Lesson Time - Electors DO NOT Get the Final Say

In 2009, the electors of the Sun Prairie School District voted to reduce the levy requested by the school board by $2,000,000.  A couple of school board members (ahem...McCourt!) pushed the idea of ignoring the electors and going with the tax levy they originally proposed.  Ultimately, however, the board decided to heed the voice of the electors and reduce the levy.

This year, the "electors", despite a still crumbling economy, felt so generous as to give the school district MORE tax levy than requested by the board.  WTF?   Then the school district itself "reduced" the levy as part of the situation report.  Finally the school board voted to a approve a levy which was only about $9,000 higher than it originally proposed-- a far cry for the $267,000 additional windfall voted by "the electors"

Can the board "go against" the electors?
Could the board have "gone against" the electors?  Absolutely.  The statutes say so. But (and it's a rather large one), had a subsequent legal challenge been filed, the district would have been required to SHOW that they needed the entire proposed tax levy to "operate and maintain" the schools.

We all know how the story turned out.  Not only was the $2M most definitely fluff....but the district ended up with a SURPLUS of $1.3M!  Instead of using $800K of fund balance to balance the books, they actual DEPOSITED $500K additional into the fund.  Imagine that. Had the electors not cut the levy, would we have had a $3.3M  surplus?  Or would the district have found some boondoggles to finance?  Clearly the budget presented 2 years ago was WAY more than that necessary to "operate and maintain" schools.

What happened in 2009 was a shot across the school district's bow.  Prior to October 2009, residents of the district were asleep at the switch.  The school district spent like money grew on trees.  And the beauty of it was that the value of property in the district grew at such a phenomenal rate, that even with exorbitant spending and huge tax levies, the mill rate stayed low.  As long as property taxes didn't rise too dramatically, no one cared.

But that all changed late with the economic recession of 2008-09, from which we still haven't surfaced.  Now money is tight.  Unemployment rates have skyrocketed.  People in THIS city are being forced from their homes.  And that's what caused a huge crowd to suddenly appear at the annual meeting where historically there were 30 or fewer attendees, the vast majority of whom were connected to the district.

This year, a throng of nearly 200 folks attended the electors meeting.  But they had something completely different in store.  They wanted to use the annual meeting to increase the budget and the tax levy.  And they did...voting by an overwhelming majority...reports are there were less than 10 votes against....to increase the proposed tax levy by $267,000 to fund 6 initiatives which the board had repeatedly rejected to fund with new tax dollars.

So...do the electors set the tax levy? Or not?
The answer lies in chapter 120 of the statutes, along with Attorney General (AG) opinion for clarification.  Why is AG opinion required?  Because in s. 120.10(8) of the statute, it says...

120.10  Powers of annual meeting. The annual meeting of a common or union high school district may:(8) Tax for operation. Vote a tax for the operation of the schools of the school district.

Meanwhile, ... in s. 120.12(3) of the statute, it says...

120.12  School board duties. The school board of a common or union high school district shall: (3) Tax for operation and maintenance. (a) On or before November 1, determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools of the school district and public library facilities operated by the school district under s. 43.52, if the annual meeting has not voted a tax sufficient for such purposes for the school year.
 (c) If on or before November 1 the school board determines that the annual meeting has voted a tax greater than that needed to operate the schools of the school district for the school year, the school board may lower the tax voted by the annual meeting. 

Now sprinkle in a dash of AG opinion:

Under sub. (3), the school board of common or union high school district has ultimate authority to determine the tax levy for operation and maintenance of the schools in the district. 79 Atty. Gen

The AG is perfectly clear, the power to set the tax levy rests with the school board.  The Annual Electors meeting certainly serves as an advisory referendum.  The problem with the elector's meeting is exactly what happened this year: it's too easy to flood the meeting with a certain special interest group.  This year, the district caught the electors napping and made its push to support new initiatives to which the school board had repeatedly said: not with new tax dollars.

The key 
The key to all this lies in the statute: "a tax necessary to operate [and maintain] the schools".  Look it up in any dictionary....the definition of "initiative" is "new" or "starting".  That means that the magic "6 initiatives" were not and are not required to "operate" or "maintain" the schools.  A good thing? Undoubtedly.  Improve the schools? Perhaps.  But "good" and "improve" are not equivalent to "operate and maintain".

