...but it seems that every time we mention that BoardDocs isn't working...suddenly it is.
Imagine that.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Is That Pork We Smell?
Didja ever have one of those people in your office that always smelled like pork products? Ok...maybe that's a story for another time.
Annnnyyyywwwaaayyy....what we thought we'd do....while we await election returns...is dig into the budget a tad. If you recall, way back in October, the budget picture was tight. So tight, in fact, that we ended up 2009-10 with a huge surplus, and had $8.5M in "Fun Balance". This year, the 2010-11 year was deemed to be so tight that this year's budget called for using $750 of "Fun Balance" to even things out. Remember the public kept pushing the board to lower the tax levy and they grimaced the whole time?
Great poker faces it turns out. Recently, we were informed by Mr. Frei that not only will we NOT need to take anything from "Fun Balance", but there is expected to be at least $450K SURPLUS which could be applied to next year's budget! WTF!
Time to take a look at budget spending to date. We'd give you a link to BoardDocs, but (ahem!) BoardDocs has been down for several days. BUT...thanks to the alternate BoardDocs universe site provided to us by Ari of BoardDocs, we CAN give you a link. Gee...why doesn't the school district post this as an alternate link? Anyway....you can follow along if you like.
LINK TO: 3-21-11 - 2010-11 Expenditure Report by Object Code
LINK TO: 2010-11 Annual Meeting Book
We looked at the budget from the top down. We drilled down on those items that amounted to roughly $500K or more. Fun factoid of the day: there are 79 specific budget line items in Fund 10. Of those 79, 22 line entries account for 93% of the $73M general fund budget. 15 of those 22 can be related to salaries or fringe benefits, and that total represents 82.5% of the budget. That means, folks, that Frei and McCourt are patting themselves on the back largely for "managing" a paltry 17.5% (MAXIMUM) of the budget. In fact, the total amount budgeted under Fund 10 for "General Supplies" (line item)is only $1.15M. So, sure, you could whittle $200K off that, but who does it affect? The teachers who are trying to buy supplies to help educate our kids...that's who. We need to look elsewhere for the OurDough pants fuel.
Initial Assumptions
The district likes to have their assumptions, so we get to have ours. Look, we know that billing/purchasing doesn't always happen on a regular monthly basis, but let's just work on the assumption that its does...for just a moment. This budget report was run March 16, 2011. In theory, it covers February billing, right? If we assume that bills have been paid/expenses have been incurred through February, that leaves March, April, May, and June. Doing some REALLY simple math, that means that 8 months, or 67% of the year is in the books. Which means that --on average--the "spent YTD" column should be showing about 67%. It does not. In fact, it shows 56% spent. The extra 10% of $73M unspent comes to about to a tidy $7M. But of course...let's give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, we can ask the questions. Certainly we don't get the time to do it in those 15 minute Finance Committee meetings. And, even when Finance is allotted more time, it frequently gets squeezed for time by FTT, who perennially runs over.
Utilities - always good targets
Mr. Frei indicate that much of the projected $450K surplus stems from reduced gas costs. So let's look at that. Yup. We've only spent 34% of our budgeted amount. We budgeted for $525K and have spent $175K. Assuming even that only 7 months are in, that comes to an average of $25K per month. If 5 months of bills are left--and these are WARM months-- we might expect to spend another $125K. That would still leave us an extra $225K of budgeted/unspent surplus! And that is half of the $450K surplus.
Electricity is another. We're at 53% and costs have run about $90K per month. Projections using that figure suggest we'd still have about $125K surplus.
Other low hanging Fruit
But what about those "Inter-District Payments"? We've actually only incurred CREDITS to-date! There is $845K in "costs" budgeted under that line item. When exactly are we going to incur these costs with 4 months left in the year? One would think that school districts would want their cash...right? So what's that all about? Is that 100% genuine polyester fiberfill? Employee retirement costs come to $2.1M in the budget, the 7th greatest budget line item cost. Imagine the "savings" from collecting 5.8% of salary from Administrators and Admin Support employees for April, May, and June--like what far less paid state employees face. That would provide about $53,000 of surplus.
Deficit Spending?
Take a closer look at the "Unencumbered Balances" for Teachers salaries, Administrative Salaries, Admin Support salaries, and "Miscellaneous Benefits" (line items 101,102,104, and 293). Why is the unencumbered balance--the budgeted amount which has been committed NEGATIVE? Sum them up and we've OVERspent these areas by $146K. Hmmm. And Admin wanted to use unallocated SPEA position money to fund the HR position THIS year? Double Hmmm: Local60 is the only area in which it looks like we've UNDERspent.
Needles in the Haystack
If you scan further down the list of Object Code expenditures, take a rest stop at line item #339 "OTHER-STORMWATER RUN-OFF". We budgeted expenses of 80,159.00, yet have spent only 23,915.46 to date. Now, certainly we are entering the stormwater central months. But, that being said, having an unspent balance of $56,243.54 (30%) is interesting
Make another stop at line item #386 "PAYMENT TO CESA". Of $115,070 budgeted, we've spent only $28,235 (25%). As with inter-district payments, wouldn't the CESAs want there money sooner rather than later?
Where have all the textbooks gone?
This is our particular favorite. Line item 471* TEXTBOOKS. At the annual meeting, we re told that we were budgeting $352,952.74, a 113.64% increase over 2009-10 [2010-11 Annual Meeting Book, p.40]. Knowing this was a red herring, an explanation was provided, "471 TEXTBOOKS Large textbook adoptions will occur this year."[2010-11 Annual Meeting Book, p.42]. So maybe...just maybe...an explanation is in order for why THIS Object Code report indicated a budgeted amount for 2010-11 of $214,717...about 60% of what was shown in the annual meeting book. More importantly, we've only spent 23% so far. Um...silly question...but aren't textbooks something we'd need in the FALL, not late spring??
