yr): we believe we're paying for 12 of these

Basic Membership: ($49/yr): None

Online Membership ($29/yr): None

We paid for 16 memberships to ASCD:

• 1 @ $79 (not sure...could have been intended to be $89 SELECT membership)
• 6 @ $89 ( $89 SELECT membership)
• 1 @ $89.99 (not sure...could have been intended to be $89 SELECT membership)
• 4 @ $164 (looks to be a SELECT membership ($89) plus an additional $75 purchase)
• 3 @ $219  ( $219 PREMIUM membership)
• 1 @ $294 (looks to be a PREMIUM membership [$219] plus an additional $75 purchase)

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

Total cost: $2410.

For 16 staff, that comes to an average cost of $151 per staff member

Why do we need SELECT or PREMIUM memberships?  
The BASIC and ONLINE memberships offer the same advantages EXCEPT * free * books and prepaid vouchers for Professional Development Institute purchases. But, but....since any materials gained through membership fees remain the property of the district--not the employee-- why do we need 16 copies of books anyway?

Missed Savings Opportunities through Institutional Membership

ASCD offers both Institutional and Institutional PLUS memberships.  The Institutional  membership consists of one Team Leader getting the equivalent of a PREMIUM membership plus 10 other "Team Members" receive the equivalent of SELECT memberships.  The cost is $885, which comes to $80.50 each (nearly $10 less than a SELECT membership) and extends to 11 staff members.    We could have saved $1,525.  Come on...we need 5 volunteers to give up their uber-necessary ASCD membership.


Oh...wait...but the 10 staff members wouldn't get their *free* books (Someone...quick...dial Whine One One).  Only the "Team Leader" would get the 10 *free* books.  Ok... if these are an absolute necessity (eyes rolling) then we could have secured an "Institutional PLUS" membership which would give each of the "Team Members" 5 *free* books.  The cost would be $1,285, which still represents a savings of $1,125

How many more of these are out there?
This is what happens when people just rubber stamp the school district Check Runs every 2 weeks.

http://www.joinup.org/im/  ASCD Iinstitutional Memberships

http://shop.ascd.org/MEMBERSHIP.aspx   ASCD Iindividual Memberships

A New Year's Re-Affirmation

SP-EYE exists in order that you are provided with the most detailed information regarding the Sun Prairie Area School District.  Currently, an average ($250K) homes pays roughly $3,000 per year (before the First Dollar or School Tax Levy Credits) in property taxes.  In the City of Sun Prairie, the total mill rate is a bit more than $22 per $1000.  The cost of running the entire city (including police, fire, etc.) is LESS than the cost to run the school district.  These are tight economic times,but regardless of the economic climate, we have a right to know PRECISELY how are tax dollars are being spent.

If You Can't Stand the Heat, the Kitchen May Not be the Place for You
You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that we DO hear on occasion comments regarding the "tone" of SP-EYE.  

• "Gee...those posts are pretty pointed..."
• "You really called that out..."
• "OMG...Can't believe you posted that!"
• "Man...I totally peed my pants!"

We've been termed "snarky" (and we rather like that one), bitter, crass, etc., etc.  But what we are consistently told is that we offer the real data that the school district doesn't want you to know.  They wave their hands and say things like, "It's really complicated...you'll have to trust us".  Yeah...and Kaa wanted Mowgli to trust him too.

SP-EYE operates under a very simple principle:  So long as the Powers That Be continue on their smoke and mirrorquest to snow taxpayers, we'll call things out publicly.  They don't like that.  Geee...wonder why?  No one likes to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. THEN KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR!

Case in point:  The district doesn't want the public (or the likes of Governor -elect Walker) to know that they actually make a PROFIT off of the 4-year old kindergarten program. (They prefer to call it a surplus)   That's right....the state pays the district MORE than it costs to actually run the program. (Tell us again...who are the "haves" and who are the "have nots", Mr. Walker?)  That extra million dollars funds a whole lot of salary increases and perks.   Similarly, they don't want you to learn that the highly paid administration made a crucial error in projecting transportation costs of the 4K program.  They budgeted $50,000 and the school board approved the program.  Oh...wait...turns out the ACTUAL cost was over $250,000!  FIVE TIMES the "projected" amount!   They don't want you to know because if you did, you might start to wonder:  Are these people that poor at budgeting?  Or is it that they so badly wanted the 4K program to be approved that they budgeted low to ensure school board approval.  Or is it something else?

Public Defense/Denial....Quiet Change
Our issue is that the school district -- and frequently the board by majority vote-- continues to refuse to acknowledge its own weaknesses and failures.  Instead, they choose to point fingers, ignore community residents, and actually attempt to rationalize their fiscal irresponsibility.  But, in the end, they generally--QUIETLY-- make changes (reduction in pizza deliveries, no more birthday Kit Kats, to name just a few).  That's just plain cowardly.  

