We Know Why The Postage Budget is So High!

We received this from a parent of the school district,

"...someone needs to explain why we received via snail mail SIX, count ‘em SIX letters about Infinite Campus, one each to myself and my wife for each of our three kids.  All of my letters were identical, as were all of hers.  Makes no sense since the district has our e-mail address and has been communicating with us via Infinite Campus E-Mail all year.  Another question is why we didn’t receive them until the kids have four weeks in."

We've since heard similar stories from other parents.
Really?
We're MAILING six frick'n copies of the same letter to the same household?
REALLY?
Now honestly, does that make ANY sense?
The district pats itself on the back for being a technological leader and we can't figure out a way to delete duplicate (triplicate, quadruplicate, five-tuplicate, and six-tuplicate) letters going to the same address?
Sure bulk rate postage is less than the 44 cents for a typical letter. (Gulp...they did at least send then bulk rate we hope).

How many times have we heard about how hard the district has worked to cut costs and be more efficient...only to learn this!!!

We could go on...and on...but...you know what?  It speaks for itself.

Culver Gets His 2%

We grow weary of McCourt's antics 

On Monday, the school board voted to grant District Administrator Tim Culver a 2% pay raise.  The board vote was 6-1, with John Welke the lone "NO" vote.  Welke offered no comments to explain his position, but did he really need to? Welke has steadfastly spoken from the big table that the budget is too much of a hit on a struggling community.  People in Culver's tax bracket are the least in need of such a pay raise.

Our hat's off to Welke for standin' tall in the saddle.  It's tough to be the lone ranger when you have Caren Diedrich gushing over Culver, and Jim McCourt serving as his personal cheerleader.

While on the subject of McCourt....when is someone going to say something about McCourt's class-less body language at the board table.  If anyone says something contrary to McCourt's personal feelings/opinion, he flops, makes noises of disgust, and rolls his eyes.  Does he realize that the cameras are sound sensitive and often pick this up?

McCourt's behavior at meetings?   Check!

Bad form, Jim.

Talk Won't Cook Rice

The issue of spouting lots of empty rhetoric and actually doing nothing has been a common theme recently.  The reasons for it are unimportant, but we were recently seeking some singular, rallying quote to call attention to the issue.   What we came up with was,

Talk doesn't cook rice.
-Chinese proverb

Talk doesn't cook rice!

It was--is-- perfect.  On a number of levels.  And even the fact that it's a Chinese proverb makes it ring even louder when you consider the state of the Sun Prairie School District.

Talk doesn't cook rice.  It's a proverb that has morphed into "Actions speak louder than words" in our culture.  Nike became famous for twisting it just a tad with their whole, "Just Do It" campaign.  And so many on the school board and the school district are so great at being just talking heads.  They spout "statistics" that are stretched dangerously beyond limits.  They talk about "facts" that aren't facts.  In fact, they have nothing whatsoever behind them for support.  But what they hope is that you, the community, will listen to them, believe them, and open your wallets to them.  And largely...you do.  Good thing Bernie Madoff or Nevin Shapiro never got your numbers.

On October 17th, the school district will hold its annual meeting.  The school board has approved a 3.5% tax levy increase over last year.  Many in the community (a majority?) feel this is unacceptable given the state of the economy as punctuated by the number of foreclosures this year.  Senior living on Social Security have been truly living on a fixed income for the past 3 years.  While there is hope for a small increase this January based on "the [CPI linked] formula", our elected leaders in Congress are talking strongly about changing said formula...which would slap down on that raise as fast a mallet in a game of Whack-a-Mole  State employees have seen salary CUTS for each of the past 3 years.  Wisconsin Act 10 permanently cut the take home pay of state, county, and municipal workers...and even (gasp!) teachers and other school district employees by 6-10%

So...THIS is the time for a 3.5% increase?  Or a 2% raise for Dr. Culver?  We don't think so.

Jim McCourt likes to point out that, "There's a 1.2% increase from debt levy alone, and we need 2.3% because of the increased enrollment".
Nice try, Jim.  We agree there's no use crying over built buildings.  But not every school district that has an increasing enrollment is simply raising its tax levy.  How do you pay for things at home when food and utility prices go up and your salary does not?  You reach into reserves...savings...don't you?  OR you cut back on sea bass dinners and settle for catfish, maybe?

Phil Frei likes to point out that Sun Prairie is "rare" among school districts in that we tax below what state law would allow.  Sure.  IF you define rare as 25% or more of school districts!