While we're on the subject of books...we've only spent 40% of the budgeted amount for library books (Line item# 432 LIBRARY BOOKS). What's up with that?
Q: Why are Phil Frei and Jim McCourt's arms always tired?Bet a buck you were anticipating a different answer ;)
A: From patting themselves on the back for their budgeting frugality.
Annnnyyyywwwaaayyy....what we thought we'd do....while we await election returns...is dig into the budget a tad. If you recall, way back in October, the budget picture was tight. So tight, in fact, that we ended up 2009-10 with a huge surplus, and had $8.5M in "Fun Balance". This year, the 2010-11 year was deemed to be so tight that this year's budget called for using $750 of "Fun Balance" to even things out. Remember the public kept pushing the board to lower the tax levy and they grimaced the whole time?
Great poker faces it turns out. Recently, we were informed by Mr. Frei that not only will we NOT need to take anything from "Fun Balance", but there is expected to be at least $450K SURPLUS which could be applied to next year's budget! WTF!
Time to take a look at budget spending to date. We'd give you a link to BoardDocs, but (ahem!) BoardDocs has been down for several days. BUT...thanks to the alternate BoardDocs universe site provided to us by Ari of BoardDocs, we CAN give you a link. Gee...why doesn't the school district post this as an alternate link? Anyway....you can follow along if you like.LINK TO: 3-21-11 - 2010-11 Expenditure Report by Object Code
LINK TO: 2010-11 Annual Meeting Book
We looked at the budget from the top down. We drilled down on those items that amounted to roughly $500K or more. Fun factoid of the day: there are 79 specific budget line items in Fund 10. Of those 79, 22 line entries account for 93% of the $73M general fund budget. 15 of those 22 can be related to salaries or fringe benefits, and that total represents 82.5% of the budget. That means, folks, that Frei and McCourt are patting themselves on the back largely for "managing" a paltry 17.5% (MAXIMUM) of the budget. In fact, the total amount budgeted under Fund 10 for "General Supplies" (line item)is only $1.15M. So, sure, you could whittle $200K off that, but who does it affect? The teachers who are trying to buy supplies to help educate our kids...that's who. We need to look elsewhere for the OurDough pants fuel.
Initial Assumptions
The district likes to have their assumptions, so we get to have ours. Look, we know that billing/purchasing doesn't always happen on a regular monthly basis, but let's just work on the assumption that its does...for just a moment. This budget report was run March 16, 2011. In theory, it covers February billing, right? If we assume that bills have been paid/expenses have been incurred through February, that leaves March, April, May, and June. Doing some REALLY simple math, that means that 8 months, or 67% of the year is in the books. Which means that --on average--the "spent YTD" column should be showing about 67%. It does not. In fact, it shows 56% spent. The extra 10% of $73M unspent comes to about to a tidy $7M. But of course...let's give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, we can ask the questions. Certainly we don't get the time to do it in those 15 minute Finance Committee meetings. And, even when Finance is allotted more time, it frequently gets squeezed for time by FTT, who perennially runs over.
Utilities - always good targets
Mr. Frei indicate that much of the projected $450K surplus stems from reduced gas costs. So let's look at that. Yup. We've only spent 34% of our budgeted amount. We budgeted for $525K and have spent $175K. Assuming even that only 7 months are in, that comes to an average of $25K per month. If 5 months of bills are left--and these are WARM months-- we might expect to spend another $125K. That would still leave us an extra $225K of budgeted/unspent surplus! And that is half of the $450K surplus.
Electricity is another. We're at 53% and costs have run about $90K per month. Projections using that figure suggest we'd still have about $125K surplus.
Other low hanging Fruit
But what about those "Inter-District Payments"? We've actually only incurred CREDITS to-date! There is $845K in "costs" budgeted under that line item. When exactly are we going to incur these costs with 4 months left in the year? One would think that school districts would want their cash...right? So what's that all about? Is that 100% genuine polyester fiberfill? Employee retirement costs come to $2.1M in the budget, the 7th greatest budget line item cost. Imagine the "savings" from collecting 5.8% of salary from Administrators and Admin Support employees for April, May, and June--like what far less paid state employees face. That would provide about $53,000 of surplus.
Deficit Spending?
Take a closer look at the "Unencumbered Balances" for Teachers salaries, Administrative Salaries, Admin Support salaries, and "Miscellaneous Benefits" (line items 101,102,104, and 293). Why is the unencumbered balance--the budgeted amount which has been committed NEGATIVE? Sum them up and we've OVERspent these areas by $146K. Hmmm. And Admin wanted to use unallocated SPEA position money to fund the HR position THIS year? Double Hmmm: Local60 is the only area in which it looks like we've UNDERspent.
Needles in the Haystack
If you scan further down the list of Object Code expenditures, take a rest stop at line item #339 "OTHER-STORMWATER RUN-OFF". We budgeted expenses of 80,159.00, yet have spent only 23,915.46 to date. Now, certainly we are entering the stormwater central months. But, that being said, having an unspent balance of $56,243.54 (30%) is interesting
Make another stop at line item #386 "PAYMENT TO CESA". Of $115,070 budgeted, we've spent only $28,235 (25%). As with inter-district payments, wouldn't the CESAs want there money sooner rather than later?
Where have all the textbooks gone?
This is our particular favorite. Line item 471* TEXTBOOKS. At the annual meeting, we re told that we were budgeting $352,952.74, a 113.64% increase over 2009-10 [2010-11 Annual Meeting Book, p.40]. Knowing this was a red herring, an explanation was provided, "471 TEXTBOOKS Large textbook adoptions will occur this year."[2010-11 Annual Meeting Book, p.42]. So maybe...just maybe...an explanation is in order for why THIS Object Code report indicated a budgeted amount for 2010-11 of $214,717...about 60% of what was shown in the annual meeting book. More importantly, we've only spent 23% so far. Um...silly question...but aren't textbooks something we'd need in the FALL, not late spring??
