CandyGram!

Teachers across the state need to exercise caution when answering the door this summer. 35 years after the summer of "JAWS", there are reports of a new shark loitering in Wisconsin: the WEAC-shark.

this from an article in a recent edition of the "Wisconsin School Refomer":

June 21, 2011

 Will WEAC use intimidation to force union members to pay dues?

Union calls for summer “home visits” to convince members to pay

(Read the full article here)

" WEAC has started the process of collecting members’ bank information so the union can automatically deduct dues. But union officials are clearly worried that many of their members, once freed from mandatory participation, will drop out and refuse to pay.     So they’re relying on some favorite old tactics to keep the revenue flowing – group intimidation and door-to-door thuggery. 

     Ron Brandt, president of Southern Lakes United Educators (a subgroup of WEAC), recently spread the word that the union is looking for members to do “home visits” to those teachers who decline to share their bank information."

"Candy" gram? 
We bet some of you thought there would be a different angle to the story beneath the headline ;-)
Oh trust us...there IS more to come on THAT subject.  Stay tuned! 

Hey! We're Number 45!

Phil Frei and his Traveling Pie-in-the-Sky Budget Show like to compare Sun Prairie administrative costs to the state average.  And we look great! That trick's not working so well anymore.  As they say in the deep south, "that dog don't hunt".  Heck even the new associate editor for the STAR, covering the recent budget hearing, asked if we didn't have a more realistic comparison.

Well... here's where we rank:  45th.  Not even in the top 10%. At least when we look at Administrative costs per student
.
Now, if we talk Administrative costs as a percent of operating expenses....now we look a little better: 25th.
Check it out for yourselves; data is from the Wisconsin Taxpayers' Alliance:

http://www.oshkosh.k12.wi.us/site_uploads/uploads/2010_school_admin_costs.pdf

In both cases, 12 out of the 20 similar-sized districts to Sun Prairie rank higher than us.
It is what it is people.

Why Don't the Numbers Ever Add Up?

Why does this whole budget get more convoluted every year? For years we were shown the projected mill rate increase. Even last year we were shown the tax levy amount, the tax levy increase, and the projected mill rate based on several equalized value scenarios.  Now, suddenly, we're told "forget about the mill rate--it's beyond our control". We're told to focus on the tax levy. Sure...except the tax levy doesn't tell the average Joe what that means in ternms of how much extra cash he needs to pony up come tax time.

 What changed? Well...that's simple. For years and years, the equalized value of property was growing by leaps and bounds. And that's nice because in the mill rate formula, the equalized value is the denominator. Recalling our basic math, the larger the denominator, the smaller the net result (quotient). Property value appreciated so nicely, that districts would always be able to report a lower mill rate increase come fall than projections during budget planning. Two years ago, during the budget process, there was no discussion of "tax levy" increase. What we were told was:

The mill rate would be the highest in 2009-10 at $11.42. With the introduction of 4K and the increase in equalized aid it brings, the mill rate starts to decline in 2010-11.

Starts to decline, huh? Great prediction there, puts you right up there with Harold Camping!    For the 2010-11 year, the district-wide mill rate was $12.12, which is 6% higher than the projected mill rate zenith. For 2011-12, the district-wide mill rate--- with another 3% drop in equalized value, and if the board approves spending that "unallocated" $725,000--- COULD reach $12.93, 13.2% higher than the projected maximum.

Math Problem Number 1: the magic $725K.  

The district told us that there was $725K "unallocated" in the budget. Then they gave us a list of "wants"...you know like a kid's wish list before entering Toys 'R Us.  They don't want to take the $725K out, ostensibly because they want to provide "the worst case" scenario for the budget...i.e., they spend that "unallocated" $725K on something else (their wish list).  

This doesn't pass the smell test as a response because IF they really wanted to present the worst case scenario, then why did they calculate the projected property tax increase ($84 for a $200K home) on 0% growth?  Phil Frei told us that current projections are that the equalized value would be coming in at a 2-3% decrease.  If presenting the worst case scenario was their goal, then why not say an additional $162 on a $200K home.  We think you know the answer to that.

The second head scratcher is that if one totals the cost of implementing everything on the "wish list", it comes to only (only?) $600K.  Okay.........where's the other $125K come from???  More slush money?  If there's nothing even on the wish list on which to spend it, why is it even there?  Kinda reminds us of that scene in Wayne's World when  Mike Myers' Wayne Campbell receives a gun rack as a present from his creepy stalker ex-girlfriend.  Unallocated money in the budget?  Shee...YAH...you don't even have a budget!

More Funky Math: The Levy that Wouldn't Add Up.
This math is no longer fuzzy...it's just plain funky.
Bear with us here.  Let's start with Phil Frei's PowerPoint presentation that tells us that the projected tax levy increase is 3.48% .  He doesn't tell us what the actual dollar amount is.  But, no problem, we can just schlep on over to the DPI website and get that info.  We find that for 2010-11, the tax levy, was $45,503,637.  So...a 3.48% increase would mean a 2011-12 tax levy of $47,087,164...right?  And that's an increase of $1,583,527 over last year...right?  Perfect so far.

So then we look at Phil's slide 17 from the June 16th public hearing on the budget.

pThe current projected levy increase is 3.48%.

pThe general fund levy increase is $955,916. 

pThe referendum approved debt levy increase is $647,000.

pThe combination of both levies equals the 3.48% increase.

Seems pretty straight forward...right?  I mean we're talking a percentage to TWO decimal places.  It's THAT precise.
Only...Only...if we add the $955,916 to the $647,000, we get $1,602,916...

...and we just got done saying that a 3.48% increase to last year's tax levy is exactly $1,583,527.
And that represents ANOTHER  $ 19,389 in the budget for which we have no explanation!
 Yes...we know...it's "only" $20,000.  Who cares...right?  In the big picture of the budget, it's small potatoes.

But it could also pay for a hefty amount towards a new gym floor at Royal Oaks.

And more to the point...WE didn't say the tax levy increase was exactly 3.48%....the district did.

Why didn't they say a 3.52% increase? (which would be accurate).

Could it really be as silly as them needing to show a figure below the "goal" of less than 3.5(0)%...so they just 'fudged' it? 

The Bottom Line

The numbers just never seem to add up.  Do they even LOOK at the numbers they gave us previously? Do they ever check their math?  Isn't that something we expect out of our 4th graders?  

Is it too much to ask to see all the information for a draft budget?

Is it too much to ask that numbers add up and make sense?

We don't think so.

Green Bay Teachers Whine About Having to Work 8-hr Days

We picked up an an interesting article this past week.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, teachers in the Green Bay Area School District make an average salary of $51,355 with fringe benefits worth $26,410 for a total of $77,765 per year. According to the DPI, a Wisconsin school year is 180 days. 

With these numbers, the average Green Bay teacher makes approximately $432.03 per day. With the addition of a half hour to the school day, Green Bay teachers will see their hourly wage decrease from $57.60 to just $54.00 per hour.

