There's a hole in his pocket, dear Liza , dear Liza

Uh..oh....it happened AGAIN!
The district got caught spending (what used to be) 2011-12 surplus funds on equipment that SHOULD have come out of the 2012-13 budget.

This time we "over-spent" the budget by about $200K, bringing the total of hoovered surplus funds to $500K. Word is that it was for computers next fall.



Budget line #560, EQUIPMENT_REPLACEMENT

2011-12	May	2011-12		2011-12 FYTD
REVISED	Activity	Total	Encumbered	Unencumbered
Budget	2011-12	Spent	Amount	Balance
213,548	13,721	203,934	197,274	-187,660

That there negative balance means that we've exceeded the budget by $188K.
The encumbered amount, $197K, is what suddenly got spent once somebody knew there was a surplus.  You know...let's bend that surplus like Beckham before we have to give it back to the taxpayers??
 Doesn't $200K have to go through the school board? Be bid?

C'MON PEOPLE!

Gentlemen...start your checkbooks!

The state's July 1 estimates of equalized aid figures were released today.
Good news for Sun Prairie; not so good for most others.

Last year district administration guessed way too high (aid was $730K less than projected).
This year, they guessed way too LOW.
(Do you suppose, like Goldilocks, next year they might hit the target????  At least within a county or so?)


Estimates from our financial advisors back in March suggested a $1.4M increase in aid over 2011-12.
Actually, the aid estimate for 2012-13 is $3.84M more than 2011-12.

THAT, people, HUGE.
Only 12 (of 426) school districts have a larger %increase in equalized aid.
Only FOUR districts will receive a larger DOLLAR increase over last year.

But don't be planning on a reduction in your property taxes....
You know this district...
if they have money, they'll spend it.
Hell...even if they DON'T have it they'll spend it.

What will they do with $3.84M?  Hell..they could give everyone an 8% raise.

It is, after all, other people's money.

http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sfs/pdf/July1_aid_est_summary_pct.pdf

Micro-managing? Or Putting Management Under the Microscope?

Micro-management.
That one word will stop most school board members dead in their tracks if not reverse their course entirely.
And school district administrators know it.
All they have to do is carefully work the idea that some on staff are concerned that the board might be crossing over into micro-managing territory and the pucker factor goes up a dozen notches.

The threat or fear of the word "micro-manage" is an incredibly powerful weapon on par with Mjolnir.  Sometimes, however, weapons are simply waved to make those in authority back down.

We recently heard SPASD board president Tom Weber couch some remarks with the words to the effect of, "At the risk of giving the appearance of micro-managing...".  Those words said it all.  It wouldn't surprise us in the least if Dr. Culver hasn't already used the "M" word casually in conversations with president Weber.

If you Google micro-management, you'll find a basic definition along the lines of "manage[ment] or control with excessive attention to minor details".  Of course "excessive" is itself a subjective term.  How much does it take to become "excessive"?  Micro-management is often assumed to be a perception that the manager lacks trust in the managee.  Well...DUH!   If you begin to lack trust in the individual(s) you manage do you pay LESS attention to what they are doing and how they are doing it?


Trust is a two-way street.  Rather than crying "micro-manager!", perhaps those that invoke that accusation need to take a little introspective inventory.  Perhaps the micro-managee(s) need to ask themselves if they are failing to deliver what the manager has requested.  Perhaps the manager may need to be a little more clear with their direction.  Of course, the greatest excuse for any micro-managee who fails to live up to expectations is, "Gee...I thought that's what you wanted me to do; I wish you had been more clear."  Beginning to sound familiar?  Now we're crossing into passive-aggressive behaviors.


The problem is that school boards are expected (by whom exactly?) to manage (govern) by way of establishing policy.  Great.  But policies in themselves tend to be vague and more conceptual.  And then of course, many boards, SPASD included, have an abundance of policies, and adherence to policies is questionable at best.  So what good are they?


SPASD Policy DBJ, "Budget Implementation" says the following: 


The district administrator, or designee, shall keep the Board informed on the status of the budget at regular Board meetings.

Um...excuse us...but we haven't heard a peep about the budget since March (and that was a very tiny peep).  So here's a policy statement that, arguably, isn't being followed.  

Policy DBJ also says, "3. No expenditure of funds will exceed the major function to which it is to be charged, except in accordance with state law and established procedures."

That's great...but all the district does is move a bunch of money around between functions (most of which the average board member does not understand) et voila!  They can now spend more.

