TravelGate Hits Sun Prairie?

We recently learned that the director for the Sound of Sun Prairie has resigned amidst concerns regarding students needing passports to travel to Canada this summer.

We're in the process of sorting this one out and obtaining the FACTs--there's a lot of he said/she said going on at the moment.  Stay tuned as this will surely bring some more administrative faux pas to light.

from the 5-23-2011 School Board Personnel activity table
Extracurricular Resignations
Joe Mesner – Sound of Sun Prairie Director
Ian Melrose – Sound of Sun Prairie Assistant (during interim assignment)

SP-EYE now on Facebook!

Check out SP-EYE on Facebook

Updates on DeForest's Extreme Case of Salary Bloat

http://www.facebook.com/pages/DASD-Administrative-Bloat/147668358638705

Follow the DeForest Administrative Shenanigans at the Facebook link above

The DeForest Debacle: Self-Serving, Self-Perpetuating Opulence

Equity, Schmequity!
DeForest administrators' cries for salary equity are weak at best.  Does a doctor at John Hopkins earn the same as a doctor in some podunk community hospital?  We don't think so.  Does a police officer in a small midwestern village earn as much as a New York City cop?  We don't think so!  It doesn't make sense!

Equity has to be based on comparing apples to apples, not apples to pineapples!  You can't compare DeForest school employee salaries to the 16 Dane Co. school districts because they are so variable.  DeForest has an enrollment of 3249, while Dane Co. districts range from 800 kids to 24,800 kids.
Even the average enrollment of all Dane Co. districts is 34% higher than DeForest's enrollment.

Looking at enrollments, DeForest administrators do not
warrant pay at the same level as those in much larger districts

DeForest fits best in a group with 6 other Dane Co. districts:  Oregon, Waunakee, Stoughton, Monona Grove, McFarland, and Mount Horeb.  In addition to enrollment size, other factors including community housing market, per capita income, and student socio-economic factors must be considered.   We don't think DeForest did that.

Self-Perpetuating Opulence
These are tight times, people.  How can anyone --yes, including Exxon executives--consider themselves worthy of obscenely grandiose raises?  All around, people are having their incomes REDUCED!  Those relying on Social Security haven't seen an increase in 2 years, and may see a very slight increase in January 2012.  State, county, and municipal workers are seeing their take-home pay REDUCED by 8-10% as soon as Gov. Walkers gets his plan approved.  How can any individual take this without getting up and speaking their piece?

The "new" money that will be paid to DeForest administrators amounts to over $300,000 in cost.  For a district with a tax levy of about $21M, that means that these new raises will add at least a 1.4% increase to the tax levy.  And like some STDs, this is the gift that keeps on giving.  Salaries will only INCREASE!

What makes matters worse is that districts feed off of themselves.  If DeForest is allowed to award these excessive raises, then other school districts will just want more, which will result in DeForest administrators wanting even more!  It's one giant game of leapfrog.  At what point do we stop the madness?  Look...we get it.  These people manage our schools that teach our children.  It's an important job.  It deserves to be amply compensated.  But "amply" does not equate to "obscenely".

Here's a question:  just exactly how much time is being spent figuring out what the other guy is earning--and how to spin that into justification for raises-- instead of focusing on the educational outcomes of our kids?

Just as we need to raise the floor and lower the ceiling for teachers, we need to establish a cap for administrators as well.  You don't like ceilings for teacher pay?  Look...there can't be a one of you out there that can rationalize a kindergarten teacher or elementary school "Library Media Specialist" earning over $90,000 per year for 9 months work.  That's just plain insanity.  In fact...we offer this challenge....if you really think you can rationalize the merit of such a salary, then e-mail us at sp.eye1@gmail.com and we'll publish your argument...anonymously if you wish.

State leaders are so quick to put caps on spending.  You know what happens?  These people pay themselves first and take the cuts in supplies and services that directly affect our kids. Hello!  McFly!  Salaries and fringes account for as much as 80-85% of a school district's budget!  When is one of our well-compensated legislators going to push a bill that will places the caps on PAY, not supplies and critical services?  But we digress.

Let's look at how DeForest's "Dane Co. Market Salary Adjustment" has yielded:

District Administrator
DeForest's District Administrator, Jon Bales, is currently the 6th highest paid District Administrator in Dane County.  While Bales did not receive anything as part of the "market adjustment" increase, he already received a 5% increased (reported to be a 2% increase) for 2010-11. He now  earns $146,243, which is $4,000 per year more than the WELL-compensated Dr. Culver in Sun Prairie!  Dr. Culver runs a district with TWICE the number of students as DeForest, and has 2 more years experience than Dr. Bales.  Think Culver will be wanting more now?

Business Manager
The average salary of the 13 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Business Manager" is $106,700. DeForest' Business Manager, Diane Pertzborn was earning $111,855 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $118,580. Her salary previously ranked 8 of 13 and now will rank 6 of 13, just behind Sun Prairie's Phil Frei ($123,345). Pertzborn's salary previously was 4.8% above the Dane Co. average ($106,700) for Business Managers, and now will be 6.3% above average. Is that equity?

Human Resources (HR) Director

The average salary of the 7 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Central Office Administrator, subtitle Human Resources" is $112,768. DeForest's HR Director, Vickie Adkins was earning $93,500 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $115,000. Her salary previously ranked 7th out of 7 and now will rank 3rd of 7, just above Sun Prairie's Annette Mikula ($114,000). Adkins' salary previously was 15% below the Dane Co. average for HR Managers, and now will be 1.4% above average.   Keep in mind that only 7 school districts (Madison, Verona,  Sun Prairie ,  Waunakee , Middleton-Cross Plains, Stoughton,  De Forest) are large enough to even have a dedicated HR Manager

Director of Instruction
The average salary of the 25 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Director of Instruction Manager" is $103,600. DeForest' Director of Instruction, Sue Wilson was earning $94,554 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $112,181. Her salary previously ranked 16 of 25 and now will rank 10 of 25, just behind Sun Prairie's Alice Murphy ($113,200). Wilson's salary previously was 8% below the Dane Co. average ($103,600) for Directors of Instruction, and now will be 9% above average.