Do SPASD Teachers Have it as Good? 
The school day for bargaining unit members shall consist of eight (8)consecutive hours ...

Within the aforesaid eight (8) consecutive hour day, the bargaining unit member agrees to be in school a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes prior to 8 the start of class and a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes following the conclusion of his/her assigned instructional and supervision schedule. The eight (8) hours include a minimum of thirty (30) continuous, duty-free minutes for lunch.
--2011-12 SPEA contract (XXVI. WORKING CONDITIONS, B. School Day).

Now, at first glance, some might argue that by paying for their 30-min. lunch, we might only be getting a 7.5 hr work-day ourselves.  Most employers do not pay their employees during lunch.  Most employees are free to take 3-60 minutes of unpaid time for lunch.  What most employers DO offer, however, is a paid 15 minute break in the morning and another in the afternoon.  If, instead of offering paid breaks, we offer paid 30 minute lunch time...is that not equivalent?

Are Those The Winds of Change Blowing?

It's not just rhetoric, people, these are truly unprecedented times.  The economy seems to choke and sputter like an engine with a fouled spark plug.  Consider all that has transpired of late, and it all begs the question: is it time for new leadership within the Sun Prairie School District?  We offer 5 solid indicators.

1. District Administrator Tim Culver's Unofficial Approval Rating is at an all-time low.
Years ago Culver could toss it aside as just a few malcontents.  He's referred to them as "Nitters and Pickers" and "Wreckers".  SheeeeAH...as if name calling is really going to solve the problem.  But these folks didn't go away.  Rather, they have brought the dirty laundry out into the bright of day.  And they multiplied like rabbits on the farm.

For a school district to function effectively and move forward, its leader must have the support of both the public and the district staff.  Frankly we don't hear much other than outright contempt for Culver from any of the schools.  Ask any of your friends and neighbors and the story is the same...the staff just no longer support Culver.  OK...he may have the support of a few of his inner circle administrators...you know...his "pets".  And let's not think for one minute that Culver doesn't have his pets.  It's as plain as day for anyone who takes the time to see which administrators are getting the 7% raises, and which ones are getting a pittance.  It's also clear which administrators are getting revised job descriptions to give them whatever they want.

Now Culver can likely point to his annual "360 degree" evaluation, whereby a number of community members and staff are asked to evaluate Culver.  Here's the skinny on that little con, however....Culver himself hand picks those who receive the evaluation, he writes the evaluation, and they are turned back in to him!!!  How cool is that?!  How would you, in your job, like to be able to decide WHO gets to do your performance review, YOU get to write the questions, and all the surveys come back to YOU?!  HOW.  COOL. IS. THAT!

Oh, on one level it is tres cool.  But it's also tres wrong.  Frankly it's more a symptom of the illness affecting this school district.  At the grocery store, we can do a little trimming when the cauliflowers curds start showing discoloration or become speck;ed with black mold spots.   But how much can you shave it and still be able to sell it before it's time to toss it out?

2. Culver Has Clearly Outlined His Exit Plan
Unless you've had your head in the sand, Culver's recent re-working of his contract clearly outlined a plan to stay 4 more years.  Hell..he gives away money he's earned if he DOESN'T stay 4 more years! All signs point to his targeting June 2015 as his retirement date.  And, of course, if the school board keeps extending his contract long before it expires each year, why should he cut and run until he's good an ready?

The problem is that we all know employees who, in the waning years of their career, simply 'mail it in'.   Can we survive 4 years of "mailing it in"?   We're losing bright shining stars like Rainey Briggs.   And has anyone taken notice of the quality teachers that have left the building?  We can make their leaving about money, but most teachers are not in it for the cash.  They want to be in a district that is focused on all the right things and in a district that empowers them to educate our kids in a manner that allows them to not just reach for, but to actually grasp the stars.

Culver could retire now.  But he plans to stay with us for 4 more years....you know...like a governor's term.  Except we don't get to stage a recall election.   He's planning to implement his beloved Mandarin Chinese program.  Is THAT what this district needs?

3. The Public No Longer Trusts the Information Coming Out of the District
We build over $100M in new schools and we don't bid the architecture.  We've lost track of how many errors we've been handed regarding key financial data, staffing, spending, or virtually anything.  It's not just a a precious few errors of a typographical nature, either.  It's significantly flawed information.  And it happenbs all the time...and comes from some VERY well compensated people!

We have budgets built on more fluff than a marshmallow factory. Remember all the bogus numbers we received during the whole Boundary Ordeal? The Royal Oaks gym floor problem had never been identified publicly, yet suddenly we learn of a deal to bury the cost of the repairs into the "Secure Entrance" project.  And then we learn that it's really not just the addition of a secure entrance, but a wholesale relocation of the administrative offices.

Let's talk for a minute about funny money. We build 2% raises into the budget and then, when the school board approves less than that, the original budgeted amount remains in the budget!  What's funnier still is that the school board doesn't even make the decision on how much to budget for raises....Deputy District Administrator and Business Manager Phil Frei does!!!!   How cool is that?  He happens to be one of the administrators, and he just happens to be the one guy that decides how much money to add to the budget for raises!  And then...and this is the best part...which group of employees fared the best in the raise department? Why the administrators!  Fancy that!  They got a 1% raise.  Then, their mileage stipends--which amount to another 1%-- were added into their salaries, resulting in a 2% raise (and raising the base on which retirement pay is determined).  No wait...THIS is the best part.  Instead of just converting the mileage stipends to salary...which would have been a net wash....the administrators now get to simply claim mileage for travel in Dane Co. and get reimbursed for it at the IRS rate!!!  So they get to have their cake and eat too...spoon fed by us...the taxpayers.

 The school board either cuts or identifies saving in the budget of $725,000 but the budget is not reduced!  They just earmark it for other spending!!!  Is that what you folks at home do with your budgets?  Cut the cable TV out so that you can just use that $150/month to buy a new car?  Or do you use it to pay down existing debt?  Or put it in savings to weather the storms that may yet be on the horizon?

How could the public possibly trust anything coming out of the district?  Who's in charge here?  Well...none other than district administrator, Tim Culver.  And how can anyone have faith in a leader that allows this type of shoddy performance?

4. SPASD Is a Rudderless Ship...We Lack Direction
Consider all the discussion over the past year or so, and it's clear that this ship lacks a rudder....or perhaps a capable captain.  The district publicly screams that a Human Resources position specializing in Minority Recruitment and retention is its top priority.  But when the board said, "Go ahead and fill the position...but using your existing allotment of FTEs (including 2 vacancies), the district folded faster than Superman on laundry day.  Suddenly the story became "Well...it's important...but not THAT important".

Our district enrollment is compromised of 7% kids of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, but in his infinite wisdom, Captain Culver is looking to start a Mandarin Chinese program.  If there is any doubt about his jones for Chinese culture, check out his blog post regarding a visit from 25 Chinese principals in April.