Dr. Culver has recently told us that "quality school districts develop Mandarin Chinese programs".  But offers no data or facts to support that position.   Talk about a poker bluff!  He's calling us out when he's holding diddly--and we don't mean Bo.   In fact, in Dane County, only his buddy in Verona has developed a Chinese program.  Why won't Culver give us numbers of school districts in WI that have such a program?

McCourt and John Whalen whine that "Sun Prairie is falling behind" and cite the reason for this as "the lack of new initiatives by the district in recent years".  SheeeAHHH! What about PBIS?  What about "Grading for Learning"?  What about the whole new math curriculum?  To name just a few.  And how many initiatives are REALLY changing the outcomes for kids?  We still do not test as well as our peer districts.  We still do not have nearly as many state or National Merit Scholars as would be expected for a school district this size.  We moan about diversity issues and then quietly try to start a Mandarin Chinese program in the name of diversity.  How about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, huh?  

Even in this economy, talk is still cheap.
Instead of talking, why don't you start DOING?

The community is hurting.  Stop talking about it and DO something about it...like make some bold adjustments, scale some things back and reduce the levy.  Cutting $225,000 would reduce the levy to 3%
Cutting $450,000 would drop it to $2.5%.  There IS room in the budget.  You just have to stop citing ridiculous figures and do it.

Of course, if you won't, you run the risk of the community cutting it for you on October 17th.
And let's not forget that, 2 years ago,  when all the gasping and whining was over after the taxpayers cut your desired tax levy by $2,000,000...in the end you had a $1.3 MILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS!!!!


Don't TELL us there's no fluff in the budget.

Economy in Shambles, Foreclosures Up, but Culver Gets 2%

How's your forecast for a raise?
Sorry...didn't mean to pour salt in a gaping wound.

Tomorrow, Dr. Culver the Sun Prairie School Board will officially throw nearly $3,000 of new salary money at Dr. Culver.  Geee...we wonder how many hours of RTI assistance that just killed.

Oh...theres' nothing you can do about it.  These things are carefully crafted behind closed doors and not put on the agenda until there certain there's at least 4 votes.  And, sadly, the other 3 board members--even if they disagree--will vote "Yes" as well.  Decorum, you know.  Gotta stand as one.  Even if the one is doing some pretty silly things.

We know Caren Diedrich supports this raise.  She can barely contain her zeal about him.  She'll even support his Mandarin Chinese plans.
Jim McCourt and John Whalen are also unabashed Culver groupies.  So they'll vote "Yes".
Terry Shimek, that affable, flipflopping dozer at the board table also believes that Culver is a "CEO" and we compensate CEOs handsomely in this world, don't we.  Of course, as a banker, we expect nothing less than that from Shimek.

So there are the 4 definitive votes.  Where do the others lie?  Does it really matter?
Of course, we have no idea how they feel on the subject, but we're betting that the 3 of them (Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke) aren't all that fond of doling out a 2% increase to Culver in light of the economy.  Especially this close to the annual meeting.

YOU know...decorum

You know, SPASD is not exactly some great beacon of hope or shining example, either.  Sure, there are most definitely some bright spots.  Kinda like when you drag the Holiday lights out each year, there are some bulbs that still burn brightly, others that have dimmed a bit, and still others that are completely shot.  McCourt likes to say that "we're falling behind" other districts.  He's right, of course...but not for the reasons he likes to cite.  A "company" only fares as well as its CEO leads.  And , while Culver's a nice guy and got us this far, the path down which he appears to be "leading" the district seems to be diverging from what this community wants--or needs.

What Will  Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke DO
Well, we can tell you right now they won't be pleased with us for putting them on the spot.  YOU KNOW...Decorum.  But decorum doesn't fix what's broken.  Decorum has done nothing but get in the way of progress.  People need to be free to speak their mind.  School board members simply voting the same way on any issue for the sake of "team unity" (decorum) only makes us DeForest.

So...even if Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke disagree with giving Culver a 2% increase (and, right or wrong,  we believe that to be the case) it will be difficult for them to say so publicly with a "NO" vote.  That is the singular most difficult thing for a public official to do.

And why should they put themselves "out there"?  If the motion already has enough votes to pass, that's just making yourselves into low hanging fruit...right?  So is the issue board members not voting they way the really feel?  Or is the real problem Terry Shimek, King of Waffles?  We wonder how Shimek would vote on this issue if 100 taxpaying community members gave them a piece of their mind.