While we're on the subject of books...we've only spent 40% of the budgeted amount for library books (Line item# 432 LIBRARY BOOKS). What's up with that?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Take a Lesson from the Pros...or Not
We just can't get past the folly of school board President's inherited means of calling for a vote:
Who knows? In few weeks maybe we'll get a new board president!
Had the opportunity to catch a bit of the DNR's Natural Resources Board meeting this week. Really liked the way they handled votes:"All in favor...say aye
All opposed...same sign"
"All in favor...We suppose it would be silly to think it possible that Whalen would consider upping his game. After all...the board cannot enact something suggested by the infamous SPEYE blog, now can it?
Any opposition...
Any abstentions..."
Who knows? In few weeks maybe we'll get a new board president!
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Letter from School Board Candidate Tom Weber
Tom Weber asked us to print the following letter to the community. For the record, we're open to similar offerings from the other board candidates.
Dear Friend,
Dear Friend,
 |
| Tom Weber |
I would like to ask for your support in the upcoming Sun Prairie School Board election. I am Tom Weber and the following is a little bit about me and why I am running for School Board. I would appreciate your support, and your vote on Tuesday, April 5th.
School districts across the state are facing some very challenging times over the next several years and the Sun Prairie Area School District is no different. I firmly believe, however, that every challenge is an opportunity to make ourselves better. It takes creativity, hard work and a sense of unity to be successful and I know that my fresh energy, creative problem solving and ability to listen to and understand people's concerns can help us get there.
I have learned in both my personal and professional life the importance of fiscal responsibility. In life there are tough choices we need to make but they need to be made based on priorities. These priorities help us decide between needs vs. wants; ensure there is value in what we spend our money on; and help guarantee a return on our investment. The children that our teachers are educating now are going to grow up to be the doctors and nurses that take care of us, the politicians that govern us, the inventors of new technologies and medicines, the police and firemen that keep us safe, and the people that entertain us. We owe it not only to them, but ourselves to invest wisely in our future.
In my professional life I have been successful working as an engineer to find realistic solutions that increase efficiencies; make better use of space, people and resources; provide for long term growth; and are cost justifiable. When developing project budgets I am required to provide strong returns on investment and get higher results for less cost. Our schools are no different. I know our Sun Prairie School District can benefit from my experience.
I have a vested interest in the Sun Prairie area and our schools. I have two children in our public school system (3rd & 6th grade), I have lived and worked in Sun Prairie for the past 19 years and I started and grew a business in Sun Prairie. I am the Cub Master for Cub Scout Pack 443 at Royal Oaks School and I am active with the parent teacher organization there as well. I am also currently serving as a Citizen Representative on the Finance Committee of the Sun Prairie Area School District.
My priorities for the school district focus around the following:
- Spending resources on programs that directly affect our children and their eduction.
- Maintaining the highest quality and most professional teaching staff possible.
- Providing our teachers with the resources and supplies needed to do their job to the highest degree.
- Assure safe, clean and healthy learning environments for our students, teachers and staff.
- Maintain a balanced budget and pay for new initiatives primarily through reductions in other areas of the budget.
Please let me know what you think, or what your concerns are. My contact information is listed below. And thank you for supporting me on April 5th.
PS - If you would like brochures or yard signs from me, please respond to this email or give me a call.
The Motion Heard 'Round the District
So here we were in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs (Camber-Davidson and McCourt were absent). Would Charlie Waffles make an appearance and vote to approve the position?
>
Instead, right out of the gate, board member John Welke asked board president if he was planning to summarize the issue. If not, Welke added, he had a motion to make. Whalen invited Welke to proceed and make his motion. And that's when the game changed.
Motion
Hire up to 1.0 FTE, 260 days per year, Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist as soon as practical using the approved job description. This position would be a "project position" expiring at the end of FY 2012-13 unless specifically reauthorized by the School Board after January 1, 2013. This position would be in the Administrative Support Staff group with a salary not to exceed $55,016 ($26.45 per hour) per school year with funding coming only from grants and/or existing or reallocated administrative or administrative support staff FTE.
Motion by John M Welke, second by Terry Shimek.
Welke responded that his motion did not direct Administration to eliminate anything. It simply offered a choice to fill the HR position, but to do it within the existing Admin/Admin Support FTE allocations. It offers the District Office flexibility. "Everyone needs to tighten their belts", Welke added.
Culver responded, "I'm trying to understand..." and "If Administration decides that they cannot live without filling the two vacancies...".
Dave Stackhouse countered by noting that all administration has agreed that the HR position is a top priority and willing to make cuts to have it. Stackhouse added that the reason he would be supporting Welke's motion is that he doesn't believe that this one position is enough to make a difference.
John Whalen commented, "I said I was willing to make cuts [to fill the HR position] but I likely will vote 'No' on this. I want the position, but I'm not comfortable with the strings attached."
Back to Culver again, " I want to be really clear--you are not directing us to cut an Administrative Support position. In my mind [hiring the HR position is dead on the vine...but we'll talk about it. You are taking it out of the [2011-12] budget, even though it fits the board parameters. It's not about what we want...we just present the need. I don't want an expectation that this [position] is going to happen."
Diedrich commented that she felt, " ...like I'm on a sinking ship and I have to choose between saving my twin sister or my mother."
Stackhouse called the question.
Motion & Voting
Hire up to 1.0 FTE, 260 days per year, Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist as soon as practical using the approved job description. This position would be a "project position" expiring at the end of FY 2012-13 unless specifically reauthorized by the School Board after January 1, 2013. This position would be in the Administrative Support Staff group with a salary not to exceed $55,016 ($26.45 per hour) per school year with funding coming only from grants and/or existing or reallocated administrative or administrative support staff FTE.