And if it's a charter school we're after...why not something more "STEM" (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics" based?  We expound on the virtues of geothermal heating and cooling and the need for sustainability, yet when Cap'n Culver talks about new curriculum, it's Mandarin Chinese. How much sense does that make?  Given a choice between a Mandarin Chinese-based or STEM-based charter/magnet school, which does the community believe would garner more interest (and perhaps funding!)?

We're giving out "A" like skittles at a middle school picnic. And nobody seems to care.  In fact, they seem to think it's a good thing!  Except this level of proficiency doesn't seem to be born out by either WKCE or ACT scores.  1 in 4 kids graduated with High Honors (GPA above 3.75, A-).  And if you saw this week's STAR,32 kids in the 10th grade received perfect 4.0 GPAs for the 4th quarter!!!!  Sure... parents love "A"s...right up until that first semester grade report in college shows a "C" average.

So...folks, like a rudderless ship, we move this way and that way, without a concrete destination.  Has the Captain left the bridge already?

5. Change at the School Board Level
We suffered through years of 7-0 school board votes supporting every little Culver whim.  We had a school board president, you know, the leader of a taxing authority, who was three years in arrears on property taxes! We had a series of one-year wonders.  But as a community, we grew disenchanted with the complexion of our school board.  And so we voted for change.  3 years ago, (then) new-comer Jill Camber-Davidson received more votes than any incumbent running.  2 years ago, John Welke ran a write-in campaign and put a serious scare into the incumbents.  Last year, he won handily, taking the highest number of votes.  This year, again, a new-comer took the highest voted total.  In his election to the board, Tom Weber shattered the previous record for the highest number of votes received by a school board candidate.  The message is clear that the community wants the board to move in a different direction.

Welke has most definitely put his stamp on things in his 14 months as a board member.  He talked the talk and he's walking the walk.  Welke supports a quality education, while also demanding that the district be both transparent and good stewards of the taxpayers' money.  Welke's stronger leadership presence has also enable Jill Camber-Davidson to come in to bloom.   Meanwhile, Diedrich, McCourt, and Whalen will basically support anything coming out of the district office.  Diedrich, in particular, likes to talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, but all it takes is for "the big dog" (Culver) to says he needs (or wants) something, and Diedrich melts like a blushing schoolgirl.  That leaves Terry "Picket Fence" Shimek, who seems to enjoy his perch squarely upon the pickets of the school board fence.  Most votes generally come down to Shimek.  More often than not, recently anyway, Shimek has voted the same way as Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke.  of course, being the fence sitter he is, that could all change.

The bottom line is that the frequency of 4-3 votes on controversial issues--instead of 7-0 votes supporting the district-- are suggestive of a change in the degree to which the board supports Culver's agenda.
=====================================================
What's that all add up to?

It's time for a change at the top, people.
Now...if only we had a school board with cojones.
Or should that be a school board with 球.

Game On for Culver's Dank Delusion of a Mandarin Chinese Program?

From the "We Hear T'ings: Department:

Remember how Culver and a group of his peeps were going to explore the possibility of an elementary charter school/ Mandarin Chinese immersion program and report back to the board?

Well skip the board and just sign up because we're hearing that incorporating Mandarin Chinese into the district is a done deal that will occur by the start of the 2012-1 school year.

POINT - COUNTERPOINT ON THE MANDARIN CHINESE PLAN

POINT

Mandarin Chinese?  Really?  Don't go screamin' "xenophobia", now, but one has to wonder:  Is Culver thinking that the economy is tanking so badly that we all should be brushing up on the new landlords' language?  Or is he still trying to catch up with his district administrator buddy in Verona?  And why are we worrying about what ANYBODY is up to instead of just focusing on our own kids?

And while we're on the subject.  We're hoping that the rumors we're hearing are just that...rumors.  'Cause we'd be wondering how much it would cost John Q. TaxPayer to develop this little Mandarin Chinese program.

Let's get real here.  WKCE scores tell us that we aren't even doing that well with English.  Maybe not the best indication that it's time to tackle one of the toughest languages out there.  Want to do something different?  You know...be a leader instead of a follower?  How about incorporating Latin into the curriculum?  While some will declare it a dead language, others will testify to its strength not only as a true romance language, but also it's utility in helping kids learn better ENGLISH grammar and writing skills.

And if we're really trying to promote worldly or cultural  awareness, don't we have more people in this country that speak some dialect of Spanish?  You want to immerse kids in a language?  How about picking one that's (A) easier to learn, and (B) something more of our kids have a realistic chance of using in their lives/careers?  Spanish is plain and simply the language that the average kid is most likely to encounter in his/her life.

Mandarin Chinese?  Really?  Who comes up with this elitist nonsensical crap?  If you really have a jones to teach an Asiatic language, why not Hmong?  Hello! McFly!   Someone needs to get over to GNC and get a hold of some fenugreek.

COUNTERPOINT
Psych!  There isn't one. It's our way...no highway option.  This be our blog and we really don't see the value in defending introduction of a language most kids will never have a need to use.

What The District Would Rather You Not Know

The June 16, Budget Hearing was all about sleight of hand and basic mis-direction.  Don't answer the questions you don't want the public to know---instead keep repeating a mantra.  You know...kind of like politicians that don't answer questions during a debate, they just keep reciting what they want to tell you.

What's the projected tax levy?
What they want you to focus on is the % increase over last year...and that is 3.48%.
Yeah?...but what is the actual levy amount?
OK, since they won't, let's do the math for you.
It starts with last year's tax levy, which was $45,503,637.  Therefore, if the district's draft budget represents a 3.5% increase, then the plan is to levy $47,087,164  this year.

The increase in levy is this $1.6M, with $650K of that going to debt and $950K additional for the General Fund.

What the district isn't saying:
Either through savings or cuts made by the school board, the "budget" has been reduced by $725,000.  BUT...the district did not take this money out of the budget.  They took out or reduced line items, but they left  the required revenue in the budget.  It's a sweet little deal so that they can convince you and the board to fund the district's other initiatives.  You know what's actually more interesting?  They left $725,000 "unallocated" in the budget, yet if one sums up the total cost of all their desired initiatives, the total is only $600,000!!!  So...why didn't they reduce the budget by $125,000?  Hmmm?  $725K represents 17% more than they need to fund all the initiatives they want.  It's just more of the same...put more cash in the Munny Pot.  


Actually, if you remove the $725,000 from the budget, the tax levy increase is reduced from 3.48% (let's call it 3.5%, shall we?)  to a mere 1.9%  Now that's more reasonable, right?

What is the projected 2011-12 mill rate?
The district doesn't want to tell you!  Their mantra is, "Focus on the tax levy"...remember?

Mill rate is tax levy divided by Equalized Value x 1000.  The equalized value is projected to remain flat (more on that to come!).  Therefore, if the tax levy is increasing by 3.5%, then so is the mill rate.  Since the final mill rate for the district last year was $12.12, then a 3.5% increase would make it $12.54.