And that is why setting a tax levy ABOVE what was initially proposed by the school board was just plain wrong.  And the school board knows that.  That's why they ultimately chose to do what they did: set the levy at 3.5% and then authorize the district to implement the 6 initiatives within that budget.  Tom Weber was spot on...

 "...the board has a judiciary and legal responsibility relative to the tax levy, and if the electors vote for a tax levy too small or too large to maintain and operate the school district, the board is legally obligated to adjust the levy so it is in line. "
----School Board member Tom Weber, 10-24-11

The bottom line
The bottom line is that the Annual Meeting is really designed to be a final opportunity for the electors to advocate their wishes before the school board.  At the end of the day, however, it all rests on the budget prepared--and approved--by the school board BEFORE the annual meeting.  The annual meeting is NOT designed to be the forum for a Hail Mary to insert budget initiatives.  Neither is it designed to be a means for ANY special interest group to "load up" the ballot box.  Otherwise...why bother to have ANY public discussion on the budget before the annual meeting??  When one can just wait till the annual meeting and then ambush the board and the district residents with ulterior motives.

The school board is elected for a reason...and that is to monitor the budget setting process with one eye out for the children and the other on the taxpaying electorate.  If this means we go back to having 30 people at the annual meeting, then so be it.  In fact...if the school district and board have done their jobs well, then arguably there should be no need to attend the meeting because the budget should be transparent, sensible, and fiscally responsible.

School Board President Whalen Channels His Inner Edgar

Last Monday night, the school board received a review of the 2011 annual meeting process.  Board President John Whalen wasn't too pleased with taking one on the chin.  He flopped worse than Vlade Divac, interrupting the resident making the comments not just once but twice.

                                                                                         Whalen channeling his inner Edgar.

Mr. Whalen's lack of decorum was appalling.  He'll sit there and let certain residents speak for extended periods of time...as long as they are praising the district or supporting on of Whalen's ...oops we mean Dr. Culver's....pet projects.  The school board must be able to take its lumps along with any praise that comes its way.  After all...it's not like Sun Prairie is an educational leader.  Educational SPENDER?  Maybe.  But so far we haven't seen that spending borne out in things like National Merit Scholarships.  Certainly not to the extent as would be expected from a school this size.  Even the annual statewide Spelling Bee....when was the last time a Sun Prairie student appeared anywhere near the finals?

                                                                                                ... and then he did it again!

HOW WUDE!!!

One Sun Prairie resident likened Mr. Whalen's body language and facial tics to that of the "Edgar" character of "Men in Black" fame.  We think that's a perfect comparison.  Yep.  Edgar was a bug.  and Mr. Whalen certainly was bugged.

School Board Chooses Wisdom...and Compromise

On Monday night, the school board had to make a choice:
...set the tax levy $267,000 higher than proposed based on the voice of the faux "electors".
...or to stick to their guns and Caren Diedrich's line in the sand of a tax levy increase not to exceed 3.5%.

They chose wisely.
And they opted for compromise.
Amidst a little detour from decorum on the part of board president John Whalen.

The faux "electors" voted a tax levy $267,000 higher than that in the proposed budget because they wanted to fund the "Sensational Six" new budget initiatives that the school board had ultimately decided against building into its budget.

The board chose wisely because the money WAS available in the existing budget (as we've said all along).  So the faux "electors" ultimately get what they want, district administration gets what they want, and residents struggling financially do not have to deal with a property tax greater than anticipated.

You have to respect board member John Welke for sticking to his guns and casting the lone "No" vote.   The original motion coming out of the Finance Committee called for a levy of no more than 3.5% and to fund only the top 4 initiatives.  The district simply did not do an adequate job in explaining the need for the Buildings & Grounds FTE or the Data Programmer.  It's hard to put oneself out on a limb; but anyone can be a sheep.

Everybody wins.

Now, the next task at hand is to repair the damage done and fix the annual meeting process.
What is the point of having ANY budget hearings during the years.  Why not wait until one week before the tax levy is required to be set by law, come out in force at the annual meeting and vote in a tax levy right up to the revenue limit.

Hey...why not just vote a tax levy $2.6M higher, and take us right up to the revenue limit this year.  Then we could simply send any kid that wishes to learn Mandarin Chinese over to China for a year...all expenses paid.  Heck we could send a bunch of administrators as well.