Motion by John M Welke, second by Terry Shimek.
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
Yea: David Stackhouse, John M Welke, Terry Shimek
Nay: Caren Diedrich, John Whalen
Welke crafted a motion that addresses all angles of this discussion. It is taxpayer friendly by not introducing a new $75K position into the budget. It does not use any SPEA or Local 60 FTE allocations that had been previously discussed as a means to fund it in the current year. It allows the position to be filled immediately, hopefully taking advantage of this opportunity, with 71 openings to be filled, to increase the diversity of the teaching staff.
It comes with a sunset clause. If the position is not successful in increasing staff diversity and cultural acceptance within the district, then we are not "stuck" with the position. Nobody is placed in a difficult role of cutting the very thing we are trying to implement. If it's not successful, it will not be renewed. That simple. At the same time, the motion allows the position to be renewed and made permanent if significant positive impact is observed.
Finally, the motion offers flexibility. The district has loudly and clearly proclaimed that the position is their top priority. They have it in their diversity action plan. It's time for the rubber to hit the road and administration to buck up and make the hard decisions for which they get paid the big bucks. Big boy (and girl) pants time!
Culver Exposed
It was abundantly clear that Culver wants to both have and eat his cake. While all along he has emphasized what an important piece of the puzzle this position is, he backpedaled quicker than Darrelle Revis Monday night. The only way this position would be allowed on Culver Island is if the position came as a NEW position, ADDING to the total Administrative salary pool.
Culver's simple statement, "In my mind [this HR position] is dead on the vine." spoke volumes.
Welke can play with the big dogs!
A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.'
---Barack Obama
Sunday, March 20, 2011
First Peek at the 2011-12 BUDGET
The school board had a "work-study) session this past Wednesday to present the first glimpse at the total budget picture. Amazingly, things look better than initial projections. Of course...this could change.
HOW MUCH CAN THE DISTRICT SPEND in 2011-12?
2010-11 Expense Budget: $73,000,000
Planned 2011-12 Expense Budget: $77,000,000
- Governor's projected 5.5% cut
---------------------------------------------------
= Revised 2011-12 Expense Budget: $72,900,000
= $4,100,000 reduction in spending
HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH the $4.1M REDUCTION?
Savings from employee paid 5.8% WRS: $2,671,450
Savings from employee paid 9% Health Ins.: $ 750,000
Savings from conversion of 1 FTE to SPEA: $ 34,000
Savings from replacement of 29 retirees: $1,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost savings (reductions) $4,455,450
That first number seems pretty exact, while the latter two seem pretty, rounded, don't they? OurDough pants fuel?
BUDGET ADDITIONS FOR 2011-12
Add 1.0 FTE Minority Recruitment HR Specialist: $ 75,000
Restore building/dept. budgets to 2008-09 level: + $255,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net additions $330,000
NET BUDGET PICTURE
Reduction to budget: $4,100,000
- Budget Savings: $4,455,450
+ Budget additions: $ 330,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Net Budget impact $ 25,450
WHAT is the ESTIMATED IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAXES?
Levy Increase: 4.5%
Mill Rate Increase: 4.5%
Estimated tax increase ($200K home) $109.50
NOTE 1: there is a projected surplus of at least $450K for this school year, if the school board should vote to apply that against the 2011-12 budget, the levy/mill rate increase would drop to 3.5% ($86.00 on a $200K home)
NOTE 2: This is a district-wide projection. No estimates of impact to individual municipalities can be made at this time.
BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
Add 1 FTE staff to tech dept. (data programmer) $ 65,000
Add 2.0 FTE Increase E.S.L. teachers, part A $110,000
Add 3.2 FTE for Equitable Social Workers Services $176,000
Add 3.0 FTE K-5 RtI Interventionist $165,000
Math software for Everyday Math $ 10,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Wish List: $526,920
Note: adding everything here would raise the tax levy/mill rate 1.2%, which would amount to about $28.50 (on a $200K home), Every 1% increase in the mill rate translates to about $0.122 on the mill rate ( or an additional $24.50 on a $200K home)
BUDGET CUTS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED and Never Discussed Publicly
HOW MUCH CAN THE DISTRICT SPEND in 2011-12?
2010-11 Expense Budget: $73,000,000
Planned 2011-12 Expense Budget: $77,000,000
- Governor's projected 5.5% cut
---------------------------------------------------
= Revised 2011-12 Expense Budget: $72,900,000
= $4,100,000 reduction in spending
HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH the $4.1M REDUCTION?
Savings from employee paid 5.8% WRS: $2,671,450
Savings from employee paid 9% Health Ins.: $ 750,000
Savings from conversion of 1 FTE to SPEA: $ 34,000
Savings from replacement of 29 retirees: $1,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost savings (reductions) $4,455,450
That first number seems pretty exact, while the latter two seem pretty, rounded, don't they? OurDough pants fuel?
BUDGET ADDITIONS FOR 2011-12
Add 1.0 FTE Minority Recruitment HR Specialist: $ 75,000
Restore building/dept. budgets to 2008-09 level: + $255,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net additions $330,000
NET BUDGET PICTURE
Reduction to budget: $4,100,000
- Budget Savings: $4,455,450
+ Budget additions: $ 330,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Net Budget impact $ 25,450
WHAT is the ESTIMATED IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAXES?
Levy Increase: 4.5%
Mill Rate Increase: 4.5%
Estimated tax increase ($200K home) $109.50
NOTE 1: there is a projected surplus of at least $450K for this school year, if the school board should vote to apply that against the 2011-12 budget, the levy/mill rate increase would drop to 3.5% ($86.00 on a $200K home)
NOTE 2: This is a district-wide projection. No estimates of impact to individual municipalities can be made at this time.
BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
- 2.3% growth (+162 students).
- 0% property value growth.
- Maintains existing programs and class size guidelines
- Maintains SAGE at CHB and WS
- Adds 14.7 new staff positions (increase in students + HR position)
- Retains 7.0 additional FTE formerly funded by Federal Stimulus $
- Layoffs only for course selection changes and cuts to state/federal funding, (e.g. Title 1 and ATODA).
- District allowed to apply unspent revenue cap dollars from previous years.
Add 1 FTE staff to tech dept. (data programmer) $ 65,000
Add 2.0 FTE Increase E.S.L. teachers, part A $110,000
Add 3.2 FTE for Equitable Social Workers Services $176,000
Add 3.0 FTE K-5 RtI Interventionist $165,000
Math software for Everyday Math $ 10,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Wish List: $526,920
Note: adding everything here would raise the tax levy/mill rate 1.2%, which would amount to about $28.50 (on a $200K home), Every 1% increase in the mill rate translates to about $0.122 on the mill rate ( or an additional $24.50 on a $200K home)
BUDGET CUTS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED and Never Discussed Publicly
- (-3.5 FTE) Do not replace 3.5 LMC positions (3-4 by attrition). Elementary have 0.5 LMC specialist PLUS add 0.5 support staff in the library (up from current 0.5)
- (-3.5 FTE) Eliminate K-4 Health Instruction (not mandated) - (2 by attrition; 1.5 layoff)
- (-3.5 FTE) Raise class size guidelines for grades 6-12 by 0.5 students per class (-1.5 HS, -1 CHUMS, -0.5 at PV and PM: 3.5 total)
- 1 Teacher mentor
- Raise Fees
- Reduce Extracurricular (Eliminate interscholastics before 7th and 8th?)
- Reduce Support Staff
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Who IS Tom Weber?
We're doing things a bit differently this year. We have historically prepared questions for candidates. But what use is it when only the challengers (and the occasional intrepid incumbent) respond?
We have 2 seats available, with 2 incumbents, and the newcomer (relatively speaking) Tom Weber. We know what we have in our incumbents. Jill Camber-Davidson has stepped out of her shell and shown us what a force she can be. David Stackhouse, a 2-term board member, is who we thought he was.
So we figured what you NEED to know, is a little bit more about Tom Weber.
In his own words, Tom Weber is...
WHY Tom Weber?
Very challenging times lie ahead for school districts in Wisconsin. Every challenge, however, is an opportunity to do something positive. I am extremely enthusiastic and ready, willing and able to sit at the table with teachers, staff, administration and the community at large to determine how we get through the next few years in a positive manner and achieve an unsurpassed culture of teaching and learning in Sun Prairie Area Schools. I know that together we can rise above these challenges as a premier school district in our state.
I want to establish a budget that is based on community driven priorities. Tough economic times in our community and looming budget cuts to school district funding require us to stay extremely focused on our priorities. Priorities will help drive the budget to a point of fiscal responsibility and reasonable taxes. Without priorities the process collapses, costs rise and ultimately taxes go up. We all prioritize our budgets at home and there is no reason we shouldn't do the same in our school district.
FOCUS
Our focus needs to stay clearly on community driven priorities. Here are Tom's top priorities:
o Spend resources on programs that directly affect our children and their education.
o Maintain the highest quality and most professional teaching staff possible. Our children learn from teachers.
o Provide our teachers with the resources and supplies needed to do their job to the highest degree.
o Assure safe, clean and healthy learning environments for our students, teachers and staff.
o Maintain a balanced budget and pay for new initiatives only through reductions in other areas of the budget.
Here's What Matters to Tom Weber
Common sense solutions. Let's keep it simple and think out-of-the-box.
Fiscal responsibility. We need to respect people's money and invest it wisely in our school system.
Clear justification to the public on any budget increases.
Embrace the challenges in front of us and resolve to settle for only positive outcomes.
Listen carefully to people; Research, evaluate and only then make a decision.
We have 2 seats available, with 2 incumbents, and the newcomer (relatively speaking) Tom Weber. We know what we have in our incumbents. Jill Camber-Davidson has stepped out of her shell and shown us what a force she can be. David Stackhouse, a 2-term board member, is who we thought he was.
So we figured what you NEED to know, is a little bit more about Tom Weber.
In his own words, Tom Weber is...
- Lifelong Wisconsin resident
- Sun Prairie resident for over 16 yrs
- Business owner in Sun Prairie for 16 years
- Married (19 yrs) to Heidi
- Two children in Sun Prairie schools
- Madeline - 6th grade
- Austin - 3rd grade - University of Wisconsin - Stout
- BS in Industrial Technology
- BS in Business Administration - Current School Board Finance Committee Member
- Committee Chair - Royal Oaks School Community Organization
- Cubmaster Pack 443
- Eagle Scout
WHY Tom Weber?
Very challenging times lie ahead for school districts in Wisconsin. Every challenge, however, is an opportunity to do something positive. I am extremely enthusiastic and ready, willing and able to sit at the table with teachers, staff, administration and the community at large to determine how we get through the next few years in a positive manner and achieve an unsurpassed culture of teaching and learning in Sun Prairie Area Schools. I know that together we can rise above these challenges as a premier school district in our state.
I want to establish a budget that is based on community driven priorities. Tough economic times in our community and looming budget cuts to school district funding require us to stay extremely focused on our priorities. Priorities will help drive the budget to a point of fiscal responsibility and reasonable taxes. Without priorities the process collapses, costs rise and ultimately taxes go up. We all prioritize our budgets at home and there is no reason we shouldn't do the same in our school district.