The TRUE mill rate (without the budget fluff).
First, once we remove that $725,000 from the budget, the tax levy is increasing by 1.9% and then so, therefore is the mill rate.  That would reduce the mill rate to $12.35.

What will be the tax on an average ($200K) home?
The district presentation indicates that a home valued at $200K will pay an additional $84.39.
OK...but what's the total tax?  Obviously the district would rather not highlight the total school tax.  But we'll do it for you.  At $12.54 mill rate, the total school tax on a $200K home will be $2,508.

What's the real tax?
Once we take out the $725K,  the tax paid on a $200K home is actually $2,470, an increase of only $46.11 over last year.

How valid is the district's projection of a 0% increase in the district-wide equalized value?
When asked, the district reluctantly indicated that current projections (which we will know by August 15th) is for equalized value to once again DROP this year by at least 2% and more likely 3%.

How does a 3% drop in Equalized Value the mill rate/property tax?
The district flat out does not want to discuss this, so we will.
Again, assuming that the $725,000 "unallocated" is removed, if the equalized value drops 3% district-wide, the mill rate jumps to $12.73, a 5.0% increase over last year.  Note that, with a 3% reduction in equalized value, the tax levy may only be increasing by 1.9%, but the mill rate will increase by 5.0%.

What initiatives is the district considering on which to spend an additional $725,000
We provide the following graphic summaries, one in terms of mill rate effect and the other based on tax effect.  Note that we believe that many of these initiatives are worth taking on.  We simply object to the underhanded manner in which the district went about it.  Culver gets all upset about sham residences and ulterior motives and then the district pulls this rabbit out of a hat.  The right thing is to prepare the budget without them and then show how each (and the total) would impact the budget.
  

More Budget BS: Preserving the Munny Pot

Here's another good one from the June 16th Budget hearing:

We learn that there is $725,000 "unallocated" in the 2011-12 budget.

$350,000: School Board approved using fund balance to reduce levy
$ 75,000: School Board removed $ from the budget for the HR position.
$150,000+: School Board reduced the Building and Grounds budget.
$150,000: Savings on district’s insurance (worker’s compensation, liability,& property)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
$725,000: in the budget presently unallocated

Mr. Frei Coins a New Term
What the hell is "unallocated funds" in a DRAFT budget?   I think the more common term for this is "slush fund".  Hello!  McFly!  If the money was removed from the budget, then its isn't there!  If it's not there, it certainly cannot be "unallocated"!  Unallocated is a term reserved for an existing budget, usually towards the end of the year.  You know...for example, we budgeted $100K for something and it only ended up costing $75K.  That means there is an unencumbered balance of $75K...which should wind up in fund balance, or returned to the taxpayers.   This budget is still early in the DRAFT stage.  The only things in there should be approved/obligated expenditures.

Winnie the Frei works feverishly to protect the coveted
Munny Pot from community Heffalumps & Woozles who might
actually try (gasp!) to lower property taxes and limit unnecessary
district spending 

From the "Calling a Spade, a Spade" Department
What this is, is $725,000 in funds that the district either wanted to have in the budget or things that were budgeted for but now will cost less than anticipated.  The board removed things from the budget, but the district left the money to be allocated for those things in.    It's a wish list of additional desired--but unapproved--expenditures.  And so what the district is now doing is lining up additional things on which the money (which, again, should no longer be in the budget) can be spent.  Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt said that the reason for keeping that $725,000 in the budget was to show the "worst case scenario" to the taxpayers.  Really, Jimbo!?  Then how come, in response to a question, we learned that the anticipated equalized value for the district will be at least negative 2% and more likely negative 3%?  That would raise the projected mill rate from a 3.5%  increase to a 6.5% increase.  We thought you wanted to present the worst case scenario to the public??

Wish Lists do not belong in a budget.  A budget MUST include only actual anticipated expenses and revenues...not someone's wish list.   The public needs you to show us a TRUE and accurate expenses vs. revenue projection, without any wish lists.

More Bogus "Facts" Spewing from the District

Last night a public hearing was held on the 2011-12 budget.  The room was curiously filled with district staff.  File that under things that make you go "hmmmm".

Anyway, what's got our skivvies all in a bunch (well, one reason anyway) is that for the UMPTEENTH time, Business Manager Phil Frei proudly declared that Sun Prairie would once again be one of those rare districts that set a tax levy below the allowable taxing limit (revenue limit).  Mr. Frei tossed a figure of 5% out, as in  Sun Prairie is really rare, like only 5% of districts set tax levies underneath the allowable limits.

We know Mr. Frei reads this blog.  So we know Mr. Frei knows that we have pointed out countless times that it is not "rare" for districts to tax under the revenue limit. OK...let's qualify that...UNLESS you believe that 25% represents "rare".  Yeah...we don't think so either.

The funny thing about all this is that the school district want you, the people, to trust what they say.  Unfortunately, the more frequently we point out the errors in their ways, the less believable their stories become.  And that spells bad news for a district that is pushing for at least a 3.5% levy increase.

We did a very quick scan of DPI data for the last 10 years.  The AVERAGE % of school districts levying under the revenue cap is 28%.  That's like more than 1 in every 4 districts...you know...like 1 in every 4 Sun Prairie graduates have a cumulative GPA of 3.75 (A-) or above!

Mr. Frei also made a comment to the effect that with the reductions to school funding over the last few years, it's become even more rare to levy under the revenue limit.  Again, NOT TRUE!  In fact, in each of the last 2 years, at least 1 out of every 3 districts levied UNDER the revenue limit.  In fact, last year more district than at any other time in the last 10 years levied under the revenue limit!  Stop tossing out bullsh*t propaganda an non-truths designed solely to make your number look better than they are! 

Lifeline for Mr. Frei
OK...let's not pigpile on Phil.  Although sometimes it seems it's like taking candy from a baby.  [We'd say "like taking candy from the district", but...well....that seems to be a rather monumental task...stay tuned!]  Perhaps what Mr. Frei MEANT to say was that in terms of the extent to which Sun Prairie has levied under the revenue limit over the past 6 years, we rank in the top 5%.  THAT would actually be true.  But that's not what he said....not even close.  But maybe, just maybe, he can swallow his pride and correct his bogus statements after he reads this.  But...don't feel the need to give us credit Phil.  We're a humble outfit here.

Before we Go Shouting from the Mountain Top...
Let's keep in mind that while it has been nice that Sun Prairie has exercised fiscal restraint in "not spending --and taxing--as much as they are legally allowed to", other similar-sized districts have outdone us.  Last year, while we levied $3.0 M under the revenue limit, Janesville, Hudson, and Madison had us beat by (respectively), $3.2M, $8.9M, and $10.0M under.