Director of Special Education

The average salary of the 13 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Director of Special Education" is $107,900. DeForest's Director of Special Ed., David Perrodin was earning $96,700 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", he will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $112,181. His salary previously ranked 11 of 13 and now will rank 4 of 13, about 3.5% less than Sun Prairie's Lisa Dawes ($116,200). Perrodin's salary previously was 9.5% below the Dane Co. average for Directors of Special Education, and now will be 4% above average.

High School Principal

The average salary of the 20 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "High School Principal" is $107,500. DeForest's HS Principal, Machell Schwarz was earning $98,145 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $113,000. Her salary previously ranked 13 of 20 and now will rank 7 of 20, about $2,000 more than Sun Prairie's Lisa Heipp ($111,044). Schwarz' salary previously was 5.6% below the Dane Co. average for High School Principals, and now will be 7% above average.

Middle School Principal

The average salary of the 16 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Middle School Principal" is $97,500. DeForest's MS Principal, Paul Herrick was earning $91,400 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", he will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $103,371. His salary previously ranked 11 of 16 and now will rank 5 of 16.  This is still about $10,000 below the average for Sun Prairie's two middle school principals, Clark Luessman and Nancy Hery, but Sun Prairie is at the head of all Dane County Middle School Principal salaries!  Herrick's salary previously was 5.6% below the Dane Co. average for Middle School Principals, and now will be 6% above average.

 Elementary School Principal

The average salary for Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Elementary School Principal" is $90,950. The average pay of DeForest's elementary principals, Michael Finke, Ann Schoenberger, and Michael Weisensel was $90,000 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", the average (effective Jan.1, 2011) will now be $94,300. DeForest previously ranked 9 of 16 for elementary principal pay and now will rank 6 of 16.  This average is $700 more than the average salary of Sun Prairie's seven elementary school principals.  DeForest elementary school principal pay previously was 1% below the Dane Co. average for Elementary School Principals, and now will be 4% above average. 

Can't See DeForest For The Greed

Confidential?  Yeah...we can see why they didn't
 want THIS document to ever see the light of day!

 The pressure is off of district administrators and the school board here in Sun Prairie, because of the shocking cajones of the DeForest Board of Education and DeForest Area School District Administrators.

While we're getting worked up --and justifiably so--- about our own district administration on the cusp of getting 1.6% increases in the midst of tight times, the DeForest Administration Team ---with the support of the Board of Education-- awarded themselves titannic raises under the guise of "Dane County Market Equity" adjustments. The raises are retroactive to January 1, 2011. For appearances sake--you just KNOW they'll spin this in budget documents--- their salaries are being frozen for 2011-12. Geeeee whiz! With those increases, they should be frozen permanently.

How much of raises are they getting, you ask? The AVERAGE salary increase since the 2009-10 school year (for which administrators received a whopping 5% increase) is 16%. For a group of 22 administrators, the lowest increase received was 5.1% and the highest 39.1%. The price tag for salary adjustments comes to an incredible $304,000! And that amount is an expense for EVERY future year, further compounded by future wage increases.

Simply...SHOCKING!

For the top 11 DeForest Administrators, the AVERAGE salary increase in dollars was $15,700 per year. That increase in pay amounts to $1300 per month! Many senior citizens on Social Security (who have not seen an increase in the past 2 years) earn less than $1300 per month TOTAL! These fat cats are getting that as a RAISE!

Questions abound in DeForest as early indications suggest that the board of education (school board) did not vote on these increases in open session.   That would be a clear violation of Open Meetings Laws.  We could find no documentation or agenda that suggested these raises were even considered, let alone a done deal.  We were, however, able to obtain a document that appears to have been leaked from within the school district.  The members of the DeForest Board of Education should be ashamed of themselves, to say the least. They'll be lucky if they don't get tarred and feathered right out of the community. Recall elections are the soup du jour this spring. We may be seeing a few (or all) board of educations members facing recall elections.

Clearly these folks have no clue as to how badly things could heat up for them. Sun Prairie taxpayers put the whammy on the school board here 2 years ago by voting to cut the tax levy by $2,000,000. That amount could pale in comparison to what DeForest community members could do at their annual meeting this summer.

Why is this such a poorly timed move? First of all, folks, the economy isn't exactly hopping along like an Energizer bunny. Second, the time is quickly approaching when state, county, and municipal workers' paychecks will be severely cut by Governor Walker's agenda. These ridiculous raises will be hitting people's pockets when they can least afford it.

One other problem this situation poses is that we could very quickly get into a game of keeping up with the Jones. Our administrators will see DeForest's raises and want similar bounty.

The DeForest Times reports the following:

[District Administrator Dr. Jon] Bales said the decision was based on a desire by the board to have every district employee compensated at a level of at least the average in the market. "Over the years, we've been able to accomplish that with support staff and teachers," he said. "The effort with administrators was exactly the same. It's been put off, frankly, for years, because it is a high-cost group. We wanted to do it last year, we didn't do it. We wanted to do it this year, we didn't do it. We implemented it mid-year because you only pay half of what that base increase would have been. While it looks like a dramatic sort of adjustment for some people, at the end of the day, they're paid an average wage in the county." "I don't discount the timing, I don't discount the pressures on the district, but that was built around a balanced budget before the new state budget."

You're Not Gonna Believe This!

Are you sitting down?
Calm? Cool? Collected?
OK...then we can tell you...
Our administrators are underpaid.