After all, taxing right up to the revenue limit would only add about $0.70 (70 cents) to the mill rate.  For a $200,000 home, that's only about another $140 per year, or about $12 per month.

Isn't it worth sending kids directly to China for a year to lean Chinese at a cost of only a large pizza per month?
Who cares if it would raise the mill raise higher than it has been since 1996-97 ($13.65)?
Right????

District Explains Open Enrollment Numbers

Close only counts in horseshoes an hand grenades....well and nukes, too...right?
Well...we can admit when we're wrong...unlike some others we know.
And we were wrong.
It appeared that the old goose noodler had paid a visit to the Open Enrollment portion of the 2011-12 budget. However, with some added explanation, that is not the case.
But...you know what?  Being wrong ain't so bad.  Because in the end, we receive a fuller explanation for and accounting of our tax dollars.
And that's a good thing.

Deputy District Administrator and Business Manager Phil Frei sent us the spreadsheet at right in response to our questions about open enrollment numbers.  One of our questions concerned the accuracy of statements in the Open Enrollment Situation Report each March that "less than half of those that apply to enter or leave the district actually follow through".  Frei provided the following explanation in support of the spreadsheet.  We added the detail regarding abbreviations used.

Basically, what you are missing is that the "applicants" are new to the OE system, therefore the existing OE students don't need to reapply (unless they are changing levels for example, elem to MS).   I tried to show this to you on the new sheet.   The % of applicants that follow thru for "in" is  19% and for "out" is   25%. We only get the full DPI amount if the student attends a full year.  Many OE students stop OE during the year and then we don't get the full DPI amount. Let me know if you have any more Q's, OE is a complex and bureaucracy issue. 
-- Phil Frei

Our thanks to Mr. Frei for clearing this up.

Shame on You!

Here is where the school district administration shows their true colors.
Many thought they showed their colors when the the "electors" were newly defined as those that either:

• belong to a SPASD parent group,
• are a teacher at SPASD
• are an administrator at SPASD, or
• a spouse of one of the above.

Oh...and then there's Mary Ellen Havel-Lang.  She's baaaa-aaack!  We'd need a whole new category for her.  But she was there as well.
Oh...did you not get the memo defining what an "elector" is?
Grayhairs need not apply.
Living on a fixed income $1000 per month or less? Too bad...so sad.
It IS all for the children...dontcha know.

But beyond all that, the ultimate sin of the school district, showing once and for all who they are, is the seemingly innocent placement of agenda items.  At both tomorrow's Finance Committee meeting and the full school board meeting, the plan is to vote on the tax levy BEFORE voting on the final budget.

This is not just the ultimate chicken-before-the-egg conundrum.  This is Finance 101.  You establish a budget to operate and maintain schools and THEN you establish a tax levy to cover what is needed that is not covered by state aids.

Instead...what the administration wants the board to do is set the tax levy (as defined by...you know...
the "electors"), and then expand the budget to cover the additional funding so generously approved by "the electors".

School board members...you should be ashamed if you let this stand in this sequence. It's plain wrong.

Aint No Lie ...McCourt Goin' Bye Bye Bye

The coconut telegraph is hummin'!  We're hearing it from multiple sources that Jim "SeaBass" McCourt is tradin' in the Prairie for the hills of San Francisco.  How many times has McCourts said at the big table that he hasn't had a paycheck in ...what...2?  3 years?  Well...seems Jimbo has found himself a new job.

I know that I can't take no more
It ain't no lie,
I wanna see you out that door
Baby, bye, bye, bye...
Bye Bye
--NSync




Update from Mr. McCourt:
Just to clarify... nothing has changed in my job status. I have been working (without a paycheck) to start a new company for the past 2+ years, and we are now looking to sell this company to a group from San Francisco. If the sale is completed, and they raise the required $500 million in capital from investors, I will be working for this group as the head of operations which will likely require me to move to San Francisco within about a year. Nothing is set at all. As of right now my role has not changed and I am not planning on moving. You are jumping the gun on what is going on.

 SP-EYE:  We're always happy to get the truth out there to squelch the rumor mill.

Electors: "You're Not Taxing Us Enough; We Want MORE!"