Lies Damn Lies, and Statistics
The district likes to spin things, so let's do a little of that ourselves.  While Sun Prairie levied the 5th highest under the revenue limit of all districts last year, if you look at the amount as a percentage of the revenue limits (which normalizes things for larger districts like ours), we only rank (tied with 2 others) the 24th highest at 4.3%.  We're one of 16 districts that levies more than $1M under the limit.

# Districts levying
> $ 5M under:  2
$1-5M under: 16
$0.5-1M under: 10
$100-500K under: 43
< $100K under:  82


See for yourself
Once gain, don't trust anyone...trust the facts...and here's where to find the data
This is the DPI webiste where you can find historical Levy/Revenue Limit data

This the 2010-11 Levy/Revenue Limit Data for all school districts

Help Us Understand...

Did you know?

• Our school district will receive $4.1 million less in state aid this coming year because the state reduced the amount the district can spend per student. That’s a 4% decrease in state aid.  What will happen the following year?
• Aid for special education has been frozen even though special education costs increase.  
• Aid for the SAGE program (which provides smaller class sizes at several elementary schools) has been frozen.
• The state is considering elimination of WiscNet – the internet access system used by schools in Wisconsin.  As a result, the district will pay $20,000 - $40,000 more for internet access each year.

Hmmm...seems like money's gonna be tight...right?
So...explain to us why the board saw it fit to give 1.6% increases (via "step" increases) to Admin Support?
...and 2% raises to Administrators?

They like to call those step increases "not new money"...but...NEWSFLASH!....any money you pay out that you didn't previously IS "new" money!

Wanna give feedback?  Attend the budget hearing this Thursday.
Thursday, June 16th at 7 pm at the School District Office, 501 S. Bird Street.

1% of WHAT?

If administrators are getting a 1% raise....and the raise is a "pool" of 1% of administrator salaries for 2010-11...
But...but....that includes the salaries of 3 administrators that have left the building.
Why should their salaries be included in determining "the pool"....if new administrators are ineligible for raises???

Why, to boost their individual raises of course!

Think about it....the 3 administrators who have resigned made a combined $300,000.
1% of that is $3,000.
That means that the "raise pool" of  roughly $25,000 is high by $3,000
What a nice way to increase your raise by 13%

They must be learning from DeForest!

Administrative Support Raises: 2.4% 2011-12; 0.8% 2012-13

Administrative Support staff are also getting raises---assuming the board will approve these tomorrow nite.
 Administrative Support Staff Salary & Benefits

This employee group will be responsible for the employee share of the WRS upon the full implementation
of the Budget Repair Bill and/or July 1, 2011, whichever is sooner.

RECOMMENDATION:
The Management Team has conferred with representatives from the administrative support group and
recommends the following changes to the salary and benefit plan:

1. Freeze the current salary schedule at the 2010-2011 level for 2011-2012 and 2012 2013 school years, while allowing for individual employees to make step movement. This is equivalent to an average increase of 1.6% salary over the next two years (2.4% year one and 0.8% year two).
2. Increase the employee’s health insurance contribution up to 9% with a health risk assessment and 10% without a health risk assessment (up from 5%/9%). The benefit changes (when combined with WRS) will result in an overall savings to the district of 10.3%.
3. Allow employees the option to request a pay out of up to 3 days of reimbursable time per semester.
4. Increase the cap on the number of years of longevity from 20 to 25 years when calculating retirement benefits. Allow employees the option of participating in a premium only Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) for qualifying plans in lieu of using their retirement funds to stay on the district’s health and/or dental plans.

Given the above changes the employees in this group will see a decrease in their take home pay ranging
from 3.08% for someone who does not take insurance to 5.49% for an individual with family insurance.

Awwwwww...geeeee.  Cry us a frickin' river!  The average state employee will see an 8 to 10% DECREASE in pay EACH year.  Raises: ZERO.  Grid movement: Non-existent.  Oh...wait...the POSSIBILITY exists that in fiscal 2013 that raises UP TO the Consumer Price Index COULD be granted.

Grading For Learning: Grade Inflation Panacea? Or More Dr. FeelGood?

At  tomorrow's (June 13) school board meeting, an "informational" agenda item will be presented regarding the switch from conventional grading/report card system to the "Grading For Learning" system throughout grades K-7.  This switch will be flipped for the 2011-12 school year.

Grading for Learning has been looming on the horizon for several years now.  It's not something new to Sun Prairie.  In fact, a number of school districts have implemented it and a number will begin implementation this year.  Grading for Learning is a concept introduced by Ken O'Connor.

What is the background and research for Grading for Learning?

The original "Grading For Learning"
frowns on extra credit.  What will SPASD do?

Decades of research on grading practices clearly show that the most effective way to affect student performance is to provide accurate, specific and timely feedback to students. When grading policies improve, students benefit by reducing the failure rate. Districts that address grading practices head-on:

1. reduce grade inflation, 
2. graduate students who are more successful in post-secondary endeavors, and
3. show solid gains in student proficiency in content-area work

So...in theory, this is a good thing.  We may finally be moving away from Dr. FeelGood's knuckleball approach (easy on that knuckler, Dr. FeelGood!) to grading, whereby grades are given to build the self-esteem of our fine cherubs--or to avoid the post-report card assault by helicopter parents.  Maybe.  Grading for Learning is a concept, and as always, Sun Prairie puts its own particular stamp on it.  Only time will tell if this is the cure or just another band-aid that means more work for teachers without really helping kids learn.  Because, in the end, folks, learning is not about grades, it's about learning.   Getting an "A" doesn't make the kids work any harder in school.  In fact, subsequently some (many?) of them rest on their laurels because...guess what...if an "A" requires minimal effort, then you will GET minimal effort.

Yoda's philosophy on Grading for Learning.

We're going to be cautiously optimistic on this one.  We think there are elements of Grading for Learning which make good sense.  But we'd suggest paying close attention to the 8th grade WKCE results in 2013, because that will represent the first evaluation of grading for learning of 7th graders coming into 8th grade.

More About Grading For Learning

Parents Powerless Against Grade Inflation Kryptonite

We received this letter from a reader...

Dear SP-EYE,

Great job on the grade inflation stuff.  Thought you might appreciate this.  


Our child graduated from Sun Prairie several years back.  I recall frequent battles over the quality of work on papers and amount of time spent studying.  Inevitably, our child received darn good grades.  Not stellar, mind you, but in the high B, low A range, with a "C" tossed in here and there.  How does a parent argue with a child when the proof, as they say, is in the pudding?  Every time we begged, pleaded, or threatened disciplinary action for not living up to potential, we got slapped in the face with an "A" paper or test.  Our child is not a genius.  High test scores? Sure. Intelligent?  Absolutely.  But a classic, "I'm only going to perform to the level I need to" kid.

I remember one situation like it was yesterday.  9:00 pm and suddenly our child remembered that a major paper was due the next day.  The paper had not even been started.  The order was given to get cracking.  Barely one hour later, our child came to show that the assignment was complete.  It was two pages long on torn out (and badly at that) notebook paper. And it was written in pencil.  In what was tantamount to chicken scrawl.  He'd checked out a few websites like Wikipedia and simply merged info.  By now you've figured out that our child is a boy.  We told him that his "report" was completely unacceptable.  He rebelled. "Come on!  You guys don't know what the standards are these days.  This will be fine.  In fact, I bet I get an "A".

