The Seditional Six
A number of budget initiatives were proposed by staff and up-channeled to district administration. District administration whittled this list down to six (6) unfunded initiatives which they wished the school board to approve as additions to the budget. Despite numerous opportunities, however, the school board declined to do so.
Note: "initiative" itself means an introductory step or action. And if it's introductory, that means it's NEW. Clearly these :initiatives" were proposals to EXPAND, not MAINTAIN, the school district.
Opportunities everywhere, but the board wasn't drinking this Kool-Aid
There were many opportunities for public input. Two themes were prevalent: one faction (supported by administration) wished the board to add $600,000 to the 2012 budget expenditures for the Seditional Six initiatives.
- Public hearings on the budget were held on June 16, 2011 and July 18, 2011.
- The 2011-12 budget was discussed at the Finance Committee meetings held on January 24th and July 25th. Various pieces of the budget were discussed at other Finance Committee meetings.
- The school board held special working sessions on the budget on March 16th and August 25th , 2011. These sessions were open to the public.
- The 2011-12 budget was discussed and formally adopted at full meeting of the school board held on September 12th, 2011. This final, formal budget did not include any of the aforementioned 6 budget initiatives. The school board had formally adopted its 2011-12 budget, and with much opportunity for community input, had opted not to fund these initiatives in light of the economy's growing strain on district taxpayers. They did their jobs, as difficult as it might have been
4.03 2011-2012 Proposed Budget - September 12, 2011
Motion by Jim McCourt, second by Caren Diedrich
TO APPROVE THE 2011-2012 PROPOSED BUDGET.
Final Resolution: Motion Carried on a vote of 6-0-1 (board member Welke absent)
The situation report contained two critical statements:
4. No allocation of budget dollars for any new initiatives
10. A combined (general and debt) tax levy increase of 3.48%
At NONE of these meetings did the school board ever vote to fund any of the 6 "new" budget initiatives. There was discussion at at least one meeting that "if money became available" the board would attempt to fund as many initiatives as possible, but no formal vote to do so was made prior to the annual meeting.
That is it folks, your elected leaders repeatedly said, "These initiatives clearly show potential benefit, yet due to the economic climate we are not incorporating them into the 2011-12 budget." The board determine that they were not "necessary to operate or maintain schools".
Then came the Annual Meeting
The Annual Electors meeting was held on October 17, 2011. Another large turnout materialized, this one heavily populated by school district administrators, teachers, and parent groups. Together they supported the 6 unfunded new initiatives, and overwhelmed the annual meeting.
 |
| Annual meeting slides regarding "unfunded" budget initiatives |
But during the budget discussion was when two very interesting --and telling-- public comments were made:
Jan Fournier, 2563 Prairie Dog Dr., Sun Prairie, supports the school district proposal to increase the tax levy. Wisconsin has quality schools and she doesn’t want to see them deteriorate.
Pastor Harold Rayford, 1300 School St., Sun Prairie, commended this Board in making sure we have an excellent school district. Asked what we would have to add to the motion to make sure all six initiatives are included. Phil Frei stated we would need a tax levy set at $47,354,483.Funny how Ms. Fournier got the impression that the school district was presenting this as a proposal at the annual electors meeting, eh?
Source: Minutes of the 2011-12 Annual Electors meeting
Funny how Pastor Rayford seemed to know precisely what to ask to circumvent the board and 9 months of public input to push forth an agenda at the 11th hour.
Funny how quickly Mr. Frei came up with the new tax levy required to fund all 6 initiatives, eh?
Funny what can happen when many residents had come to grips with a 3.48% tax levy increase and therefore decided that there was no reason to attend the annual meeting, eh? After all...the budget had been adopted.
Actually, not very funny at all. Disturbing, we'd say.
The Unconscionable Efforts of Mr. McCourt and Mr. Frei
The problem here was the district's "slide show" on the budget. What SHOULD have been presented was a very concise summary of the budget composition, the proposed tax levy, and projected impact on property tax bills. Instead, a conscious decision was made to insert slides designed to resurrect budget initiatives --not anything critical to operate an maintain schools, mind you-- which the board had decided against funding due to the economic climate. Note that the board DID say that the district should fund these initiatives if savings could be found within the budget. The importance piece was that the board did not feel comfortable adding permanent staff at a time when budgets were extremely tight. There was a clear agenda here, and that was to use the Annual; Elector's Meeting to revise the budget adopted by the board on September 12th.
Board president John Whalen has graciously offered to fall on the sword and take responsibility for what happened. Realistically, however, Mr. McCourt and Mr. Frei worked together to develop the slide show. They KNEW that the board had not approved funding the initiatives. McCourt personally voted to fund the initiatives.
While we can't prove it, we also strongly suspect that certain comments were seeded from district administration to key residents to "start the ball rolling" at the annual meeting. This budget and the tax levy were hijacked, pure and simple.
Someone or someones created a few gaping holes in the roof of this school board. At the annual meeting, the roof was clearly leaking, and Culver's reign came through in buckets.
You gotta give' em credit for ingenuity. But this is the poorest of form. Tossing out 9 months of public comment and a school board adopted budget to operate and maintain schools, only to be hijacked by a special interest group --one with a conflict of interest-- at the Annual Meeting.
Later on at the board's October 24th meeting at which the final tax levy was approved and the original adopted budget had to be subsequently modified, board member Terry Shimek showed his stripes. He insisted that he could not go against the will of the electors. Mr. Shimek needs to re-read ch. 120, Wis. Stat.s, and pay attention to the Atty. General;'s opinion this time.
Posts