You see...the problem is that school board members (collectively) don't really vote the way the people who elected them would prefer.  THAT is the problem.  People elected to represent the people don't vote the way the people who elected them would vote.

Whalen Going Rogue?

We keep hearing more and more about this "Mandarin Chinese " program that will be implemented in the district next year.  We already know that the district is spending at least $2500 (that we know of) and Culver is spending another $900 for his virtually all expenses paid week long trip to China in November.  As part of his trip, Culver, as with all "qualified" travelers, must be prepared to speak about their existing or developing Mandarin Chinese program.  We wonder what he'll say...and why the Chinese will know about our "program" before the taxpayers in THIS district do.

So...how come the public hasn't heard a peep about said program?
More to the point...how come said program has never been authorized or discussed by the school board as a whole or even at Committee level?
But the BIG question is:  where does John Whalen get off "authorizing" Culver to spend a week in China?
Shouldn't that have been a board majority vote?
Didn't the other board members deserve at least a heads up phone call?
Or has Whalen so gone rogue that he doesn't feel he needs the other six?
We think Whalen better CHECK six.
If it wasn't abundantly clear by now, Whalen sure looks to be firmly ensconced in Culver's pocket....a lot like a certain former board president who frequently dines with Culver.

Oh...and if those aren't enough questions, then we'll ask another:
How come we're spending money on a program for which we have no need instead of on the students we have NOW that heed help NOW?

Hmmm...a 3.5% tax levy increase...we wonder how much surplus is hidden away to fund the Chinese program.  0.5%?  1%?




什么他妈的!

Where's The Money Hidden NOW?

Realizing that the community is starting to figure things out, the district is looking for new places to stash money, which only leads to raising your property taxes higher than need be.  This money is not being used to fund educational initiatives, the district has already rejected that idea unless they are allowed to raise the tax levy increase above 3.5%.  So what will the stashed cash be used for?  Technological toys? Candy?

The latest place to focus on is the line item #382 for "Inter-district Payments".  This is largely the place where open enrollments fall.  What makes it tricky though (harder to follow) is that Open Enrollment is a double-edged sword.  One has to consider TWO budget line items:  one for revenue (students transferring INTO SPASD) and then expenses (students transferring OUT of SPASD).

How much State Aid Do We Receive/Lose Per "Open-Enrolled" Student?
There's no math here.  No figuring out cost per student or anything like that.  DPI simply sets an amount regardless of whether a student transfers in or out.

DPI Open enrollment funding memo January 2011
This year, 2011-12, open enrollment transfer amount = $6,948 (estimate) per transfer (in/out).
Last year, 2010-11, the per student open enrollment transfer amount = $6,665 (final).

---

What is the 2011-12 Open Enrollment Situation?
 Mar 21, 2011 - FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING 6:30 p.m., Chair: Jim McCourt
 Subject  Action on 2011-12 Open Enrollment Applications
 Report prepared by:  Phil Frei

We're (still) a growing district
We have a brand new Taj Mah High School
Last year our net OE expenses DROPPED
...and you expect us to believe we'll have a record net OE expense?
HELP US UNDERSTAND!

HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS
Each year, the District receives open enrollment applications to attend Sun Prairie Area School District (SPASD) and also to leave the District.

The District had 97 students apply to attend SPASD .  This is an increase of 21 students over last year’s applicants.
The District had 150 students applying to attend other districts.  This is an increase of 32 students from last year’s applicants.

Next year DeForest Area School District will start a 4K program.  Since many Sun Prairie Area School District children attend pre-schools in DeForest, we received many open enrollment requests out to attend 4K programming.

Typically, less than half of the students who apply for open enrollment actually attend or leave.
So....we have 97 applying to COME IN (more revenue for us) and 150 applying to leave (more EXPENSE for us).
That's a net effect of 53 students LEAVING the district... IF they all leave (and Phil Frei says that, historically, "less than half" enter/leave.
If our estimated Open Enrollment Transfer Aid per student  is $6,948 then that means we need to budget for a net  EXPENSE of $368,244 more than last year...right? But we're only budgeting $317, 567 more than last year. That makes it LOOK like we're UNDER-budgeting by $50,677
 But let's not forget the mantra we hear every year and was included in the 3-21-11 Situation Report:

---

 "Typically, less than half of the students who apply for open enrollment actually attend or leave."