Last night the Annual Elector's Meeting took a turn for the bizarre.  The electors, or a group disguised as electors in some early Halloween affair, voted to raise the tax levy HIGHER than that proposed by the school board!

Yep...that's right...the crowd actually told the school board to tax them MORE than proposed.  God bless democracy!

The school board was proposing a $47,083,483 tax levy, for a 3.48% increase.
Instead, the "electors" voted overwhelmingly to raise the levy to $47,354,483, a 4.07% increase over last year.

There appeared to be between 150 and 200 people in the room and only SEVEN...count 'em...7...voted to support a lower levy.  Interestingly enough the crowd appeared to be largely teachers or other school staff along with their administrators.  Only a handful of "gray hairs" could be seen in the crowd.  Hmmmm...the very people struggling the most not in attendance.

No sour grapes here....although the meeting had a curious "staged" feel to it.  A number of people  felt that the electors meeting actually became an unpublicized referendum. We do wonder, though,  why there were slides in the presentation describing "budget initiatives" that the board had repeatedly rejected.  If these "initiatives" were not part of the budget, what business did they have being part of the presentation...except maybe to cue or incite the crowd?

Still...at the end of the day...politics are politics, and rules are rules.  The majority of those in attendance get to make the call, and clearly those wanting to spend heavily came out in force.  Those that opted not to come out can only be angry with themselves.

Get ready for a mill rate approaching $13.00.

October 17th: Rubber Match?

In 2009, district residents attended the school district's Annual Elector's Meeting in force, voting by a 2:1 margin to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2,000,000. And yet the district ended up with a SURPLUS of $1.3 MILLION DOLLARS!  Can you say, "budget fluff"?

Last year, the district appeared to have learned its lesson and reduced its demands.  Just in case, the district teachers and their significant others attended the meeting in force to ensure that the proposed levy passed.  And it did.

So...what will happen this year?  Will district residents believe "you can't fight city hall" and not show up?  And if not....if residents again attend en masse, will the teachers have the district's back this year?  Or, in anticipation of potential "work rule" and "compensation plan" changes to come, will they turn their backs?  Governor Walker and his infamous Act 10 have completely jumbled the puzzle pieces.

Tomorrow is your chance to speak your piece, residents.  Speak now, or forever hold it.  Well...at least until next year, anyway.  Is a 3.5% tax levy justified?  It's your call....but only if you attend the meeting.

All Community Members Qualified Electors 
of the Sun Prairie Area School District are Encouraged
to Attend the Annual Meeting This Monday

October 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Performing Arts Center, Sun Prairie High School

Waunakee Enrollment Lower Than Projected--Board Reduces Levy

Waunakee enrollment 26 less than projected; levy reduced $173K

Source: Waunakee Tribune 10-5-11
After district officials already lowered their estimated tax increase to 2.1 percent earlier this month in advance of a planned refinance of the district's debt-service fund, the district is again lowering the tax burden on Waunakee property owners, this time by an additional 0.7 percent. So when property owners receive their bills, they'll see about a 1.4 percent increase in their school tax levy.

The new numbers come after the district saw less than anticipated growth in student population taken during the school's annual September head count.

In the count, taken on the third Friday of classes, Waunakee had 3,874 students reporting to classes, up 180 students from the previous year. It's fewer than the 3,900 students district officials thought would be attending class, meaning the district is losing out on $172,791 in anticipated revenue under the complex revenue cap formula.

Because the enrollment count is a direct relationship with school revenue streams - as one goes up the other does, too - a lower enrollment means districts can't raise as much money. That means districts can cut from one of two streams of income, state aid or property taxes. 


Sun Prairie enrollment 32 less than projected; residents get ...bupkis?
So...Waunakee enrollment falls 26 short of projections and they cut the tax levy all on their own. Do not hold your breath that Sun Prairie will do they same.  Why?  Because SPASD can be counted upon to squirrel money away for pet projects.  Suddenly, each spring they "find" money to do things like complete the very expensive (and far more costly than projected) remodel of the district office.

This time, they have somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000 to play with.  On top of $278K in unanticipated aid from the state.  And another believed $200K or more from open enrollments. Of course then there's miscellaneous flotsam and jetsam built into the budget which likely totals another $200K.