Sometimes, managers simply need to exercise a little tighter grip on the reins to ensure that the horses don't stray off the path.  Certainly there needs to be a good working relationship between the board and the district administrator, but ONLY the DA reports to the board...not the other administrators or staff in the district.  So...shouldn't the board hold the DA's feet to the fire --without fear of the "M" word--if performance of district staff is less than desired?


The other dynamic here that no one thinks about is that the district administration consists of 20-30 professionals.  Surely some (many?) of those professionals are not enamored with how some of their colleagues are performing.  Because it makes them ALL look ...well...not so good.  Maybe Donnie Osmond didn't quite get it right.  Maybe one bad apple won't spoil the whole darn bunch...but on the other hand, it makes the whole bunch less appetizing, doesn't it?

Is it micro-managing to expect accurate and reliable information from the district?
Is it micro-managing to require that the district be transparent in its fiscal management?
Is it micro-managing to expect to see budgets for all aspects of district operations?
Is it micro-managing to demand that  budgets consider the finances of those struggling in the community?
We don't think so.
And neither should you...or the school board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement

School Board Puts Cart Squarely Before the Horse

"Negotiating" raises before we know how much revenue we have a
and other expenses....um...as in a budget....makes absolutely no sense.
THAT is putting the cart before the horse. 

On Monday June 25, 2012, the School Board will be going into closed session to "develop negotiations parameters" with SPEA and Local 60.   We have a teensy weensy couple of issues with that.

First--and foremost-- why on earth would the Board be discussing raises before the Board has seen even a peek at the budget? (Raises, of course, is what "negotiations parameters" means, since under Act 10, the only thing which CAN be negotiated is wage increases)

In fact, since we won't know how much state aid we'll be receiving until July 1, the board will be discussing raises before they even know what revenues will be!  Of course, we know the board hasn't seen a budget yet, because the public hasn't seen a budget yet, and if the board has seen/discussed a budget without disclosing it to the public that wouldn't be very transparent, now would it?

Also there might be a teensy tiny error in the agenda since it talks about the PLURAL parameterS...and remember, under Act 10, the only thing negotiable is wage increases.

Taking advantage of overwhelmed new(er) school board members
We have two new school board members (one REALLY new and one relatively new), and this is just the kind of thing the administration likes to do with rookies.  Oftentimes, rookies don't know enough to (or know that they CAN) speak up and say, "STOP!".  The district counts on new members being overwhelmed and just calms them by saying, "we do this all the time".  It doesn't make it less wrong.  It just allows them to get away with it.  These two "rookies" represent one-half of a majority needed to take any action.

What is the all-fire rush, school board?  What would be so wrong about spending like 2 minutes in closed session Monday night? Just long enough to say, "Hey....until we see a budget that accounts fully for revenues and expenses, we are not even going to discuss raises.  Move to adjourn."

Just laying it on the taxpayers.
Unlike a small business that depends solely on revenues on which to base its budget, the district has no problem discussing raises now.  Why? Because if it isn't covered within state aids, they can always tack it on to the tax levy...right?

What does 2% raise mean?
Phil Frei has communicated that he used a "placeholder" of  2% for the 2012-13 budget.  What he doesn't tell you is what dollar amount that translates to.  Just teachers, admin, and Local 60 (not counting Special Ed costs) cost over $32 MILLION dollars.  2% of that figure translates to $640,000, which, in budget terms, means a levy increase of about 1.3%.  Hmmm....that makes things rough if you are trying to keep the tax levy increase under 2.5%, now doesn't it?  Looks like we may have just figured out why Culver and Frei initiated the top secret 10% cut for all department budgets.  Can you imagine a little conversation that went something like, "You guys can have either a full budget or a 10% budget cut and a 2% raise...which would you prefer?"

Shame on you, school board, if you do not immediately vote to table this discussion until the community (and YOU) have seen a budget.

Agenda Item Details

June 25, 2012 - REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised), 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 300 E. Main St., Sun Prairie. President: Tom Weber

  Closed Session

Subject: Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of April 23, May 2 (2 sets), and May 3 (3 sets), 2012; and developing negotiations parameters with the SPEA and Local 60 [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

Type: Action

10. Closed Session

10.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of April 23, May 2 (2 sets), and May 3 (3 sets), 2012; and developing negotiations parameters with the SPEA and Local 60 [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

Who Knew?

Did any of the Sun Prairie School Board members know about the 10% budget cut that Phil Frei implemented for all district departments?
It was clear, if you watched the June 11th school board meeting, that John Welke did not.   From the look on his face, board President Tom Weber seemed to be outside of the loop as well.