That's right.  You heard it here, on SP-EYE. Unlike the district, that spins things only one way and shares only the information that makes them look good, we offer you the facts.  Sometimes the facts support our contentions...and sometimes they don't.

We looked at DPI Administrative Salary data for 2010-11.  We focused on the 20 school districts closest in size to Sun Prairie.  And we found that if you gasp for breath every time you read about administrator pay in Sun Prairie, you should be thankful we're not like other districts our size.

Of course, there are at least a few bleeding heart school board members that will leap upon this opportunity to pay our administrators more.  In fact, the board is in negotiations now to give administrators as much as a 2% increase in salary.

Do we need to follow a new leader?

Pause, Take  a Deep Breath...and Stop the Insanity!
What are we?  Lemmings?  Just because Acme School district wants to pay its administrators ridiculous wages, do we need to follow suit?  Who REALLY makes $100K plus in this society?  The average US physician earns about $140K.  The average dentist earns $102K.  The average engineer earns about $75K. (Source: http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml).  Sure, school district administrators have some responsibility.  But more than an engineer? dentist? doctor?  After all....these folks aren't TEACHING our kids.  So let's not use that rationale.

A review of the 2010 Census shows that only 8% of US households earn more than $125,000.  8%!  Do school administrators REALLY belong in the top 8% of all wage earners?  There's something wrong with this picture!  Hopefully our school board will give some consideration to this before casting their votes when the Administrator contracts come up in the very near future. New data shows that the median household income in 2009 was $50,221 which is down from $52,029 in 2008.  This drop of 3.6 percent comes at a time when many U.S. households are struggling to make payments on mortgages.   Really? The median household income is $50,000 and we pay school administrators DOUBLE or TRIPLE that?
 

Download a file of WI school 
district administrator compensation

Is Common Sense Really Dead?
The tide may finally be turning.  In these tight times, people are starting to wake up and pay attention.  The governor of New York is currently proposing legislation which would establish a tier system )based on enrollment) under which school district administrator (superintendent) salaries would be capped.  Currently, one-third of district administrators in New York earn over $175,000.  The 6th (top) tier, under which Sun Prairie would fall, would limit compensation to $175,000.  And that's New York, people!  As in the New York whose cost of living far exceeds ours.  Interestingly enough, the district administrator from New Berlin, WI is currently in negotiations to be district administrator in New York.  He was compensated over $200K last year.  How will this affect him? Read the article below.

District's pick for superintendent has sixth-highest education salary in Wisconsin

Is our Administration over-staffed?
Nobody wants to discuss the 800 lb gorilla in the room, but eventually those discussions must occur before the gorilla overtakes us.  Two aspects of administrative costs stuck out like a sore thumb when we looked at the 20 similar-sized districts.

First, Sun Prairie happens to have the most amount of administrators dedicated to Special Education. Kids with special need are an important part of our district, but let's face the facts, these administrators aren't typically working one-on-one with these kids.  That responsibility falls on Local 60 staffers largely earning less than $15/hour.   But lets toss in another fact that may make you pause to think.  We also looked at the DPI data for the numbers and percentage of enrollment comprised by special needs kids.  While Sun Prairie may have the highest number of Special Ed. administrators, we have the second LOWEST percentage of special need s kids in districts our size.   We'll take "Things That Make You Go, 'Hmmmm' for $500, Alex".

Top Heavy? (and not in a good way)
Second.  If we look at the ratio of principals to assistant principals in the district, we also stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to similar-sized districts.  Remember when the board voted on a heated split-vote to spend the money to hire an additional assistant principal at the high school?  Maybe if the board had looked at these hard facts, they would have given more though to that move.  After all, aren't we supposed to be a district that bases its decisions on data?   Are we looking at the wrong (or censored) data?  Or just not looking at the data at all?

Wrapping it All Up
So...are our administrators under paid?  Or is it better a question of : are our administrators simply not as excessively paid as other in similar sized school districts?  As we have to tighten our budgetary belts, it is this where we need to focus our attention...not on the teachers in the classrooms.

Message Ignored: Rolling the Dice At the Board Table?

Maybe we need to schedule a hearing exam, but what we heard at the May 16th FTT meeting was that the Committee needed (read: expected) to see much more detail before approving the 2011-12 Buildings & Grounds budget (including its Capital Projects budget).

In fact, many of the concerns still exist.  For example, the "Summer Maintenance projects" are virtually unchanged, and are nearly identical to what was listed in LAST YEAR's budget.

What do you think Slider thinks?

We also heard the motion from Committee to forward the Buildings and Grounds 2011-12 budget to the school board for consideration.  We didn't hear any approval of this budget by the FTT. Nor did we hear the FTT Committee forwarding the budget for school board approval.

What's going on?  Is the District Office choosing to roll the dice and hope it has 4 board members who will support and approve this budget?  Bet Slider hasn't seen a gutsier move than this since Maverick put on the breaks and let Jester Fly right by.

You decide.  Take a look at the documents presented at the May 16th meeting and then the documents provided for this Monday's (May 23) full school board meeting.  We don't see any new substance.  The board may have cut the Capital budget by 15% and the General B&G budget by $14,000, but there still is no explanation for why projects identified are the same as in previous years.  We don't think that's adequate.


Monday May 16th agenda
Monday May 23 agenda

Buildings & Grounds Stealth Tactics Impact Royal Oaks, Tarnish District Image

Monday's (May 16) special FTT Committee meeting began with a tour of Royal Oaks to review the plans to construct a secure entrance and relocate the main office.  We learned much more than that.