As hard as it was, you know what we did?  We decided this was the time for a life lesson.  We said, "You know what?  If you think it's good enough, it's good enough for us.  Let's see what the teacher decides."  By now you've probably guessed, and you guessed right.  He received an "A-". 

What did we do next?  We requested a conference with the teacher and an assistant principal.  You know what we got from the district? Basically disbelief.  They asked, "If we understand you correctly, you want us to give your son a lower grade?".  How nice that they missed the point entirely.  "No, we responded, we want you to explain to us how this paper represents "A" work."  As you can imagine, we got nowhere.  Like many parents, we had no idea we could have pushed the issue higher up.  Honestly, we didn't really know there was such a thing as a school board.  You've helped turn that light on.

Later on, however, our son didn't fare so well in college.  Eventually he turned the corner, and is doing well.  Maybe that's why he received high grades for poor quality work.  Maybe the teachers simply graded him on what he was capable of rather than how he actually performed.  I'm not sure it makes it right.  I think that deep down he had the capability and finally chose to flip his switch. 

So, I guess the moral of the story is that there is no point to this.  I just wanted you to know that we agree with you that there is grade inflation in the school district. He didn't deserve many of the grades he got and I wonder if he'd been pushed harder for better quality work, if he would have struggled as hard early on in college.  I know of kids that didn't fare so well.  I know kids who graduated with high honors just shy of a 4.0 that had to change majors in school.  And we're not talking Harvard.  I'm not sure there's an answer, but somehow the discussion needs to be had.

Thanks for listening,

an alumni parent

Up For School Board Vote: 2.0% Increase for Administrators

At Monday's (June 13th) School Board meeting, the board will consider increases to administrator pay that result in a net 2% increase in salary. Note that 2% is a figure based on the salary pot for 2010-11.  Assuming that (A) replacement administrators will not get any increases, that means the average per administrator will amount to MORE than 2%.  As usual, some administrators get very healthy increases, while those in Culver's doghouse will net less than the average.

This recommendation includes administrators with the exception of the District Administrator, who will be
determined separately.

RECOMMENDATION

Effective for the 2011-2012 contract year:
1. Increase employee Medical Insurance contribution from 5% to 9% (or 10% without a Health Risk
Assessment).  [SP-EYE note: Because SPASD obtains insurance a a lower rate than state employees, the district is requiring employees to pay 9% of insurance premiums  rather than the 12% required of state/county/municipal employees]
2. Administrators shall pay the employee’s required deposit to the Wisconsin Retirement System.
(Currently 5.8%.)
3. Eliminate mileage stipends and move the $25,425 from “stipend” to regular salary. The amount of
each stipend currently received is the amount that will be transferred to each administrator’s base salary.
Administrators will be able to claim mileage on the same basis as other district employees.  [SP-EYE note:  Although this is technically not "new" money, as it previously was paid as a stipend, it is now added to salary, which affects income on retirement.  Since administrators will now be able to request reimbursement for travel within Dane Co. IN ADDITION to the increased salary, it does represent increased income.]
4. Add $25,082 to the administrative salary pool for 2011-2012 for distribution via the performance pay
system.  [SP-EYE note:  This amounts to about 1% of 2010-11 administrator salary pool.  Note, however, that with several administrators leaving, that means less administrators to "share" in the money pot.  That means more per administrator on average.]
5. Make the changes above and other ‘housekeeping’ corrections as marked in the attached document.

Whaddyathink?  Slam dunk that the school board votes 7-0 to approve these raises?

1 in 4 Graduate With High Honors!! ???

We didn't hear a count of the graduates last night, but' let's just say it was between 450 and the number of seniors as of the 3rd Friday count: 484. In fact, let's just use that number.

Our rough tally:
● 62 graduated "with Honors"
● 109 graduated "with High Honors"
● 7 ---SEVEN!--- graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA.

Let's be clear these are unofficial tallies, but likely within 2-3 for each. The seven (7) 4.0 students, however, is spot on.

1 in 4 graduates with High Honors
109 divided by 484 gives you 22.5%. Assuming that the 484 number is a tad high, (they didn't all graduate and the number ending the year is likely less than at the start due to mid-year graduation) that makes it about 25% or 1  out of every 4 kids.. What is High Honors? We're not certain for Sun Prairie, because the district website doesn't readily provide an answer. In mist schools, "Honors" represents graduation with a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or better, while High Honors represents a cumulative GPA of 3.8 or better.

It gets worse...At Least 35% graduate "With Honors"
More than 1/3...one out of every 3 kids graduate with a cumulative grade between B+ and A-???  Dr. Culver will tell you that the bell curve and statistics don't apply to GPAs.  We say, "Horse puckey!".  Of course they apply!  Now certainly there should be a slight skewing as we don't want to fail 10 or 20 kids each year.  But we've skewed it all the way to the right.

Only one of four conclusions can be made when 38% of kids are graduating with at least a B+.

• Sun Prairie school district is comprised of genetically enhanced kids pre-disposed to significant academic prowess.  Maybe they are all descendants of Professor X?
• Sun Prairie is comprised of pretty smart kids and our school district enriches them to achieve even higher academic greatness.
• Sun Prairie's curriculum is not challenging our students.,  Getting an "A" is cake.
• We have a grade inflation issue that continues to flourish.

Seriously...which is it?

SEVEN (1.5%) graduate with a Perfect 4.0...Help Us Understand!

Seven 4.0 students.  ONE state scholar.  ONE National Merit Scholarship winner. (Yikes...Middleton had TWO!) And they happen to be the same individual.  Help us to understand: How could we have SIX other kids that graduated with a perfect 4.0 and NONE of them receiving higher level distinction?

Do you really grasp what it takes to maintain a perfect 4.0 throughout 4 years of high school?  The class of 2011 required 23 credits to graduate.  The average course is 0.5 credits on a semester basis.  There are two quarters in a semester.  That comes to a minimum of 46 courses studied.  At two semesters per course, that's a minim of 92 course grades.  And EVERY ONE OF THEM a straight "A" (at least 93 out of 100).  That includes gym, electives, and even things like AP classes!  Can you imagine the number of individual grades (tests, quizzes, papers, assignments) that go into that quarter grade?  That means, on average, every single assignment received a score of 93 out of 100 points!!!

SP-EYE anecdote:  Our graduating class had about 400 kids in it and we had TWO perfect 4.0 students (0.5%).  And, as we knew them well, we know that both these ladies were brilliant.  Hell, their brains functioned as high level micro-processors.  But they were fun people as well.  They weren't into sports, but one was a majorette.  Both had huge success with foreign languages.   Both went on to ivy league schools...one to Harvard.  The Harvard grad went on to a very successful and lucrative career in banking as a multi-lingual interpreter.  It's possible, folks...but the probabilities are low.