But did ANY of the board members know?
Did Culver perhaps share it with Caren Diedrich during one of their reputed weekly lunches together? (Hmmm...is that where our $125/month "stipend" goes?  Lunch with Mrs. D?)

Who knew?  We're betting SOMEONE knew.
And that would underscore yet another problem in this school district:

Dr. Culver does not share all information equally with all board members.
...and why would that be?

Of course, it's annual performance review time for Dr. Culver.  Do ya think any such concern would appear on his evaluation?  We're betting not.  Decorum, dontcha know.

Whatever happened to the athletic fee issue?

We very clearly heard the school board vote to bring the athletic fee increase issue forward to the June 25th 2012 meeting of the Finance Committee.  It says so in the minutes from the June 11th school board meeting. But it does NOT appear on the agenda for this Monday's (June 25) Finance Committee meeting.

What gives?

Once gain, a vote is taken to do something, there is no follow through, and nothing to tell the public what happened.

We see that Mr. McClowry has already raised the athletic fees on the school district website (gee...how come the school district can move so quickly on SOME things?).

Has the issue been quietly put to death (as Mr. Welke feared)?

Sun Prairie Chooses a New Mascot!

Curt the Cardinal forced to retire! (gasp)

They say in sports that what you are defines who you are.  Recognizing both the overabundance of "Cardinals" as state sports mascots, and their own special skill set, district administration appears to be working out a plan to establish a new team mascot and logo for Sun Prairie sports.

What does this district excel in?  Why cherry picking, of course.  And thus it seems clear that we are destined to become the Sun Prairie Cherry Pickers.  Complete with a new mascot: Cherry Chip!

We have only our elected school board members -- and we need FOUR of those--- who have the power to stop the cherry picking and return Curt the Cardinal to his rightful throne.  Do we have a majority of 4 board members who can and will step up, with their big boy (and girl) pants and publicly vow to end the cherry picking and right this listing district?

And while we're at it, why don't we change the Mission Statement to clearly reflect that we require ---DESERVE--- to have all the facts regarding the data used to make decisions.  All data is filtered to some extent (MLB for example, filters baseball stats to include those with only a certain number of at bats.  Otherwise, the guy that had a hit in his only at bat would win the batting title).  But the difference is, that MLB clearly discloses how data has been filtered...and why.

The Sun Prairie school district, on the other hand, filters data until the result proves the case that it wants to make.  Our most recent example had Athletics Director Jim McClowry filtering hockey fee data for the Big 8 Conference.  For hockey, the big 8 includes 8 teams, 3 of which are Madison teams, which all have the same fees and is a perennially cash-strapped district.  Then there's Janesville, which has been hit harder by the recession than most other locales.  Way to make your average hockey fee soar through the roof, Jim!  If one looks at similar sized (to Sun Prairie) school districts, quite the different picture emerges.  Of course that picture doesn't allow Mr. McClowry to tax the hockey players of this community in order to support his plan to add freshman boys and girls soccer teams this year.

Hmm...isn't it supposed to be a plan supported and approved by the SCHOOL BOARD?  It seems clear that McClowry is NOT a hockey fan.

Remember what Donnie Osmond used to sing.... "One bad apple won't spoil the whole darn bunch..."

Hockey players hit with 275% fee increase

subtitle: Are hockey players supporting freshman soccer moms?
subtitle: Hockey fee increases needed to offset cost of adding freshman soccer program

Anyway you slice it folks, this seems wrong. Does hockey cost more due to the cost of ice time?  Absolutely.  Should there be a supplemental fee for hockey to help defray ice time cost? absolutely.  Is a 275% fee increase in one year acceptable?  Absolutely NOT!

Regardless, 4 school board members voted to accept the new fees.  There were allusions to the potential that the issue may be revisited when the athletic budget is brought to the Finance Committee in a few weeks.  Board VP John Welke, however, expressed concern that the board tends to let these things die once set.  We agree. In fact, Athletics Director Jim McClowry is so sure the fees will stand that he's already had the website updated to reflect the change.  That's moving fast, people...for a district office that plods worse than a tortoise on many more important issues.

Here are our problems with what happened, in no specific order.

No phased in approach.  We knew hockey cost a lot.  We've know for years.  So why hasn't the fee ratcheted up $50/yr each year?  Why isn't this increase from $200 to $550 spread over say three years?  Why suddenly are we all worked up to do something about "equity" NOW?