Full Disclosure
 Unlike the Sun Prairie school district, which will ONLY tell you things that make them look good, we provide the WHOLE story.  Consequently it should be noted that while Waunakee DID cut the tax levy in response to the lower enrollment than projected, they kind of had to.  Waunakee in the last 2 years has taken to levying right up to the revenue limit.  So...when enrollment falls shy of projections, then the revenue limit is decreased, which means the district has to cut revenues (and in turn shave spending).

If the district is already proposing to tax right up to the revenue limit, as Waunakee, then the district can either turn back (reduce) its state aid, or reduce the amount of money it proposes to tax property owners.  In Waunakee's case, since they already had taken the maximum 10% reduction in state aid, its only option was to reduce the tax levy. So really...they didn't have a choice.

What is important in all this, however, is to note that there IS a connection between projected enrollments  and spending.  A district budgets for its best guess at enrollment, and there is a general expenditure per student "formula".  If enrollment is less than projected, the district SHOULD revise its budget and spend an appropriately lower amount.  In Sun Prairie's case, the district has not taxed to the revenue limit (to their credit).   Therefore they can legally spend any "over" budgeted amount (due to enrollment) because there is "room under the [revenue] cap".

Letters - Monte Couch: "Sue the School Board!"

We thought we'd seen the last of Monte Couch.  But nooooooooooo!  He's baaaa-aaack!  He just can't get enough of what SP-EYE has to offer.


Honestly...we don't get it.  If he wants so badly to sue the board..or do "something", why isn't HE doing it.  Or perhaps getting his two new board buddies in line?

Monte...round 1
In which Monte suggests that we sue the entire school board because Whalen took action which Couch believes to violate policy.  Note that we agree Whalen over-stepped his authority.  But he and the board violate policy all the time.  What makes this instance any different.  And does anyone really think that a judge is going to care about the animal cracker antics of our school board?   This supposed lawsuit is a dog and that dog don't hunt.   Besides...who has that kinda of disposable income  other than the $100K club?


Monte Couch to SP-EYE
10-10-2011 1:55pm
School District Policies have been upheld by court decisions, that is considered to have the force of law. Instead of continued wailing about Whalen's Actions on the China Trips, get a few bucks together and take [sic] ther board to court.

Reference: [sic] Poliocy BAAR\A\2:
" Board members will govern only when meeting as the Board in legal session. Individually, Board members cannot make commitments for the Board on pending or outstanding issues.."
monte couch

In which Mr. Couch schools us on legal authority. 
Monte Couch to SP-EYE
10-11-2011 10:30AM


Why sue the school board instead of Whalen about the china trip? Because the board members have evidently allowed Whalen to usurp their responsibility and authority and there is a state statute and case law on that subject. So it seems to me there are 2 legal [sic] basis for forcing a change, that is forcing the board to follow the rules. . To sue because we don't like a decision made, ( ie going to china ) I do not think would fly. Forcing the Board to follow the rules, could result in canceling Whalen's actions and forcing board action which might end up with the board turning down the whole deal.
monte couch

Monte round 3
....bringing Editor Chris Mertes and school board members Jim McCourt into the fray. 

"Always two there are...
a master and an apprentice."

 Hmm....why not the other 5?  More to the point...ever notice how Mr. Couch tends to cozy up with two board members?  Most recently it was Stackhouse and Slane.  Then those two departed.  Now it seems that he has glommed onto McCourt and Shimek.  Hmmm...we wonder which one is the master and which is the apprentice.
Caps lock is now on. He's e-YELLING now. 
He apparently didn't like our suggestion that he sue the board if he was so inclined.  OK...there might have been a little more than that. :-) The bear has most definitely been poked.  Monte calling us out.  Labeling us "weak". Oooooh. 

Monte Couch to SP-EYE, James [McCourt], Editor[ Mertes], Terry [Shimek]


10-12-2011 7:25PM


AS TO YOUR SUGGESTION, I DID "get a few bucks together" SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SPENT ABOUT $18,000.00 TO GAIN ACCESS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL RECORDS IN COMPUTER FORMAT. THAT ACTION BENEFITED NOT ONLY SOME IN DANE COUNTRY BUT A SURPRISING NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE..