Did you know that in a number of school districts, including Madison, AP classes are scored out of 5 points (instead of 4) to account for the additional difficulty of the AP courses and so as to not penalize the cumulative GPA of students who opt to challenge themselves.  Sun prairie doesn't do that and we STILL had seven students graduate with a perfect 4.0!

A Look Back In Time
A school board member shared the following information which was received from a community member, knowing grade inflation is one of SP-EYE's hot buttons. The contributor wasn't identified, but it doesn't matter. It's a great comparison from 20 years ago to today.  If these numbers are valid (and we have absolutely no reason to suspect they are not), they represent cause for alarm.

	Class of 2011	Class of 1991
Total Students	485	300
# on Honor Roll	187* (39%)	24 (8%)
* This is reportedly the lowest in the past 7-8 years!
# new NHS members	80 (16%)	14 (4%)

Taking Away from the Kids?
Sure, that will be the district's rallying cry: "Look at that nasty SP-EYE blog, raining on one of the most important days in a kid's life!"  Our sincere apologies to each of the 171 kids (and their parents) that graduated with some level of Honors.  We honestly don't wish to take anything away from your accomplishments.  In fact, we're more concerned about you and your future than the school district.  We have countless anecdotal evidence of our kids being improperly prepared for the rigors of college.  Many that walked away from SPASD with "High Honors" felt secure in their knowledge and abilities, only to get a rude slap in the face at the college level.

Please...those of you that go onto college...DO NOT be lulled into a false sense of security regarding the prediction for college success based on your SPASD

In fact...we welcome e-mails from you--anonymous of course, unless you wish differently-- regarding your college GPA relative to your high school GPA.  We heard more than one speaker talk about "making your mark on the world".  Well...here's an opportunity to help effect needed change.

Culver's Title Envy Still A Fire in His Belly?

Dr. Culver has been fairly quiet lately --at least publicly-- about his title.  But that all changed at last night's graduation ceremony.  In his congratulatory speech to graduates, Culver recalled,

" When you began kindergarten in 1998, I began in Sun Prairie as a “kindergarten” superintendent... " 

He still doesn't get it that there IS no superintendent in this district.  We have a district administrator.  Why can't that title be enough?  We have a CONTRACT for a district administrator...NOT a superintendent.  We're wondering if many of the not-so-positive things that have transpired in the district would have occurred had our "superintendent" been less focused on changing his title.


Oh, there's been work behind the scenes to change the title, mind you.  In fact, recently revised policy BDDI (we know...we know...our policy naming structure is the absolute silliest we've ever seen), revised in March 2011, introduces the two titles as interchangeable.

STEP 4

If you (or the person about whom you have expressed the complaint) are dissatisfied with the decision of the district-level administrator you, or they, may appeal to the District Administrator (Superintendent).

District Administrator Tim Culver may be contacted at 834-6502 or tculver@spasd.k12.wi.us or at 501 South Bird Street, Sun Prairie

Meanwhile....Back In Sun Prairie....Can You Hear The Music?

...as in the Sound of Sun Prairie?

We keep hearing that that issue continues to heat up and is in danger of boiling over.  We hear more resignations are coming down the pipe.  We also hear that this issue of program unity and being delegated the authority to manage a program are the root issue...not passports.  There seems to be talk that the whole program could collapse like a house of cards.  That's pretty serious, folks.  We all know how valuable--and renowned-- the Sound is.  And next year will be the program's 40th anniversary.  Gutting or killing the program would be an unwise move.

The word on the street from multiple sources seems to indicate that the problem is most definitely not within the Sound.  The problem appears to be at the top of the pecking order, as in District Administrator Culver and Deputy DA Phil Frei.

In a shades of the boys basketball fiasco several years back (and who wouldn't have thought Administration would have learned there lesson there?), we're hearing multiple corroborations that 1, possible 2 parents (out of 99-100), took issue with having to obtain a passport to travel into Canada.

Get past for a moment that all kids sign a Commitment form that they will be one as a team and do what the team decides.  Because signing that form basically committed every kid to getting  a passport--because THAT is what "the Sound" said was the the way things would work.

Get past for a moment that the Sound has worked like this for many years.  It's not like they haven't gone to Canada before.  It's not like this getting passports was a new thing.

And then think about the fact that not one, but TWO administrators are purported to have told the disgruntled parents that, while they understand their position that passports are not absolutely required (and they are not), the program is requiring passports.  For the safety of the kids and for program unity, the program made a decision that passports would be required.  And 98 or 99% of parents were OK with that.  The other 1 or 2 went to the big dog with their complaint.

So...what's the problem?

Again...these are allegations until the wash cycle is complete, but we hear that the top level administration backed the disgruntled parents and indicated that passports would not be required. Geee...way to cut the program manager off at the knees.  Can you blame them for turning in their resignation?

Stay tuned, folks..and grab your hard hats.

When They Get Behind Closed Doors... Time To Talk Transparency.

At the risk of seriously dating ourselves, does anyone recall the Fifth Dimension singing,
"Let the sun shine, let the sunshine in!"

Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people.  At least that is the concept of "open government".  The Sunshine Review (http://sunshinereview.org/core/home  ) is a great website devoted to keeping government open.  When Johnnie gets behind closed doors, out of the public eye, that's when shenanigans come about.  That's why there needs to be less closed door sessions and more accepting of public input.  How the hell else can our elected "leaders" represent us if they won't hear us in open session?


Many school and municipal boards use a very broad application of Open Meetings Laws exemptions to discuss things behind closed doors which SHOULD be discussed publicly.  Certainly, we all agree that if some employee is being dragged into the 'splainin' room, we the public don't need to be privy to that.  Similarly, we need to protect the privacy of even students being expelled.   But things like raises need to be presented to the public who are going to be asked to pony up their tax dollars to pay for them.


So let's review the rules of the game shall we.

WISCONSIN'S OPEN MEETING LAWS
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and the Department of Justice have compiled an awesome guide to Wisconsin's Open Meetings Laws.  You can download it here.

Key excerpts are provided here:
------------------------------------------------
What is a meeting?
● The open meetings law applies to every “meeting” of a “governmental body.” Wis. Stat. § 19.83.

● The definition of “governmental body”  is broad enough to include virtually any collective governmental
entity, regardless of what it is labeled.

●The Showers test. The statutory definition of a “meeting” applies whenever a convening of members of a governmental body satisfies two requirements:
(1) there is a purpose to engage in governmental business and
(2) the number of members present is sufficient to determine the governmental body’s course of action. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 102.  [SP-EYE: is there a quorum?]

What are the Requirements of a Public Meeting
The two most basic requirements of the open meetings law are that a governmental body:
(1) give advance public notice of each of its meetings, and
(2) conduct all of its business in open session, unless an exemption to the open session requirement applies.