FOCUS
Our focus needs to stay clearly on community driven priorities. Here are Tom's top priorities:
o Spend resources on programs that directly affect our children and their education.
o Maintain the highest quality and most professional teaching staff possible. Our children learn from teachers.
o Provide our teachers with the resources and supplies needed to do their job to the highest degree.
o Assure safe, clean and healthy learning environments for our students, teachers and staff.
o Maintain a balanced budget and pay for new initiatives only through reductions in other areas of the budget.
Here's What Matters to Tom Weber
Common sense solutions. Let's keep it simple and think out-of-the-box.
Fiscal responsibility. We need to respect people's money and invest it wisely in our school system.
Clear justification to the public on any budget increases.
Embrace the challenges in front of us and resolve to settle for only positive outcomes.
Listen carefully to people; Research, evaluate and only then make a decision.
"I am not a politician. I am here for one reason -
A passion for making Sun Prairie Area Schools all they can be."
-- Tom Weber
Simplified Board Agenda for March 21, 2011
5.01 Human Resources & Relations Diversity Recruitment position ($ 75,000 annually)
This one has been sputtering and stalling since December 2008. It was voted down in September, and motion to fill the position failed last month. No new information is offered to support rationale that this position will solve--or at least be the linchpin in solving-- the districts minority staff recruitment and retention efforts. Many things have been tried without success. Some believe that this year, even without the position, may be easier for us to fill the expected 71 openings with some minorities as some districts with more diverse staff will have to CUT positions. This is a Hail Mary effort to hire the position this year. It has already been inserted into the budget as a budget parameter...UNLESS the school board takes action to remove it.
92 students applying to ENTER (net 72 new to Sun Prairie)
150 students applying to LEAVE (net 32 existing student loss)
A net increase will translate to need for further costs this year; next year (hopefully) we will receive more equalized aid due to the increase.
This is the gift that keeps on giving. It started as a (seemingly) innocent $75K capital project. Then we were told that it would cost $150K. When all the questions are asked, it now sounds like $240K. We don't particularly care for the smoke and mirrors, and the need is arguable.
$1.7M ESTIMATE for the total package. This starts the ball rolling.
The building needs up to $24K of maintenance to make it rentable. One pundit likens it to "the Money Pit". Does the school board really want to get into the landlord business? We don't think so. Other options include selling the building and an acre or so "as is". That would puts some cash in the coffers.
Why is this under the "Consent Items" portion of the agenda---usually reserved for items the board is expected to unilaterally--and quickly---approve. Heck, the freakin' Pool Manager even said we don't need new diving boards. Exactly TWO SP kids even dive! And the boards we purchased, while not tippity top shelf, are WIAA acceptable and more than "good enough".
Interesting from several angles, notably that NOW Culver is preaching equity when it affects the big dogs' collective take home pay. No one seems concerned that his proposal would still leave the Local 60 folks paying more than their fair share.
And why is this under "Informational Items"? Shouldn't the board be proposing some ACTION?
Culver: " We aren't strapped for this $32,000 in this year’s budget". SP-EYE: "$32K would buy an awful lot of school supplies."
6.02 Open Enrollment
6.03 DO Remodel Project ($240,000 one-time)
6.04 Ashley Field Request for Cash#1: $4,500 for architectural work
6.05 Raze the farmhouse located on
the former Grosse property at 3550 Highway 19 in Sun Prairie
6.07 Tim Culver's now infamous contract changes (6 wishes whittled to 5)
§ Please see Attachment 1 for analysis
and discussion of the specific changes,
§ Please see Attachment 2 for the
addendum of changes proposed to the employment contract. Note: this addendum has slight language
changes differing from the analysis in Attachment 1 due to final
recommendations of the district’s legal counsel.
§ Please see Attachment 3 for a copy
of the current employment contract
7.03 Replacement of Diving Boards
(up to $6,800 one-time)
8.05 Tim Culver's plea for Equity (we LOSE $32,500 by doing what Culver proposes)
1 in 100: Westside Teacher Honored with 2011 Herb Kohl Teacher Fellowship
Marsha Herman, a first grade teacher at Westside Elementary School, has been chosen as a recipient of the 2011 Herb Kohl Teacher Fellowship.
http://sunprairie.channel3000.com/news/people/sun-prairie-teacher-chosen-kohl-teacher-fellowship/47907
http://sunprairie.channel3000.com/news/people/sun-prairie-teacher-chosen-kohl-teacher-fellowship/47907
They Are Who We Thought They Were: The "District Office Project"
Quietly,the cost of this district office re-model project has been ratcheting up over the months.
Astute readers of the "Annual Meeting Report" would have noticed that Table 4 consists of a list of District Capital Projects for 2010-11. That lists includes $75,000 for the "District Office Project". So how come the district is coming to the board this Monday and asking for nearly a quarter of a meeelyun dollars??
Link to: Bids for District Office Remodeling and Upgrades to the Electrical for the Main Data Room"
" At this point, the total cost is expected to be about $240,000 of which approximately $60,000 is for the electrical upgrades to the main data control room and not related to the remodeling project. There are some value engineering and direct purchase savings yet to be deducted and some of the built-in furniture will still need to be purchased and installed by district staff. "
OK, so $60,000 of the $240K comes from electrical upgrades. That leaves us with $180K, yet the project list only calls for $75K for the district office re-model. Where is the other $105K coming from? Let's look at the bids they wish to award:
Wait a sec...we thought they said the electrical was only $60K? How come the lowest bid is for $101K?
And look at that nice "DO Remodeling bid" all by it's lonesome. When you ask for bids to remodel your home, do you get one labeled "Remodel" and then separate bill for all "the other stuff"? You MIGHT get a breakdown of the cost, but you pay ONE price.