WHAT YOU TERM MY "LEGAL ANALYSIS" IS DEAD WRONG.I DID NOT OFFER ANY LEGAL ANALYSIS, SIMPLY RESPONDED TO YOUR CONTINUED "CONCERN"? ABOUT SPENDING MONEY ON TIMOTHY'S CHINA EXPEDITION.


MY FIRST MESSAGE TO YOU WAS ABOUT FORCING THE BOARD AND WHALEN TO FOLLOW THE DISTRICT POLICIES AS THEY RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO SINGLE BOARD MEMBER CAN MAKE AND ACT ON HIS OR HER PERSONAL DECISIONS, IT TAKES A VOTE BY THE BOARD.

THERE ARE ALWAYS READILY AVAILABLE REASONS FOR NOT TAKING action but to keep on "talking" AND PUBLISHING, showing "concern" about taxpayers picking up defense fees SEEMS WEAK TO ME. I ask you, when do you stop just "talking" and bring about some specific needed changes?


School Boards exist only because of legal actions. They were created starting with the State Constitution. People should know that, and realize their ability to bring about real change as opposed to talking about it, is not limited to the election process.

And your stand is that the only acceptable reason not to study, understand and make sure the statutes guarding and guiding school board responsibilities are being followed is: "it might cost money?". IT ALSO TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND STUDY, AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY PUBLISHING COMMENTS, OPINIONS ABOUT SOME SITUATION.

I HAVE BELIEVED FOR YEARS IF SCHOOL BOARDS FOLLOW POLICIES AND STATUES, TAXPAYER COSTS WOULD BRING BETTER BANG FOR THE BUCK.
monte couch

Monte...round 4
Hey...we need editorial review! Wanna guess who's looking for the job?
What Mr. Couch doesn't get is that we DO pay for any legal defense for board members. Who exactly do you think pays those premiums, Monte? And there are always "clauses" that exempt claims.  We think we'd rather invest our money with Bernie Madoff.  May we suggest that you exercise caution when using broad statements (or any statements) which cannot be supported by facts? 

Monte to SP-EYE, Editor, Jim[McCourt], Terry [Shimek]


10-14-2011 7:40am


...One problem I have had with your publications has been the lack of careful use of broad statements which can not be supported by the facts. Such statements make what you write sound authentic and impressive but when checked out fall short of supporting what you write.

For example, you wrote "After all, we'd be suing the taxpayers, who would be picking up the tab for any defense fees." Fact is, the district taxpayers pay each year, an insurance premium for insurance to cover defense fees among other expenses covered by the policy. Starting a suit to force the board to follow the rules, would not increase costs to the taxpayers for fees to defend, we already pay each year, insurance premiums to that end. Having been on the finance committee I would have thought you would know that is part of the annual budget..


As I have said before, you have an ability to dig out interesting info and some details, but you need the kind of help editorial review could offer before you hit the "print" button.

 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

pressing "PRINT" now...

District Gets $270K More State Aid Than Expected...Likely None for the Taxpeyers

The final state aid allotments were released today.
Sun Prairie will now receive $30,805,167 (a 5.42% decrease over last year), which is $267,732 more than the estimate released July 1 ($30,537,435). That's $268,000 more to spend .... OR ... they could reduce the tax levy by that amount.

Which do you think is going to happen??

 Of course, by our calculations there's an additional $200-$300,000 over-budgeted due to 20% lower new enrollment than expected. ...and we haven't heard the final tallies on open enrollment. There's usually a reason why we DON'T hear about something.

Our estimate is that there's another $200,000 as an expense (kids transferring out) that didn't happen...which means another $200K of fluff in the budget.

Last but not least....we still see at least $300K of fluff in the other lines of the general budget. Add it all up and there's about $1,000,000 in the budget--and the tax levy---- that doesn't need to be there.

The district wants you to approve a tax levy of $47,087,483 on Monday night. 
We think there are better numbers out there. 
How about $46,887,483 (that reduces it $200,000) 
Or $46,809,483...that reduces it by the extra state aid we just received 
Or $46,787,483...that's a flat cut of $300,000 
Or $46,637,483...which reduces the tax levy increases from 3.5% to 2.5%


Monday is your meeting.  Give them everything they want...or send a message that they have more than enough and that YOU are hurting financially.