           ----- Report to Finance Committee by Phil Frei 3-21-11

---

If the net effect is only half of what applications suggest, then it would seem that the net would be a loss of only 27 students, at a net additional expense (over 2010-11) of $187,596.
And THAT now makes it appear that there's a lot of extra money in the budget hidden in the open enrollment area.


...and THAT, people, would pay for nearly 8,000 hours of the RTI tutoring, which is needed so very much more than starting a Mandarin Chinese program.


The sum of the parts equals the whole.
Look at Open Enrollment Revenues
The district is budgeting $600,000 of "income " (Revenue side of the budget/line #345) an increase of about $185,000 or 27 new kids transferring into the district

Then look at the Open Enrollment Expenses
The district is budgeting $1,089,950 of "cost" (Expense side of the budget/line #382) an increase of about $317,567 or 46 new kids transferring OUT of the district

Does something smell rather fishy?

For the 2010-11 budget last year, the district budgeted for a net $482,785 OUT.  But...when all was said and done, the result (unaudited, of course) shows that our net "loss" was only $357,744.  And that means that the district had a budget surplus of $122,000 due to "over-budgeting" expenses due to open enrollment.


For the 2011-12 budget year, the district is budgeting for a net 489,950 OUT.  Last year we saw a decrease in net open enrollment cost for the first time in several years.  Suppose it had anything to do with the new high school?????  So why are we projecting a nearly half million dollar net loss when last year the amount was little more than $350,000.  Wouldn't one suppose that the trend would go the other way?
And why tell us that "less than 50% actually follow through on their transfer requests year on and year out if we're not actually using that information in our budgeting?

$350,000 Doesn't Go As Far As It Used To

At the PVMS Open House this week, parents were greeted by a request for donations in different houses and classrooms.
Wait....WTF???

We very clearly heard the school district tell us that the building budgets were being increased back to 2008 levels.  According to the most current budget documents, that meant an additional $345,000 over last year!  11 schools dividing that purse means more than an additional $30,000 EACH for supplies over last year.  And we have to hit up parents for "donations"?  C'mon, man!  This is most definitely a "H'ep Me Understand" situation.
We also heard (to a hefty applause from parents) that standardized class supply lists were developed.

Requests for supplies donations were observed
throughout the Open House Night
at Prairie View Middle s School this past Thursday

We guess that not all schools received that memo, because here we are again, having teachers soliciting for supplies including markers, Post-It notes, Elmer's glue, those fan favorites--glue sticks, Scotch tape, and even colored pencils.
Again...WTF?

How were the class supply lists developed?
How much involvement did teachers have?    It would seem that a number of teachers think more supplies are necessary.  Is this just a bunch of teachers gone rogue?   It would seem that this act, done right under the very nose of the principal, that said principal supports said soliciting of "donations".

And why are parents being asked to provide MORE supplies?  Shouldn't these essential elements of the classroom be covered by the General Fund budget?  Or is too much of the General Fund budget ($72,000,000) being used for "other" things and not enough for general supplies ($1,239,507)?

So...we can...

• send Dr. Culver to China for a week
• earmark at least $2,500 to begin a Mandarin Chinese program next year 
• have taxpayer financed pizza lunches
• provide candy bars for staff for after school meetings
• provided bottled water for EVERY staff meeting/training session
• but not have enough money for basic supplies.

All good questions...

The Great Candy Debate

"Motivation is part of education and classroom teachers should have input because they are the ones doing the work. "

 "Not all candy purchases are used for motivation."  

"The question becomes do we want to be the food police in the schools. "

"Teachers and principals might not understand why this issue is being pushed so hard. "

  ---Administration Response to "Candy Purchases" issue  (Minutes of the Finance Committee meeting 8-22-11)

Food --junk food!---as a motivator?  Come on, people!  This is 2011...not 1911.  Anyone who's taken Psych 101 knows about Pavlovian responses and conditioning.  Many kids adopt a LEARNED BEHAVIOR that if you act up a little bit, you'll get some Ho-Hos...or a Twinkie.

Not all candy purchases are used for motivation?  Really?  So that's a clear admission that at least PART of the purchases are designed as motivation.  We did learn of one teacher who creatively incorporates candy into her science curriculum.  We love it...but again...how much is used for science vs. how much eaten??  And have you considered other non-food ways to offer the same lesson in an equally "fun" way?