Basketballs at Royal Oaks do what this tennis ball does

We learned that despite the Royal Oaks gym floor is in such sad shape that in several areas, if one dribbles a basketball it does not come back. It simply drops like a stone.  That's great for home team advantage during basketball games, but...come on!  How can it be that this gym has not appeared on the B&G summer maintenance report for any of the past 3 years?  These dead drop situations do not magically occur overnight.  We did hear that the stealth plan was to bury the cost of fixing the gum floor within the $350,000 cost of constructing the secure entrance.  Of course that was yet another stealth mission.  The "project" had been labeled "Royal Oaks Secure Entryway".  Only after much pressing and questioning of the price tag did we learn that  --"Oh yeah...we also plan to switch the office with the art room and do a couple of other changes".

You know what?  Moving the office DOES make sense.  But seriously...when one "hides" these things under an innocuous label it only breeds distrust.  What's more infuriating --regardless of true intent-- is the PERCEPTION that someone or someones are playing the shuffle game with cash.  The district has frequently come under fire for having too much pork in its budget.  How does this NOT look like proof of that allegation?  The community needs to trust that the district is coming forward with a legitimate budget and is accurately describing the work that will be performed under that budget.

Where did my $160,000 go?

If one reviews the B&G budget ONLY for summer maintenance over the past 3 years, it appears that by June  2012, we will have spent $160,000 to... 
---replace 2 Bradley sinks, 
---refinish wood gym floors (3 times), 
---gym repairs at WS,NS, ES (3 times) 
---replace bathroom partitions at PVMS, PMMS, and BD (3 times) 
 
Come on!  Really?  $160,000 for that? 
And if the jobs did not get done before, where did the money for that was budgeted for those tasks? 
And if the jobs WERE completed, then why are we budgeting for them in future years? 

What Royal Oaks Also Needs That Doesn't Appear to Be Critical
We also saw firsthand that, for a district that provides itself as a technology leader, the Royal Oaks "pit" (auditorium) relies on a bunch of wires and a mobile plastic cart holding a PowerPoint projector.  Really? 

We are building schools that have a Smartboard and projector in every room and we don't have a ceiling-mounted projector in the main congregation room? Come on!  Someone needs to pull some more fluff out of this budget and make that happen.  There MUST be room in the technology budget.

Kitchen needs
We were told that the serving carts need to be replaced.  Not on the radar screen.  Really?  According to the budget documents we were shown at the annual meeting last October, as of THIS June 30, we will have over $535,000 in fund balance in the Food Service fund.  Time to open up that checkbook, let the poor presidents squint as they face the light of day, and replace that equipment!

The Diversity Issue: Robbing Peter to Look Like Paul

We apologize in advance for the length and detail of this post.  Those that care about the growing diversity conundrum, however, will want to consider ALL the pertinent data before making any pronouncements or decisions.


At the May 9th school board meeting, the topic of budget parameters came up, which in turn re-opened the discussion regarding hiring a $75,000 Human Resources Specialist focused on staff diversity recruiting. One woman from the community advocated passionately for the position. She appeared to be under the assumption that the HR position had been voted down, since the board was acting on a motion to remove the $75,000 budgeted for the position in 2011-12 from the 2011-12 budget.

Most of the board didn't know what to do or say. Thankfully, John Welke, who originally made the motion heard round the district (or most of it, anyway), explained that the board vote was to allow the position to be filled within the existing allotment of FTEs. In other words, no new personnel funding would be approved (in light of the tight budget climate). Given that the district already had at least 2 vacant positions, and arguably is over-staffed in Administration and Administrative Support, the board vote represented good compromise.

The district found itself in a quandary. Administration has repeatedly said that this HR Minority Recruitment Specialist was their consensus top priority. Really? Well here was the chance to show it, rather than just mouthing the words. Instead, the district has quietly opted to fill its two vacancies and NOT hire the HR position. We have nothing to suggest that they even CONSIDERED out-of-box thinking, such as job sharing, or making each of the two vacancies and the HR position something like 65% FTE positions each. That could have been done within the board's directive. Isn't something better than nothing? Or was this a case where the district was SAYING they wanted the position, but really didn't value it that highly? Was administration looking to hang their lack of commitment on the school board?

In the end, this district has to follow its own mantra and use RELIABLE data to make the best decision. The data which can spotlight the issue is readily available on the DPI website. In fact, they recently updated their files to include 2010-11 data. That's about as good as it gets. So...time to duct tape the district spin doctors to a chair and look at the uncensored data. We did that. Take a look at the graphics provided in this post. As always, we back up our words with data. The data doesn't lie. We apologize in advance for the length of this post, but there's a lot of stuff to consider here. Time to get it all out on the table. Let's spill the FACTS jar, shall we?

Is the HR position REALLY the answer?
Board members have questioned it, many staff quietly question it, and there is even some indication that the district office itself is not convinced that hiring a Minority Recruitment Specialist is going to solve our our diversity woes.

It's no secret that the district has tried many things already...to no avail. While nobody wants to talk about it, the simple reality is that the Sun Prairie school district community still has a lot to improve upon with respect to establishing itself as a multicultural comfort zone. You can buy all the books and attend all the training on diversity issues, but in the end, attitudes must change universally in order for Sun Prairie to be the minority-friendly school district it desires to be.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Unless you've been in a coma for the last few months, you must have heard or read that many struggling (read: NOT growing) districts are facing massive staff cuts or layoffs. Janesville, Beloit, and Milwaukee have all been in the news regarding potential cuts. Many of the districts that are in this situation have larger percentages of minority staff. Logic would dictate that at least some of these individuals may be low hanging fruit on the seniority tree. This could in turn create a uniquely large pool of minority candidates.

Without the need for any additional HR recruiting, there is a significant probability that many of these teachers that are either cut or in danger of being laid off or released may seek out a growing district that is actually INCREASING staff. Seems pretty logical...doesn't it? All it would take is a phone call to the teachers union in the affected districts, and we may have a large influx of diverse applicants.