Finally....Some Good News For Seniors

Senior citizens and those collecting Social Security have truly been living on a fixed income for the past 2 years.  Due to economy there was no COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) in either January 2010 or January 2011.  That streak appears poised to end this coming January.

"...social security beneficiaries are very likely to see a 3.5% increase in benefits for 2012 beginning in December of 2011."

---http://www.headlinesnews.net

Social Security "COLA" adjustments, by law, are based on comparison of the average Consumer Price Index (CPI)  for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the 3rd quarter (July, August, September) of each year compared to the previous year (or, if no COLA was made, to the last year in which a COLA was made.

The last time a COLA was earned was January 2009, following the 2008 calendar year.  Therefore, 2008 is the baseline.  The CPI-W numbers for the 3rd quarter 2008 were 216.304, 215.247, and 214.935...for an average of 215.5. The CPI-W numbers for the 3rd quarter 2011 so far are 222.686 for July and 223.326 for August...for an average of 223.0. If one divides 223.0 by 215.5, the CPI-W has increased by 3.48%. And by law (unless the law is changed in the 11th hour), that would mean a COLA increase of 3.48% as long as the CPI-W for September (which is now in the books) doesn't drop much below 223.

If one considers what goes into the CPI, some things (gasoline) dropped, while others (food) rose.  Overall, the projection is for September to be on par with July and August meaning an increase of about 3.5%

...and they'll need it, because that is the same increase the school board is pushing for its tax levy.

Keats Back In The Saddle

We've had this one in the back pocket for awhile but things like the budget keep trumping it.

Many asked questions and were concerned 2 years ago when Paul Keats was very quietly replaced as principal of the high school.  Some good news for those that were concerned:  Mr. Keats has been hired as the interim principal of Rhinelander high school.  It would seem that he would be well placed to compete for the permanent position.

Mr. Keats has gone from Cardinal to Hodag!

http://newsofthenorth.net/article/The_Northwoods/Oneida_Vilas_County/Rhinelander_High_School_names_Paul_Keats_interim_principal/3919370

3rd Friday Count & Its Potential Budget Impact

So....last year, district "Key Communicators" received an e-mail ---a virtual shout from the mountaintop---that enrollment increased by 338 students, well over the budget projection of 133.

This year?  The district projected 162 students over last year's 3rd Friday count, but we haven't heard diddly.  What do you suppose that means?  No news means not so good news...are we right?

10 days ago, we asked the district what the count was and were told it was around 150...between 150 and 160.  But still, no official tally has been released.

We understand that school board members were told the final tally this week, and it is 130 additional students, or 32 LESS than projected.  Great...but what does it mean?  One thing is certain...it means we're still growing...and that is a good thing for a district that likes to spend money like it's going out of style.

No additional state aid...at least for this year
The 3rd Friday count has no impact on state aid for the current school year.  State aid is based on an average count from the three prior years.   What the 3rd Friday count DOES impact for this year is the state-imposed revenue limit.  It means that the maximum amount the district can spend (total of federal & state aid plus property taxes) will be lowered.  But...since the district was already planning to spend well underneath the revenue limit, the shortfall from projected enrollment does not negatively impact the 2011-12 budget.

But less students means less costs!
This is basic economics, folks.  Less students means less cost to educate said students.  Sure, the district will be quick to say "That's not true!".  And yes, technically, whether we have 7000 or 3500 students, our "fixed" costs....building maintenance, debt levy, and most heating/cooling remain the same.   But certainly, if we had half as many students, we wouldn't need as many teachers...or administrators.  [Don't get yer undies in a bunch.  We're not advocating to cut staff.  But we are making a point.]  Beyond personnel costs, there is the cost for textbooks, copy paper, supplies...everything needed to educate students.

So...if we have less students, the means we need to buy less paper...right? Not to mention less Skittles, Ho-Hos, and B.O.S.S. subs...right?  In fact, when the district prepares its budget, it "plans" on a certain number of students.  This "projected enrollment", then, drives the rest of the budget for supplies and even personnel.
Basically, the district has a number...let's call it "x"...which represents the budgeted "cost" per student.  Therefore, with a projection of 162 new students, the district must have multiplied 162 by "x" and arrived at an amount by which the budget needs to be increased "for enrollment".  Unfortunately, they don't tell us what "x" is!

What's important is that since we have 32 less students than expected, certainly the budget can now be trimmed by 32X...right?