There are two separate and distinct issues here:
1. Candy is not a part of any known or accepted curriculum. It is our responsibility as part of our Health Ed. curriculum to teach kids better eating behaviors to quell the rising tide of childhood obesity.  Yes these kids are confronted with food ads daily.  But we don't have to do so in our schools. Life is choices...but in the schools we need to limit the choices available to help kids learn to make better choices.

2. If you insist on providing candy for whatever purpose, it should NOT be purchased with tax dollars.  Our tax dollars should be used to provide materials that are educational requirements.  You can't convince us that candy is a necessity.  If you absolutely insist you must have it, then pay for it from SCO donations or get the Sun Prairie Education Foundation to loosen its grip on some of the $500K they've received from "Naming Rights" donations. Get more creative with positive incentives.  OK, so carrots won't work. Find something that will.  Save the tax dollars for books and other educational materials.

Teachers and principals may not understand why this is an important issue?  Again...REALLY?  Then it's the very well compensated administration's obligation to inform them...right?  This message needs to come from on high.  And be complied with.

Food Police? Please!  Your job is to support and enforce ALL district policy whether or not you personally agree with it.  Once a decision is made; get on board.   If you's prefer to work in a school district that doesn't care about nutrition....if that's really what's high on your list...then we say, "go for it".

---

"Food Police"?  We don't think so!
With the childhood obesity rate climbing faster than school
property taxes, SOMEONE needs to tackle
the issue of junk food in our schools
and eliminate junk food as a reward system.

 You know that... talk... is... cheap,
  ...and those rumors ain't nice. 
 And when I fall asleep I don't think I'll survive the night, the night. 
 'Cause they're waiting for me. 
 They're looking for me. 
 Ev'ry single night they're driving me insane. 
 Those men inside my brain. 


 The food police, they live inside of my head. 
 (Live inside of my head.) 
 The food police, they come to me in my bed. 
 (Come to me in my bed.) 
 The food police, they're coming to arrest me, oh no.
 ---with apologies to Cheap Trick

Can We Really Afford Even a 3.5% Tax Levy Increase?

It's oh so easy...the district office says they need it, and certain members of the school board comply like zombies.  Someone needs to slap these people awake and alert them to reality.  But...unless more residents appear at school board meetings to let the board know their concerns and wishes, these zombie board members will continue on their path.

Do these people read the papers?  Do they care about the seniors who paid for the foundation of this district yet who now are struggling to keep their homes?  Do they look at foreclosures data to see the sheer number of individuals in trouble?

Is raising taxes the answer?  Or is it time to further slash the budget?  Dr. Culver is quietly developing a Mandarin Chinese program which the board has not approved....at least in open session.  How many initiatives do we have going or have we started in recent years?  Are we seeing success to warrant the spending there?  Or is it time to pull the plug?

We looked at foreclosure data for just the City of Sun Prairie alone.  Since January 1, 2011,  48 properties have been sold off.  August was the peak month with 15 auctions scheduled, 13 of which were carried out with no stay of execution.  12 more are slated for September, 2 of which were sold yesterday.

It's beginning to sound like the budget will go directly to the school board (without initial approval by Finance as has been done every year) as soon as next Monday the 12th of September.
The zombies are coming...are you ready to take them on?

Great News At Westside Elementary

(Relatively new) Principal Rick Mueller has brought some great things to Westside elementary.  Now one of his staff has received recognition for her efforts.  Well done, Westside!  Congrats, Mrs. Herman!

District e-News to Key Communicators:
Marsha Herman Named Wisconsin Elementary Teacher of the YearWestside Elementary School is beaming with pride as first grade teacher Marsha Herman was named Wisconsin’s Elementary Teacher of the Year!  The announcement was made today by State Superintendent Tony Evers at a special all-school assembly at Westside Elementary.

The presentation of the award was a surprise for Mrs. Herman as well as Westside students and staff who were told the assembly would focus on the school’s PBIS program as they started the new school year.

“It is great to see Marsha’s hard work and experience recognized with an award of this magnitude,” said Westside Elementary Principal Rick Mueller.  “Marsha is an excellent example of the highly qualified teachers and staff at Westside and throughout the Sun Prairie Area School District who go above and beyond for students every day.”