An honorable board/district would have the integrity to stand up and say, "You know what?  You're right.  That IS (fill in the blank) and we need to change they way we do business."  SP-EYE could be a valuable ally instead of the present thorn in their side.  But they simply refuse to see that.  Do things right.  Instill fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Improve the overall academic process.  Do those things, and SP-EYE will be there tooting your horn for you.  But that isn't going to happen under the current leadership.  So be it.  So long as you choose to continue the shenanigans, we'll continue to cajole you, post the things you don't want people to know, and even embarrass you into doing the right thing.  We're in no hurry.  We can wait as long as you can.  We're not going away.  There are a whole lot of skeletons in your closet, and we'll bring every last one of them into the daylight. 

Dirty Laundry
Another issue we have is the way parents who come forward with complaints are treated.  Quietly sweeping the complaints under the carpet and ignoring policy.  And they way we protect certain "partnerships" while attacking others.  Remember a few years back when the district went on the offensive against T-Durst busing?  They tried to make T-Durst look like a fly-by-night outfit that was going to go under.  Yeah...the same T-Durst...who annually provides such a great service to special needs kids.  The district came up with "complaints" against T-Durst, and the witch hunt began.  The end game was an attempt to pull T-Durst's special ed. bus contract and give it to someone else (hmmm...wonder who).  If it weren't for the courage of Terry Bednar and the aid of Tom Hebl, the board would have had its way.  That was just plain dirty pool.  Bus problems....?

What if we told you...
... a 5 yr old child was let off the bus at their home when no one was present?  
... one parent was frustrated that their child suffered a concussion during a bus ride?  
... a failure to "clear a bus" and having a 4-year old left sleeping in the back of the bus until 5 pm?  

You don't hear these things, because the district works hard to squelch them. Excuse us if we have a problem with that.

So...if you don't like snarky...you have some options.  SP-EYE is a choice.  It is not required reading.  So, if it offends you, read it no more.  Or choose to stand up with us and ask the questions that must be answered and continue to press until the real information comes out.  The status will remain quite quo until people find time in their busy schedules to come out to board meetings and speak up publicly.

32 Miles per Day

(Part 2 of a series on contractual "perks")


...and the Jeopardy question is:
For how many miles per contract day do we pay administrators --above and beyond their salary-- for "travel within Dane County" in lieu of having to file for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred.  Note...this is not reimbursement for travelling to/from work...just for travel within the Dane County for district-related business.

32 miles PER DAY?  That's like 4 or 5 cycles between every school in the district...daily.
Why are we paying these people for nearly 7000 miles of travel JUST WITHIN DANE County each year?  Remember...for travel outside of Dane County, we reimburse them at the IRS rates in addition to this "mileage stipend"!   If the average person puts 12,000 miles on their vehicle each year, we are automatically PAYING these folks for just under 60% of the mileage that the average person puts on their vehicle!

And shouldn't their job be here in Sun Prairie?  Not out galavanting across Dane County.

What could $30,225 per year buy?
$30,225 per year - the cost of providing these mileage stipends. Remember...no receipts are required. They don't even have to do any work-related travel within Dane Co. They just get the cash.  You don't hear administrator complaining, do you?  So clearly they are not traveling MORE than that per day for work.  This is yet another "perk". 

$30,225 per year could buy a lot of school supplies from those infamous school supply lists. 


Do the math
We pay administrators either $75/month or, for the really bigwigs, $125/month worked.  Culver gets $3,900 per month.

• $75 per month
• ...at $3 per gallon
• ...translates to 25 gallons of gas
• If the average vehicle gets 25 miles/gallon
• ...that translates to 625 miles per month
• The minimum we pay administrators this "stipend" is 11 months
• 625 miles per month  X 11 months = 6875 miles per year
• 6875 miles per year divided by 215 contract days (and that includes 5 paid holidays!)
• comes to about 32 miles per day

What does "month worked" mean?
Wisconsin schools are basically planned round 180 days.  Actually things get fuzzy because "officially" the number of school days required is 175 but the more critical number is hours of schooling.  So let's just work off of 180 school days.

Between the start and end of the school year there are at least 20 days where kids are not in school, but administrators are still required to work (or take a paid leave day).  So that brings us to 200 days.  The first and last days of school are typically 1/2 days, but administrative staff work a full day.  In addition, administrators are required to start their work year at least 2 days before the official start of school and end their school year a couple of days after the last day of school.  

So...basically, it appears that administrators work only a couple of days in August and not even half-way through the month of June.  Yet, no administrator is paid less than 11 months of the mileage stipend.   The key here is the contract language "per month worked".   It seems that the interpretation is that if one works ANY day within a month, the administrator earns the full month of mileage stipend ($75 or $125).  

Wow.  And let's keep in mind that these calculations are based on th LOWEST level of compensation ($75/month).


In the real world, when one is being paid over $70,000 per year (and the average salary of all administrators is just shy of $100K), a little bit of travel is considered "part of the job".
And, perhaps more to the point, where exactly are these folks traveling anyway?  Shouldn't building principals and assistant principals be in their schools?

We're just sayin'.