The numbers speak for themselves
Part of the school board's mission statement is to maximize each student’s learning by using data to drive instructional decision-making. In order to use data in decision-making, we need to have data. And let's add to that fact that we need uncensored, RELIABLE data.

The simple fact is that NONE of the 424 public school districts have a staff whose diversity matches that of its students. Certainly, some get closer than others. The problem is: how do we measure whether or not a staff matches the diversity of its students. Must the percentages be the same? Milwaukee, as many would guess comes closest. In that district there are 47 kids of color for every staff member of color. Of the larger districts, Madison ranks 2nd with a ratio of 54, followed by Kenosha(65.7), Beloit (67), and Waukesha (79). Sun prairie sits at a ratio of 87.4.

And these numbers are just totals of ALL minority staff; it doesn't even begin to address the the issue of having a staff that truly mirrors its student body. For that we have to look at percentages of individual ethnicities. If we look at Black/African American licensed staff in public schools statewide, there are a total of 1263 individuals. 960 of them (76%) are employed by the Milwaukee school district. Add in Racine, Madison, and Beloit, and that covers 90% of licensed African American staff. Sun Prairie actually ranks 6th statewide for its percentage of African American staff, and ranks 2nd among the 20 districts similar in size.

Robbing Peter to Look Like Paul?
The simple fact...as borne out by the data...is that there are not enough minority licensed staff to meet the statewide complexion of student bodies. Statewide 25.4% of all public school students are minorities. Comparatively, statewide only 4.5% of licensed staff positions are held by minorities.

Statewide there are a total of 3074 minority public school licensed staff. To match the overall diversity, we would need to replace 14,222 licensed staff with minority candidates. That would mean just shy of a 500% increase in diversified candidates! Where are we going to find these people? Arguably, that would be the role of the HR Minority Recruitment Specialist. But still...what is that person going to do? Raid other districts and entice their staff to come to Sun Prairie? With what as a bargaining chip (other than a Taj MahHighSchool)?  It's not like they could offer them a hiring bonus. That would also be tantamount to robbing Peter so that we could look more like Paul...in a manner of speaking. Only...if we lure minority candidates, then THAT district's minority picture changes. Is it really every district for itself? Screw the other guy...we need to improve OUR diversity even at a cost to yours!??? Or should it more appropriately be a cooperative venture? Robbing Peter to look like Paul helps one set of kids, but at the sacrifice of kids elsewhere.

Isn't this the kind of thing that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) could (should?) be helping with? Is the problem the lack of minorities earning Education degrees?  One would think that we need to answer that question.  And, if so, how do we steer young people of color into the teaching profession?

The Bottom Line
It just seems that, until the pool of candidates is better filled with minorities, throwing a position at the problem is not the answer. The district is spending $30,000 on this new AVID program which theoretically will be spent to provide options for about 30 Talented and Gifted kids. While we agree that is important, is it perhaps more important to spend that money to do SOMETHING for the 2000+ kids of color?

Clearly we need to do something...but the HR Specialist position is not the answer.  One thing we DO need to do is to provide the SPASD HR Department with the necessary tools to be effective.  Exit interviews are great...but if they aren't captured in a database, how can the information ever be effectively--and efficiently--used?


Don't Just Blindly Trust Us. Look at the Data for Yourselves.
2011 Public Enrollment by District by Ethnicity
2011 Statewide (by District) Licensed Staff Ethnicity Report
2011 Statewide (by District) Administrator Ethnicity Report

Positions are counted based on FTE (full-time equivalency), not head count.

“Licensed staff” is defined (DPI) to include: Department Head, Educational Interpreter, Guidance Counselor, Instructional Technology Integrator, Librarian, Library Media Specialist, Program Coordinator, Reading Specialist, School Audiologist, School Nurse, School Occupational Therapist, School Physical Therapist, School Psychologist, School Social Worker, Speech/Language Pathologist, Subject Coordinator, Teacher, Teacher In Charge.

Better Tie That Down Before it Floats Away!

Many folks have commented that the district's Building & Grounds (B&G) "Capital Projects" budget is as bloated as a week-old deer carcass on a hot July day. This budget hovers annually around $1,000,000 and is typically broken down in pieces "estimated" to the nearest $25,000. Nice, eh. And they expect the community to continue to buy that happy crappy?

You know how Phil Frei always can seem to "find" money in the budget when needed? The B&G Capital Projects budget just sits out there and appears to serve as the district's version of Stashitwear.

Take a look at the last 3 years of Capital Budget projections, and see for yourself. See all those blue arrows? That's where an expenditure magically appeared in the next year's budget. Does that mean it didn't get done? If not, what happened to the money budgeted for it previously? And if an item did get accomplished, why are we RE-BUDGETING for it again?

Did they just mail it in?  This is absolutely embarrassing, reprehensible, and stands out as YET ANOTHER piece of questionable data coming out of the district office. It's no wonder that --thanks to John Welke--- the school board took notice and voted to reduce this proposed budget by 15% for 2011-12.  Even spendaholic Jim McCourt felt that a 10% cut was warranted.

The real question is: why is this shoddy work allowed to come forward and be presented to the public? Who's accountable? Oh...that's right...Dr. "Can I get a tax shelter" Culver is. 

As the great Mr. Miyagi noted about his famed "crane technique", the great thing about this data is that the district "no can defend" it. There is simply no defense which can rationalize their "budgeting".

Bad Data Leading to Bad Decisions?

At this past Monday's Facilities, Technology, and Transportation (FTT) meeting, the district was presenting their case to support a Buildings & Grounds budget that has come under a great deal of scrutiny of late. And for good reason.