When asked, Phil Frei indicated that [Building & Grounds Manager] "Tom Brooks is taking that from several of his budgets." Oh...NOW we get it! You take a little ($48K) from the HVAC budget, maybe take the $50,000 for "other projects" and combine those with the original $75 for DO project...that gets us to $173K. But...wait...we're still short by over $61,000 even using the lower figure that represents the sum of all bids. Where's that $61,000 coming from? None of the other line items in the B&G budget would seem to cover plumbing, electrical, or fire protection. Hmmmm? Maybe we'll borrow some from Roofing Projects budget...those roofs are looking pretty good.
This is just one more reason why the people in this community DO NOT TRUST the school district. We get jibberjabbed every which way we turn.
What we like best is that THE MOTION FAILED at the FTT Committee level...only school-board-incumbent-vying-for-re-election David Stackhouse voted to approve the project and spending. Fiscal conservative? With these funny money numbers? ...and we haven't even mentioned that most of these got only a single bid! Why is it even moving forward? Because nothing dies in committee!!!
Perhaps the space is needed; although we aren't completely convinced. But somehow there has to be a penalty for playing the shell game with money and telling us one thing and then changing what you're telling us. WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE for this?
Dennis Green was right...They ARE who we thought they were.
Astute readers of the "Annual Meeting Report" would have noticed that Table 4 consists of a list of District Capital Projects for 2010-11. That lists includes $75,000 for the "District Office Project". So how come the district is coming to the board this Monday and asking for nearly a quarter of a meeelyun dollars??Link to: Bids for District Office Remodeling and Upgrades to the Electrical for the Main Data Room"
"...remodeling of the district office to provide new technology workspace and reconfigure existing technology offices for use by Human Resources and Special Education staff. Included with this bid will be an upgrade to the main data room, which is not specifically related to the remodeling project."On March 14, 2011 the Facilities, Technology, and Transportation Committee moved to approve the bids as presented, but the motion failed. This item was forwarded to the School Board for review.
" At this point, the total cost is expected to be about $240,000 of which approximately $60,000 is for the electrical upgrades to the main data control room and not related to the remodeling project. There are some value engineering and direct purchase savings yet to be deducted and some of the built-in furniture will still need to be purchased and installed by district staff. "OK, so $60,000 of the $240K comes from electrical upgrades. That leaves us with $180K, yet the project list only calls for $75K for the district office re-model. Where is the other $105K coming from? Let's look at the bids they wish to award:
Electrical: Nickles Electric.. $101,012.00
HVAC: NAMI ..................... 48,000.00
Fire Protection: Monona P & FP.... 4,750.00
Plumbing: Monona P & FP ........ 10,995.00
DO Office Remodeling: ........... 69,895.00
--------------------------------------------
Total.......................... $234,652
Wait a sec...we thought they said the electrical was only $60K? How come the lowest bid is for $101K?
And look at that nice "DO Remodeling bid" all by it's lonesome. When you ask for bids to remodel your home, do you get one labeled "Remodel" and then separate bill for all "the other stuff"? You MIGHT get a breakdown of the cost, but you pay ONE price.
When asked, Phil Frei indicated that [Building & Grounds Manager] "Tom Brooks is taking that from several of his budgets." Oh...NOW we get it! You take a little ($48K) from the HVAC budget, maybe take the $50,000 for "other projects" and combine those with the original $75 for DO project...that gets us to $173K. But...wait...we're still short by over $61,000 even using the lower figure that represents the sum of all bids. Where's that $61,000 coming from? None of the other line items in the B&G budget would seem to cover plumbing, electrical, or fire protection. Hmmmm? Maybe we'll borrow some from Roofing Projects budget...those roofs are looking pretty good.
This is just one more reason why the people in this community DO NOT TRUST the school district. We get jibberjabbed every which way we turn.
What we like best is that THE MOTION FAILED at the FTT Committee level...only school-board-incumbent-vying-for-re-election David Stackhouse voted to approve the project and spending. Fiscal conservative? With these funny money numbers? ...and we haven't even mentioned that most of these got only a single bid! Why is it even moving forward? Because nothing dies in committee!!!
Perhaps the space is needed; although we aren't completely convinced. But somehow there has to be a penalty for playing the shell game with money and telling us one thing and then changing what you're telling us. WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE for this?
Dennis Green was right...They ARE who we thought they were.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Retiring from the Sun Prairie School District - 2011
At its February 28th meeting, the school board somewhat reluctantly voted to approve retirement requests from 28 long-time members of the teaching staff.
The sad part is that we lose more than 900 years of teaching experience. Looking for the silver lining, however, these folks are lucky enough to retire before facing the extreme agenda for our new Governor...as long as his reign shall last. Their departure also opens the door for young teachers looking to find a job in this economy. In addition the district stands to incur a net savings of $1M or more...which is absolutely critical given the drastic cuts being imposed on school districts. These teachers' decision to retire will allow the district to maintain the current level and quality of education without having to make the sacrifices that nearly all other school districts face.
We wish them well.
The sad part is that we lose more than 900 years of teaching experience. Looking for the silver lining, however, these folks are lucky enough to retire before facing the extreme agenda for our new Governor...as long as his reign shall last. Their departure also opens the door for young teachers looking to find a job in this economy. In addition the district stands to incur a net savings of $1M or more...which is absolutely critical given the drastic cuts being imposed on school districts. These teachers' decision to retire will allow the district to maintain the current level and quality of education without having to make the sacrifices that nearly all other school districts face.
We wish them well.
Oh...so NOW you Want Equity, Eh???
Tim Culver wants equity? Puuh-LEEZE!
Oh...sure he wants equity...now that it's his wallet (and that of other administrators and admin support staff) that is taking the hit.
Where was Culver's desire for equity over the past number of years while Local 60 folks have continually received the short end of the stick and basically been screwed, blued, and tattooed!???
Culver wants the board to hold off until July 1 before requiring the Culver bunch to pay their 5.8% contribution to the WRS system and increase their share of health insurance to 9%. Hello!!!! Local 60 staff...you know ...the ones that are barely making ends meet NOW...have been paying 9% of the health insurance premiums for some time now! link to our earlier post on the issue
How about what's good for the goose now becomes good for the gander, eh?