Marsha Herman received the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Fellowship Award for 2011.  Herb Kohl Fellowship Award Recipients are then considered for the Wisconsin Teacher of the Year Awards.  Fellowship recipients are chosen for their superior ability to inspire a love of learning in their students, their ability to motivate others, and for their leadership and service within and outside the classroom. One hundred teachers were awarded the Herb Kohl Foundation Fellowship Award in 2011.  Of those, four will be named Wisconsin Teacher of the Year – one at each level, including Elementary School, Middle School, High School, and Special Services. Mrs. Herman is the Elementary School Teacher of the Year for 2011-2012.

Marsha Herman has taught at Westside Elementary School since she began working in the Sun Prairie Area School District in the fall of 1991.  She has taught both kindergarten and first grade at Westside.  Before coming to Sun Prairie, Mrs. Herman taught for 10 years in other Wisconsin school districts.

In 2009, Mrs. Herman became a National Board Certified Teacher.  National Board Certification is a prestigious teaching credential.  Teachers who achieve National Board Certification have met rigorous standards through intensive study, expert evaluation, self-assessment and peer review. The process can take up to three years to complete.  In 2010, Mrs. Herman completed her Master Educator License.

As part of the honor of being named Middle School Teacher of the Year, Mrs. Herman will receive a $3,000 award from U. S. Senator Herb Kohl, through the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation.

Congratulations to Mrs. Marsha Herman on this much deserved honor!

This Award Would Be Nice to Have...Dream On!

BUDGET AWARD

The Howard-Suamico School District has received the Meritorious Budget Award for its 2010-11 budget from the Association of School Business Officials International for the 13th consecutive year.The District is one of two districts in the state to receive the award.   [SP-EYE note:  the other is DC Everest, also a district in our size-class] The award recognizes high standards in the preparation and presentation of school-system budgets and is only conferred to school systems who have met or exceeded the program criteria.  No other organization or award program is specifically designed to enhance school budgeting and honor a school system for a job well done.
See how Howard-Suamico (a district in our size class) gets it done

The Meritorious Budget Awards Program (MBA):

• Provides clear budget presentation guidelines 
• Defines up to date budget practices 
• Encourages both short- and long-range budget goals 
• Promotes sound fiscal management practices 
• Promotes effective use of educational resources 
• Facilitates professional growth and development for the budget staff 
• Helps build solid development, analytical, and presentation budget skills

Yes, it costs about $1,000 to apply, for ASBO members.  But we certainly have a few of those.  Wouldn't it be worth $1,000 to force us to have a clear, accurate budget that projects for upcoming fiscal years as well?

Oh....wait...nevermind...we forgot...district administration tells us..

• It's too difficult to project a budget for a future year...
• That we need to trust that they're doing really, really well (everyone ELSE is messed up!)
• that people just don't understand this stuff.

Time to Brace Ourselves?

Last week, the Burlington School District held their annual elector's meeting.   The district was proposing a 3.69% tax levy increase.  That levy was soundly rejected by the electors on a 153-115 vote.  Is Sun prairie next in line?  The 2011-12 budget has not even passed approval by the school boar'd Finance Committee, let alone gone to the school board for final adoption.  All signs point to the board being stuck on a 3.5% levy increase, while all over the state the majority of districts are lowering their levies.  In the interest of full disclosure (a concept alien to the SPASD top administrators) there ARE some districts out there that have gone forward with tax levy increases, some significant.

Note that SPASD will likely point to the Racine Unified School District's tax levy increase of 6.32% to make their 3.5% proposed increase look miniscule.  What they'll fail to mention, however, is that as a "unified" school district (vs. a "common" school district like Sun Prairie) is not subject to a public vote on the tax levy.

What Burlington electors got wrong
In a repeat of DeForest electors' error last year, the Burlington electors appear to have voted to reject the levy proposed by the district but did NOT vote to approve a different levy.  That is the ultimate power of the electors, but, like DeForest, they failed to use it.  That leaves the decision on the amount of tax to levy up to the school board itself.  You're not gonna love the way this one looks.

Those at the meeting voted 153 to 115 against the increase, Peter Smet, Burlington's business manager, said Tuesday. The number of people at the meeting was much, much higher than normal because the tax increase was mentioned Monday on a radio program, Smet said. "Last year there were only 35 people there," he said. "The last 10 years we've averaged about 35 people." The property tax increase would have allowed the district to collect about $725,000 more in property taxes by raising the tax rate about 3.6 percent from $9.76 per $1,000 of property value to $10.11, Smet said. 

Read about the tax levy revolt in Burlington