Just when the spotlight is shining at its brightest, one would reasonably assume that the district's best foot would be positioned forward. In reality, the district shot itself in that particular foot in what turned out to be a culmination of a growing trend of providing bad (or at the very least, questionable) data.

The district marched out a survey they conducted regarding buildings & grounds budget costs of various school districts. The data seemed to suggest that Sun Prairie was providing its community with savings of over $1.25M over "average" districts. Unfortunately, the whole shebang came down like a house of cards when it was exposed that:

• the "savings were based on an error where data for Verona was credited to Sun Prairie
• the data were "censored": the district had a survey of 42 districts, but "cherry-picked" 10 from that list. We never got to see what was culled. Would they have made SPASD look bad? What the public saw gave no mention of the difference.
• Some columns were totaled; others not. It is speculated that columns not totaled were avoided because the data did not reflect what the District wanted us to believe.
• The survey indicated that SPASD has 75.5 FTE grounds workers---50% more than the nearest district. Then we're told the number of staff is only 65.5. No explanation...no data to substantiate the "correction". RUFKM?
• It was yet another apples-to-pineapples comparison. Some district data was based on last year; others this year.
• An over-inflated Capital Projects budget (more on this to come)

To Err is Human...BUT...
To err may be human, but to err as frequently and as egregiously as this school district administration has is simply unacceptable. We've encountered so many errors, we've lost track. Frankly, it's become the expectation...and that's just plain wrong. Just off the top of our head, we had the 4K transportation cost errors (the number changed 3 times), the busing cost errors for the Wyndham Hills subdivision last summer, the failure to include the most critical attachment as part of a signed $10M transportation contract. And countless others. Tim Culver says he is accountable for the district...but when is he going to man up, take ownership of the problem, and FIX IT??! Oh...that's right...he's been busy negotiating sweet little tax shelters into his contract. Even Phil Frei was completely non-plussed when the errors were pointed out to him by board and committee members. He just simply said, "Oh, yeah, that's an error."

Now nobody on the board is going to declare "Bad Data!" publicly...you know...with decorum and all....but you KNOW they have to see this and privately be fuming. We suspect, however, that there have been a lot of back room discussions of late regarding the lack of quality, reliable, accurate data coming out of the district.

Beware the Ides of October!

The sad part of all of this is that this district wants us to sign of on what will be at least $72M budget. We have John Whalen suggesting that a 4.5% mill rate increase is plenty good enough. And they base all their fancy projections on poor quality data such as what they have presented to date? Really? REALLY! How quickly the board seems to have forgotten the day the taxp-ayers had had enough of their spendaholic ways and voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M.

And For Their Next Trick...

Will they convert 1000 cases of copier paper into a teacher?

Certainly if they can toss a few buildings and grounds ingredients and create an FTE Utility Worker, creating a teacher position out of a bunch of copier paper is not so hard to fathom...right? Heck, enough of this requiring one ream of paper per kid in the school supply list happy crappy. if we made every kid in the district bring in a case of copier paper, we could hire SIX teachers!

Mix the following ingredients:
5,000 Personal Services
500 Employee Travel
500 Apparel
5,000 Equipment Components
3,000 Equipment Addition
4,500 Equipment Replacement
500 Equipment Rent

Add about $11,000 of Seasonal Hire budget to taste.
Bake approximately 2 months.
Makes one Utility Worker
Serves a district of 7,000 students.

School Board and Committee Meeting Hot Topics for May 9, 2011

First up is a joint FTT/Finance meeting discussing budget proposals and purchasing guidelines.

3.01 Action on Buildings and Grounds Operating and Capital Projects Budget

Agenda item link
This low hanging fruit is ripe for the picking. Of course the district will attempt to dilute the issue with a myriad of minor issues. Standard misdirection. Stay the course; the numbers do not lie. We are overstaffed and over-budgeted.

3.02 Conversion of Buildings and Grounds Operating Budget to Staffing (Utility Worker)
Agenda item link
What are you.... all hopped on goofballs? How does sacrificing ONE YEAR of budget fluff cover the costs of a PERMANENT employee? Just when we think this district couldn't possibly come up with anything more wacky, here comes this nutjob.

4.01 Procedure DJ-R, Purchasing Procedure
Agenda item link
Simply stated, something is wrong when the policy amounts allow the district to purchase a brand spanking new VEHICLE without school board approval. This was a Jim Carrel (in cohorts with Jim McCourt) mistake that needs to be erased. We need to not only SOLICIT but OBTAIN at least 3 bids on anything over $5,000-10,000.

Then we move on to the school board where two of the previous subjects get acted upon in a "same night" decision. Thought we didn't do that? And what's the rush? If the budget isn't "final" until October?

4.03 Use of Fund Balance to Lower 2011-12 Tax Levy
Agenda item link
Why is this even a question? Let's see...you have more in fun balance than policy minimum? You have an opportunity to save struggling taxpayers money? DUH! This is a no-brainer. The only question we have is why not take MORE out of fun balance? After all, we proposed doing so previously with no adverse impact. Many other school districts are doing it.

4.04 2011-2012 Budget Parameters
Agenda item link

ONLY a 3.5% tax levy increase? Are you KIDDING us? Do you READ the newspapers?

[Info] 8.03 Transfer of 2011-12 Budget Dollars for New Staffing and AVID

Agenda item link
Convert $19,000 in budget parameter and $11,000 of the "seasonal hire" budget to hire an FTE? REALLY? Really! We gotta ask the simple question...does the $30K include the cost of fringe benefits? Because it it doesn't, then where's THAT coming from? And if it does...let's assume benefits are 30% of salary cost. That means a $30K employee earns $23K in salary and $7K in benefits. $23K translates to about $11/hr. Who are we going to get for that money?