Solving for X
At the June 16, 2011 Public Hearing on the budget we were told that the district spends $12,345 per student.

Sun Prairie School District Math

At the July 18, 2011 Public Hearing on the budget we were told that"shared cost" per student is $10,866.
Also at the July 18th meeting, we were shown a slide that stated that a 2.3% levy increase was required just for "additional enrollment".  That allows us to do some math and determine that 2.3% of the 2010-11 budget comes to $1,046,584.   With a projection of 162 new students, that means a tax levy increase of $6,640 per new student is proposed.  Since we now know that we have 32 students less than projected, that means the tax levy c/should be lowered by at least $206,733.

Wanna bet we wont' see the school board advocating for a reduction in the levy? And certainly the district won't come forward.

 Remember Phil Frei's mantra:   

"We'll spend [any budget surplus] on something else."

Bottom Line:  Anyway you slice it....no matter which figure you use, 32 less students than planned means that the proposed tax levy could be trimmed at the annual meeting by at least $200K to $325K just due to a lower enrollment than projected! 

The China Syndrome? Here? In Sun Prairie?

Someone PLEASE explain to us the fascination the district (or a portion thereof) has with the need for Mandarin Chinese in the curriculum!

We hear the argument, "China is the second largest country by size and most populous--and therefore the ability to speak Chinese will ultimately have value".
Right.  And property values always rise.  And 100-year storms only occur once in one hundred years.
There is also truth to the fact that in European countries, most people speak multiple languages.  True.  But in Europe, driving to another country is like driving to Chicago.  We teach French and Spanish in this country because we have neighbors to the north and south that use these languages.  If some massive tsunami managed to moved China closer, perhaps then there would be a need.

People!  The generally recognized international language in the business world remains:  ENGLISH.
Further, the United Nations has declared 6 languages to be  "official" languages, but only English and French are considered to be working languages.  The 6 languages, in alphabetical order, are:  Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish.

How much is this going to cost?  And where is it budgeted?
How much will this quiet movement to develop a Chinese language program cost?  And shouldn't the decision to offer it be APPROVED before we go and spend all this money travelling and what not?  Somewhere in the 3.5% tax levy increase wethinks there is a lot of cash squirreled away to spend on these costs.  Why?  Who's in charge?  Tim Culver?  The school board?  The taxpayers?

Why are we sending all even ONE individual to China?  And what's the eventual payback?
When we started a French language program (curriculum), did we send the District Administrator and high school principal to Paris for a week?  What about for Spanish?  Trips to Barcelona? Madrid? Mexico?
And wouldn't the true value be obtained by the teachers that will actually be teaching the language and culture?  And what is China getting in return?  And what will THAT cost?

Tim Culver and Phil Frei want to know why the community distrusts them and won't call them directly when they have issues.  Here is the answer:  because people have no trust when leaders (in title) spend money frivolously and do things behind closed doors.  When the checks have been cut, it's too late for anyone to say, Hey!  Wait a minute here."

Is this just yet another passing fad?
There's some good information in the following link:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/will-americans-really-learn-chinese/

http://www.gocomics.com/jeffdanziger/2010/04/20

It seems clear that it is a monumental challenge for someone to learn Chinese during high school (and that's only 3 years in Sun Prairie).  All experts agree that IF one is to successfully learn one of the world's most difficult languages with its thousands of characters (the good news is that learning only about 3,000 characters is enough to get one around) and multiple intonations, it must be learned in elementary school (or befoire).  Hmmmmm...remember Culver's deep desire to establish such a program?  One can only assume that the language program --which has not been discussed publicly---will be incorporated at the high school level because we're sending high school principal Lisa Heipp to China.  But maybe that's not the plan.  Maybe she's just the lucky/special administrator that gets picked to go???

The bottom line
If this were some hoity toity private school district, by all means, you could spend the fat cat monies any way you choose.  You could develop language programs for every own language if you please.
But it's not.  This is a public, taxpayer funded school district.  And the economy is killing people that earn only a small fraction of what the Sun Prairie decision-makers are earning.  They don't feel the pain.  And their spending habits only serve to further ravage a gaping wound.

Read more about the China School Administrator Shadowing Project (in which we are obviously participating):
http://www.thechinaexchangeinitiative.org/other-projects