Dammit Jim, you're not making sense.  First you say that you're under budget constraints because the district office cut your budget (and all department budgets) by 10%.  Then you tell us that you're adding freshman boys and girls soccer next year.  Well...how can you be adding two new sports programs without new funding and in the face of a 10% budget cut?  That makes no sense.  Oh...THEN you tell us you want to raise all athletic fees and raise hockey, in particular, 275% (a $350 per student per year increase).

Champion cherry pickers.    As usual coming from the district, a little research indicates that the information on other program hockey fees looks to be cherry picked to make your case.  Yes...some schools (Madison) charge $800 for hockey.   But there are many other schools that charge a flat rate.  This district likes to present only the facts that support their position...not all the facts.  Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


Funky math softens the blow.  Is it a 275% increase?  Or just a $175% increase.  It depends on the math you use, of course!  $550 ÷ $200 × 100 = 275%.   But...if we just look at the increase itself ($550 - $200 = $350) relative to the current fee ($200), then the "increase" is only $350 ÷ $200 × 100= 175%.  These are twicky wabbits, people.  The INCREASE is 175%, but the FEE is being raised 175%.   This is a classic budget ploy used by the district as well.

It's still apples and oranges.  Yes, ice time is expensive.  But which other sports include the cost of field maintenance.  We've heard the district tout that Ashley Field costs $60,000 per year to maintain.  And what sports play on that?  Football for 5-6 games a year? Even with a varsity roster of 70 something kids, that's about $900/year.  Do we charge football for that?  What about the cost of re-conditioning or replacing football helmets?   That's not cheap. Yet hockey kids supply their own...right?  And their own pads?  Does football?

Why is swimming charged the (new) base athletic fee rate of $65?  Isn't swimming the only sport to use the pool, with its very expensive maintenance costs?  Many schools use a tiered fee structure, but the schools we reviewed....those similar in size to Sun Prairie...had a maximum ratio of hockey: base sport fee of about 3 or 4:1.  These schools charge $100-125 as a base fee and then hockey gets charged about $400-$500.  In our case, the hockey fee will be 8 1/2 times the fee charged for swimming.  Hockey ($550)is being charged 6 1/2 times the fee charged for football, basketball and baseball ($85).  Really?  Football is only $10 more than golf?

It seems to us that ALL fees should be raised to at least $100 and then set a hockey fee at $250 with a programmed increase of $50/year till it hits $400.  Alternatively, we need a complete analysis of costs per sport and assess fees appropriately.  Hockey isn't cheap...but neither is football.  And that's not what the new price structure reflects.

Who ordered the 10% budget cuts?

Last night's (6-11-12) school board meeting was an eye opener on many levels.  We have so much to share.  But the big revelation came from Athletic Director Jim McClowry.  McClowry was trying to rationalize his plan to raise hockey fees by 275% (from $200/per athlete to $550) by presenting a chaotic jumble of numbers and percentages.  It was incredibly difficult to follow McClowry through all of his, "Wait...let me back up a bit..."s.  But that may have been all part of the plan...you know...remain purposefully obtuse when discussing anything budgetary in public.  But then, when explaining why he needed to raise hockey fees by 275%, McClowry let it slip (?) that his--and all departments'--- budget had been cut by 10% per Business Manager Phil Frei.  Of course, there was also the interesting piece that board VP John Welke coaxed out of McClowry that McClowry also needed money to cover his plans to add freshmen boys and girls soccer teams next spring.  Hmmm...was the added cost put on the hockey folks' shoulders to cover the 10% budget gap?  Or was it to pay for two new soccer teams???  More on that to come.  For now...let's get back to the 10% budget cut.

The school board was unaware of and did not direct administration to reduce budgets by 10%.  So...who ordered the budget cut...and why....and when?

After this revelation started igniting, Dr. Culver stepped in and clarified that it was not a 10% budget cut....but rather...that he and Frei had directed all administrators to only spend up to 90% of their budgets in order to keep the tax levy increase under 2.5%.

REALLY!  So limiting spending to 90% does not equal a 10% budget cut?  If THAT is not being purposefully obtuse, what is?

Why did Culver initiate a ...sorry, Tim...10% cut for all departments without consulting the schools board?  When were they going to be told?

THIS is what happens when you keep the budget behind Oz' curtain until July 30th.  C'mon, people...this is not transparency.  It's what gives the school district and school board a bad rap.  When are we going to find four board members willing to say, "ENOUGH!"?

Stay tuned, we have more questions than we have answers.  Meanwhile, we suspect someone has been summoned to the woodshed.

Sun Prairie Graduation 2012 - Still Exceeding Statistical Probability

It was nice.  It felt...comfortable.  But of course that maybe because things went as expected and as they usually do: a phenomenal percentage of honors and high honors graduates.