And more importantly, Budget money is one-year money...people are forever. How are we paying for this person NEXT year? Or is the plan, once hired, to just hide...oooooh...did we say "hide"...we think we meant "slide" him/her into the budget as existing salary/.fringe cost? And what about raises down the road? That will cost us even more. Pull a Nancy Reagan, and just say "NO". We don't take candy from strangers, and we don't convert budget "materials" into people.

Building & Grounds Budget Exposed

Upon request of a school board member, a review of the recent years budget vs. expenditure for the Buildings & Grounds Department was initiated. It is what we thought it was.

There's a lot of our money stashed in them thar B&G skivvies. Take a look at the budget vs. expenditure reports going back to 2007-08. We've cleaned up the district's PDF/image spreadsheet, but feel free to view the original at this link.

On average, over the past 4 years, the B&G budget has been UNDERspent (OVER budgeted) by nearly $300K. That means that about 15% of the B&G budget must be "fluff".

The district is "projecting" that the Capital budget will be spent down to zero this year IF the "Royal Oaks" secured entrance project is initiated. There is a current balance of about another $35,000 in the general B&G budget which the district insists will be spent down.

What the district DOESN'T say is that if it were'nt for the District Office re-model project costing $165,000 more than anticipated, there would be a $165,000 surplus. In fact, had the board voted against the district office remodel, there would be a surplus of $240,000!

When this money becomes "surplus", oh say about this time of year, that's when administration goes on a shopping spree of sorts. This money gets transfered elsewhere and let the spending begin.

The problem is that this district has to learn how to budget appropriately. And that means no fluff. Right now, the community simply has no trust for the information provided. Every number presented is believed to be inflated or "spun" to tell the story they want to tell.

So...Administration wants to budget over $1.9M for the B&G department for 2011-12? We don't think so!

OurDough Pants Discovered; District Switches to StashItWear

We must speak quickly. They're on to us.
The District knows that we've discovered their top secret OurDough pants.
They have subsequently switched tactics. Our intel reports suggest that they now are equipped with StashitWear! Be on the alert.

Oops...They Did It Again!

Britney Spears is seriously gonna start copyright infringement proceedings.

Those of you that peruse the Municipal Court News for giggles may have noted (pg 4, Section 1, col. 3, Sun Prairie Star, May 5, 2011) that ONCE AGAIN, we the taxpayers are going to have to pony up $63.60 to pay for YET ANOTHER citation for failure to remove snow from sidewalks (March 1).

Come on, people! This is like the 4th...possibly 5th... occasion in the past 2-3 years! Are you telling us that we employ 75 Building & Grounds staff and NO ONE could get this taken care of? Really? REALLY!

Mistakes happen...we're all human. But when the same mistakes keep happening over and over again, someone needs to be accountable.

Or to recall those memorable words from TopGun,

"Damn, that's [at least] twice!

I want some butts!"

We Have a Winner!

We don't get very many, so we need to celebrate 'em when we do.

Abigail Benzine was one of 15 Dane Co. students -- and the only one from Sun Prairie-- who were announced as recipients of $2,500 National Merit Scholarships.  Abigail is one of only 55 Wisconsin students and one of only 2500 nationwide to receive the honor.

Area winners include:
7 from Madison high schools
1 Madison home-school student
2 from Edgewood High
2 from Middleton-Cross Plains
1 from Stoughton
1 from Verona

For more information click this link

Has Prom Become the Have-Have Not Line?

Next Saturday, Sun Prairie will hold its Prom ....at the Monona Convention Center. That's right...not at our fabulous new gymnasium at the TajMah High school. We received this e-mail from a loyal reader. We think it raises some valid points. Certainly points to ponder.

We don't mean to take away the "magic" from what is supposed to be a treasured moment in time. But at the same time, most of us enjoyed the camaraderie of decorating the gym. In fact, it made the event itself mean a little bit more. Times are tough and money is tight. Seeing as Sun Prairie just opened its ginormous awe-inspiring gym, we wonder if it couldn't have been held right here in town. Safer and less expensive. And maybe it might even have fostered a little "connectedness". N'est ce pas? Here's the e-mail received

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear SP-EYE...
Had a discussion this week with a friend with a daughter who is a junior at SPHS. Seems that prom season is here. My memories of prom are renting a tux, driving my dad's car to take a date to dinner, and then to a dance at the high school gym. Not cheap but didn't break the bank either.

Well, prom these days has a whole new meaning. My friend told me that between the dress, limo, dinner, ticket and other costs, they are into prom for almost a thousand bucks...and that is going with a group to split some costs! Prom is held at Monona Terrace, not at the gym in the Taj Ma-high school. When I commented on the absurd costs, my friend said "I am convinced they set it up this way to keep the poor kids out." She was only being half facetious.

When we have a school system looking at hiring a "diversity" person and we ahve a community with an obvious split between the "haves" and the "have nots" I think it is truly sad that the school supports such a prom. I am sure there are many under-privileged young ladies who would love to be able to attend their high school prom; things like this only serve to deepen the cultural (and racial) divide.

I am sure the "haves" enjoy taking pictures of their kids and thinking of a NYC coming out party but, seriously, shouldn't we be supporting a more inclusive type of prom...one that makes use of the gym...or is that just a time that has come and gone and I should get over thinking that things were better the way they used to be...seems I recall my dad telling me that once...

Spotlight on Administrative Costs

Administrators are bucking for raises. Phil Frei told us that he/the district has budgeted for 1.6% increases in salary. At last week's board "work-study" session, Frei shared a graphic which purports that Sun Prairie spends the least percentage of its budget on "Administrative and Operating Expenses" than the 7 school districts closest in size to ours.

Not only does such a figure look good when one is tryingf to "sell" a budget, but it also looks really nice when one is trying to sell a community--or school board--on the idea of raises.