What is Required for Open Session Meetings?
1. Accessibility. “All meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(2).
2. Access for persons with disabilities.
3. Tape recording and videotaping. The open meetings law grants citizens the right to attend and observe meetings of governmental bodies that are held in open session. The open meetings law also grants citizens the right to tape record or videotape open session meetings, as long as doing so does not disrupt the meeting.
4. Citizen participation. Although it is not required, the open meetings law does permit a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open meeting as a public comment period. Wis. Stat. §§ 19.83(2) and 19.84(2). Such a period must be included on the meeting notice.

Though Bales says that is not uncommon for such financial issues to be approved by the board without public discussion, others are uncomfortable with what they see as a lack of transparency.

Public Meetings Require Giving Public Notice
The chief presiding officer of a governmental body, or the officer’s designee, must give notice of each
meeting of the body to:
(1) the public;  [by posting the notice in one or more places likely to be seen by the general public.]
As a general rule, the Attorney General has advised posting notices at three different locations within the jurisdiction that the governmental body serves.  Alternatively, the chief presiding officer may give notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium likely to give notice in the jurisdictional area the body serves. 63 Op. Att’y Gen. 509, 510-11 (1974). If the  presiding officer gives notice in this manner, he or she must ensure that the notice is actually published. Meeting notices may also be posted at a governmental body’s website as a supplement to other public notices, but web posting should not be used as a substitute for other methods of notice.

(2) any members of the news media who have submitted a written request for notice; and

(3) the official newspaper designated pursuant to state statute or, if none exists, a news medium likely to give notice in the area. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(1).

What Information must the Public Notice Contain? 
Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting,
including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2).

How detailed must the Agenda Information Be?
The information in the notice must be sufficient to alert the public to the importance of the
meeting, so that they can make an informed decision whether to attend.  In some circumstances, a failure to expressly state whether action will be taken at a meeting could be a violation of the open meetings law.

Does "Non-represented Employee Contracts 2010-2011" as an agenda item provide the public with enough information to know that significant raises were being considered? State law requires school districts to either notify staff of non-renewal of contracts, extend their contracts, or renew contracts each year. But that is separate and distinct from the issue of wage increases. Arguably, listing an agenda topic this way--and under a Consent Agenda--, when the intent was to vote on significant raises violates the intent of the Open Meetings Laws.

What About "Closed" Sessions?
Closed sessions “must contain enough information for the public to discern whether the subject matter is authorized for closed session under § 19.85(1).” [ SP-EYE: Establishing a salary range for a position is NOT a valid item for closed session. However, determination of what specific salary to offer a potential candidate for hire is.]

How Much Advanced Notice is Required?
The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.”  If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in advance of the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3).

Must Votes be recorded?  Are "secret" votes allowed?
● No secret ballot may be used to determine any election or decision of a governmental body, except the
election of officers of a body. Wis. Stat. § 19.88(1).

● The open meetings law requires a governmental body to create and preserve a record of all motions and
roll-call votes at its meetings. Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3).

What Level of Detail is Required for Record of Motions and Voting?
Although Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) does not indicate how detailed the record of motions and votes should be,
the general legislative policy of the open meetings law is that “the public is entitled to the fullest and most
complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1). In light of that policy, it seems clear that a governmental body’s records should provide the public with a reasonably intelligible description of the essential substantive elements of every motion made, who initiated and seconded the motion, the outcome of any vote.

What about "Consent" Agenda Items?
Regardless of whether a decision is made by consensus or by some other method, Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) still requires the body to create and preserve a meaningful record of that decision. Huebscher Correspondence, May 23, 2008. “Consent agendas,” whereby a body discusses individual items of business under separate agenda headings, but takes action on all discussed items by adopting a single motion to approve all the items previously discussed, are likely insufficient to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3). Perlick Correspondence, May 12, 2005.

What Issues are Exempt? (When is it Allowable to hold Closed Sessions)?
● Judicial or quasi-judicial hearings. (e.g., Expulsion hearings)
● Consideration of dismissal, demotion, discipline, licensing, and tenure.
● Consideration of employment, promotion, compensation, and performance evaluations.

Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) authorizes a closed session to discuss the qualifications of and salary to offer a specific applicant but does not authorize a closed session to discuss the qualifications and salary range for the position in general. 80 Op. Att’y Gen. 176, 178-82.  The section authorizes closure to determine increases in compensation for specific employees,
67 Op. Att’y Gen. 117, 118.

Bales said the actual school board discussion on personnel costs took place over several months as part of the board's budget development strategy. Discussing the actual contracts, however, took place in closed session.

● Consideration of financial, medical, social, or personal information. (if discussed in public, would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect upon the reputation of any person referred to in such
histories or data, or involved in such problems or investigations)
● Conducting public business with competitive or bargaining implications.  Competitive or bargaining reasons permit a closed session where the discussion will directly and substantially affect negotiations with a third party, but not where the discussions might be one of several factors that indirectly influence the outcome of those negotiations.
● Conferring with legal counsel with respect to litigation.

What About Re-Convening in Open Session Following a Closed Session?
A governmental body may not commence a meeting, convene in closed session, and subsequently
reconvene in open session within twelve hours after completion of a closed session, unless public notice of the subsequent open session is given “at the same time and in the same manner” as the public notice of the prior open session. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(2). The notice need not specify the time the governmental body expects to reconvene in open session if the body plans to reconvene immediately following the closed session. If the notice does specify the time, the body must wait until that time to reconvene in open session. When a governmental body reconvenes in open session following a closed session, the presiding officer has a duty to open the door of the meeting room and inform any members of the public present that the session is open.

"When people got inflamed about it, there was sort of this assumption that that's going to be a conversation at the table in terms of who's going to get what," Bales said. "Honestly, from a board perspective, you do that every year ... It's a part of board work to approve contracts and approve compensation levels. They wouldn't have published a list of names of people and what they're doing." [how could there be public discussion when it was done in closed session?] This has nothing to do with a decision regarding HIRING a new employee and at what salary, Mr. Bales....this is simply information that you and the Board would prefer that the public not know.

WISCONSIN'S OPEN RECORDS LAWS
The Department of Justice/Attorney General have also developed a great summary of Open Records requirements which can be obtained here.

What is a "record"?
A record is any material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, visual or electromagnetic information is recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which has been created or is being kept by an authority in connection with official purpose or function of the agency. A record includes handwritten, typed or printed documents; maps and charts; photographs, films and tape recordings; computer tapes and printouts, CDs and optical discs; and electronic records and communication

Electronic records and records produced as the product of a computer program  are subject to the open records law are subject to inspection and copying.  A person can not require creation of a new record by extracting and compiling information from existing records in a new format.  When information is stored in a database, a person can "within reasonable limits" request a data run to obtain the requested information.

Wish I were transparent
You could see right through me
Everything apparent
What I really am

Don't have much to hide
What I have I'll show you
--Pet Shop Boys ["Transparent"]