This would save the school district over $32,000 THIS YEAR! We're feeling a tad Robin Hoodie and would like to see the HAVEs start helping out the HAVE NOTs.....NOW!
Read Culver's plea in the form of a Situation Report
Culver's proposed motion:
"...it is in my heart to speak up for these 31
employees and say let all employees take the pain at the same time." ---District Administrator Tim Culver
 |
| Equity? or a 12" pianist? |
Where was Culver's desire for equity over the past number of years while Local 60 folks have continually received the short end of the stick and basically been screwed, blued, and tattooed!???
Culver wants the board to hold off until July 1 before requiring the Culver bunch to pay their 5.8% contribution to the WRS system and increase their share of health insurance to 9%. Hello!!!! Local 60 staff...you know ...the ones that are barely making ends meet NOW...have been paying 9% of the health insurance premiums for some time now! link to our earlier post on the issue
How about what's good for the goose now becomes good for the gander, eh?
This would save the school district over $32,000 THIS YEAR! We're feeling a tad Robin Hoodie and would like to see the HAVEs start helping out the HAVE NOTs.....NOW!
Read Culver's plea in the form of a Situation Report
Culver's proposed motion:
“For those employees with whom the Board does not have a contractual provision that obligates the employer to pay the employee's share of the Wisconsin Retirement System, the Board shall, for internal compensation equity purposes, reimburse the affected employee an amount equivalent to the employee's Wisconsin Retirement System share of WRS, as required by Senate Bill 11. The compensation shall appear as miscellaneous income to the employee on the employee's W-2 only for a period of the first payroll after March 13, 2011, through and including June 30, 2011.”
We'd like to make a motion from the floor, please. How's about...
Motion: The board shall take action to implement 5.8% WRS contributions and 9% health insurance premiums effective 4-1-11 (and that's no April Fool) for all Administrative and Administrative Support staff. The effective "savings" from these contributions during the 2010-11 school year shall be used to purchase 2011-12 school supply packages for students who qualify for free/reduced lunches.
How do you like them apples?
Fruity Math
We THINK we know where Mr. Phil is going with this slide. We also think that Mr. Jim (Seabass) suggested it.
The problem is that it's not just apples and oranges...it's apples plus bananas get you tangeloes. And that's borderline non-sense.
What they were TRYING to do, of course, is explain from where that 4.4% projected tax levy increase originates. Last year's tax levy (general fund 10 + debt service levy) was $45.8M. A 4.4% increase, then, would be about $2.0 M.
Our debt service payment is increasing by about (gulp!) $1M next year....which means that roughly half of the 4.4% projected 2011-12 tax levy increase is coming directly from the High School/CHUMS construction. Put another way, it means that without cuts and NO increased spending, we'd have a 2.1% increase to the tax levy just from debt service alone. But that's where we move from the beaten path of Kansas to the yellow brick road on the way to Oz.
Enrollment = Revenue Limit, and that's NOT part of the budget.
The OTHER 2.3% is identified as "projected enrollment growth". This has us scratching our heads because Mr. Frei has told us repeatedly that enrollment growth does not affect equalized aid from the state. It is ONLY used to determine the revenue limit above which a district cannot spend. We THINK what they're trying to suggest is that new spending CAUSED by projected enrollment growth this fall will result in an additional 2.3% increase over the tax levy from last year. 2.3% of last year's $45.8M tax levy comes to $1,053,000. We think that what this slide was trying to show was that a 4.4% increase to last year's tax levy is expected, with roughly half coming from additional debt service payments and half from costs incurred (e.g., new staff) associated with projected enrollment growth.
Of course, it's all smoke and mirrors until we follow the money trail and figure out what's happening with FUN Balance, the EdJobs Fund money, and all the resat of the cash in Phildough's OUR Dough pants.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Election Day - A Called 3rd Strike on Stackhouse?
Yes, Virginia, we understand that there's been a lot going down. But, correct you are: there IS an election coming up. April 5th to be exact. We know...we know...we haven't seen any of the typical Poli-signage either. But...we DO have a 3 horse race for two seats: incumbents David Stackhouse and Jill Camber-Davidson along with relative newcomer Tom Weber. More on that to come.Stackhouse's star has been tarnished over the past couple of years, for reasons we need not go into here. . He has slowly descended into a pariah of sorts on the school board. Three years ago, he served as the Board's president. Since then he can't even get voted in as the Board clerk. Other board members are definitely not showing him the love. We're thinking it's not his choice of deodorant.
Recent events have people wondering whether this election will bring Stackhouse's school board tenure to a close. We see a count of 0-2.
STRIKE 1
The first key vote heard round the community was his lone dissenting vote on the "RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROVISIONS OF THE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BILL PROPOSED BY GOVERNOR WALKER " at the 2-28-11 school board meeting. This resolution has since been dubbed the shorter, catchier, 'Tilting at Windmills' Resolution by a clever community member.
Governor Walker has declared war on all unions, and this was a meatball served up squarely over the plate. Stackhouse's lone ranger stance on this resolution stood out like a sore thumb. We're fairly certain that the large contingent of teachers and Local 60 members present for that meeting duly noted Stackhouse's contrary position. That does not bode well for Mr. Stackhouse.
STRIKE 2
Last night the school board had a pair of expulsion hearings, immediately followed by a board working session on the 2011-12 budget. This is the board's first glimpse of the budget and represents the best opportunity to mold it going forward. Stackhouse was present for the expulsion hearings but then disappeared. None of the other board members seemed to know that he wouldn't be returning. Certainly not putting one's best foot forward in the last 3 weeks before the election.
Of course, the proof remains in the pudding...so we'll be looking to see how this chapter ends on April 5th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