We're not sure what constitutes "Administrative and Operating Expenses". It's kinda nebulous. We'd rather look at absolutes...tangibles. You know? So we went data mining on the DPI site. Perfect timing, as DPI just posted data for 2010-11. Frei indicated that his data was "the most recent" available on the DPI site. It is noteworthy that for most "reports" available for school district, the most current available data is 2-3 years old. Let's use current information, dontcha think?

We looked--initially-- at three variables:
1. Total Salary and Fringe benefit costs for staff classified as "Administrators"
2. Salary and Fringe Costs (dollars) per child (based on 2010-11 enrollment)
3. Number of kids enrolled per Administrative staff member.

Take a look at our data. It seems a tad different than the picture the District wanted to leave you with. But you decide.

More to come on this topic.

The Other Side of the Fence - Climate Change Hitting Sun Prairie?

Has anyone else noticed that over the past year or so, our school board is slowly showing signs of reality? There has been a subtle shift, starting with the spring 2010 election. We've gone from a 7-0 board of rubber stampers, who simply smile for the camera, speak in superlatives, and bow to each and every desire of Dr. Culver and his Administration.

Over time, however, we've seen more and more split votes. Recently, we've seen a spate of 4-3 votes coming down on the side that the majority of the community supports. Is this the new norm? Unfortunately, when the vote is 4-3, SOMEONE needs to be the swing vote. That individual rides the fence until forced to commit to one side or the other. Our fence sitter is none other than Terry Shimek. The swing vote holder becomes the most powerful individual on a split board. One side or another may try to sway them outside of the public eye. Anyone wonder how many calls on Shimek's cellphone have come from Whalen or McCourt recently?

Shimek represents the swing vote because he has had such a fascination for waffles over the past year. Listen to him during board discussion and he leans one direction, only to inevitably vote the opposite. He could play Harvey Dent in the next Batman film. Shimek claims to be a fiscal conservative and for the most part poses logical questions in response to budget initiatives. What we need to figure out is how to keep him on that track.

Case in Point: The Human Resources Specialist position
Shimek waffled quite a bit during the lengthy discussion phase(s) of this issue. When pressed, he voted in favor of staying a vote. Ultimately, however, when John Welke made the motion heard round the district, Shimek was all in.

This past week, however, we learned that the district believed that even though they have decided not to fill the Human Resources position, they still get to keep--and spend-- the $75,000 earmarked for the position ion the 2011-12 budget. Excuse us! But what part of "NO NEW MONEY" did Culver, Frei, and McCourt not understand?

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 3-2
Yea: David Stackhouse, John M Welke, Terry Shimek
Nay: Caren Diedrich, John Whalen

Now it sounds as if McCourt and Culver have been plotting to re-consider the position again. Do these people EVER lose graciously? The community heard discussion, and the district made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to sacrifice anything to have this position that is as the top of their want list. Could it be that even THEY don't think that one position is going to solve the cultural disparity in this district? And if they decide they don't want the position, they still want to spend the $75,000!!!! Terry Shimek seemed to be waffling again, as his comments seemed to be moving to support either re-considering the position or allowing the district to spend the $75,000 elsewhere. That's not being fiscally responsible. We've seen over $1M in surplus in each of the past 2 years despite "tight" economic times. No bloodflow has been staunched by belts being overly tightened.

The Rubber Stamp Gang
The "old guard", who've never heard a Culver recommendation they didn't love, consists of Caren Diedrich, John Whalen, and Jim McCourt. These folks so live in fear of being labeled "micro-managers", that they leave everything up to Culver. If he says the district needs it, they're conductors on his train. They seem to believe that if they do not vote "YES" in support of every district desire, that quality of education in Sun Prairie will shrivel like....like...a raisin.

The Voices of Reason
Then we have the "new blood", consisting of Jill Camber Davidson, John Welke, and now Tom Weber. These people LISTEN to the community, carefully WEIGHT the benefits of any district request against the costs of such a move, without compromising the quality of education provided.

The Man in the Middle
That leaves Mr. Shimek. It's gotta be painful straddling the fence like that. Where will he come down?

Quotable Quotes from the School Board Budget "Work-Study" Session

 On the idea of spending $165,000 for 7,000 of hiring retired teachers to serve as Reading Interventionists:

"I'm gonna throw a little cold water on that[idea]. We have trouble finding substitutes. How are we going to find [retired] teachers that won't disappear during the winter months?

--Caren Diedrich

On the district administration's "plan" to convert Building & Grounds budget dollars to money to hire an FTE "utility" worker.

"What we heard was, 'try to find [money for staff] within your budget'."

--Phil Frei

In response to questioning regarding why the Building & Grounds plan to convert budget dollars to an FTE was an "Informational" agenda item, instead of something the Committee voted on.

"Really, the Committee Chair's role is to decide what is brought forth as information vs. action."

--Jim McCourt

"If people start shifting money around and we change the staffing percentages, I'm concerned. I would like to see a budget justification [for any new positions]."

--Jill Camber Davidson

On the issue of what the school board's role is in budgeting:

"We set the parameters and say that you, the Administration, are the experts...until we see something really amiss. [The board] saying that 'Lisa Dawes shouldn't have a cell phone' is not the role we want to play."

--Jim McCourt

"I'm OK with saying that the overall budget we want to be + or - [something]. We have a District Administrator that we're comfortable with making these decisions."

--John Whalen

On the question of spending $350K to improve security at Royal Oaks elementary.

"But would have it been cheaper to add an external vs. internal secure entryway? That was a question I asked that was not answered."

--Terry Shimek

On the issue of whether Buildings & Grounds budget was over-inflated.

"I do not want one damn hole in any damn roof!"

--Caren Diedrich

On no particular issue. Diedrich got up from the table and just started spinning her chair around.

"This chair is going down [or around??]!"

--Caren Diedrich