Sure, there floated the occasional beach ball until confiscated by the aisle monitors. There were several bold souls that "shook their stuff" on the stage before accepting their diploma case.  But could anyone help but notice    the inverted triangle of high honor grads?

Last year 1 in 4 students graduated with high honors. This second verse very nearly mirrored the first.  By our unofficial tally, 109 students graduated with "high honors" (cumulative GPA greater than 3.50, or between a B+ and an A-).  We don't have a final tally on the number of graduated, but with we use 440, the number of 12 graders in SPHS, the percentage is 24.9%. If we total all 12th graders (including PPA and virtual schoolers, the number of kids is just under 500 and 109 represents about 22%).

By contrast, the number of students graduation with "Honors" (cumulative GPA of 3.20 to 3.499) was only 63!  How could we possibly have more kids achieving High Honors, than plain old Honors?  It makes no sense...right?   As with everything, GPA should follow a pyramidical scheme....starting with a large foundation, and then as we move up, the proportions get smaller.

The baseball analogy
Hey, it's baseball season.  Once again, Rob Hamilton has coached a bunch of kids well into the state tournament.  So let's look at major league baseball (MLB) batting averages.  A pretty good hitter has a batting average of about 0.275, or gets a hit somewhere between every 3 or 4 at bats.  Really good hitters have a batting average of 0.300 (3 hits per 10 at bats; generally at least 1 hit per game).  Exceptional hitters cross the 0.350 batting average line.  These are often your leadoff batters because the probability of them getting on base each at bat is high.  Annually, the MLB batting champs have an average of about 0.325-0.350.  Given that, how unearthly was Teddy Williams when his season batting average was over 0.400?

GPAs should be like baseball averages...the higher the average (GPA) the fewer achieve it.  Not so in Sun Prairie!  It's called grade inflation, people.  We can ignore it and be oh so proud of our scholarly cherubs, but we're deluding ourselves...and our kids.  And the kids are the ones that will come smashing back down to earth.

In MLB today, 105 players with at least 175 at bats are hitting 0.275 or less.  Only 26 players are hitting better than 0.300.  This is reality folks.

 The snowman analogy
Don't like baseball?  Heat making you think about winter?  Let's talk snowmen.  Who among us doesn't know that a properly proportioned snowman has a mid-body section about 1/2 the diameter of the base, and a head about 1/4 the diameter of the base.

If we look at Sun Prairie's Honors grads as the mid-body segment, and High Honors grads as the head, we see that our snowman looks a little wack.

Something's not right here, and it's time someone looked into it.  We need to stop mollycoddling our kids and start preparing the for reality.  This Dr. Feelgood crap will only serve to have them wind up on some therapist's couch down the road.  Can't we be both loving and honest?  Wasn't honesty supposed to be the best policy?  Where has honesty gone?  And over-inflating anything is a formula for disaster.

You are not special.
If you didn't catch wind of the 2012 commencement address given by Mr. David McCullough, faculty member at Wellesley (MA) high school, you should.  He blew Dr. FeelGood out of the water.
Some excerpts are provided below.

Graduates....you passed an awesome milestone.  A round of applause is certainly in order for earning your diploma.  But let's not get overly caught up in class rank or what type of honors you graduated with.  The slate is wiped clean.  College acceptance is competitive and you are now among peers with the same GPA/ACT scores.  We wish you the very best.  Just do not be surprised if things are more difficult than expected, based on your GPA.  Do not get disillusioned.  Just do your best and you will persevere.  You may or may not get "high honors"from here on out.  And if you are off to work, be all that you can be.  The old adage "work hard and you will be rewarded still plays in some businesses".

But most of all...do not be afraid to fail.  Because if you're not failing at something, you're not trying.  None of you will be the best at everything.  A cumulative GPA of 4.0 in life is absolutely unattainable.  But you can get "A"s in some things.  Strive for "A"s in the things you enjoy, and be happy with average marks on the rest of life.

You are not special. You are not exceptional. Contrary to what your U9 soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you’re nothing special.
But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.

Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That’s 37,000 valedictorians… 37,000 class presidents… 92,000 harmonizing altos… 340,000 swaggering jocks… 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs.

You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. 
 ---Faculty member David McCullough at Wellesley (MA) High School 2012 Commencement

Elementary space pt. 3- 249 words

3 motions came out of the Elementary Task Force

1. John Welke moved to establish an interim student capacity (maximum capacity) for each
elementary school by using the number of dedicated educational classrooms with even grade
distribution times the current class target size plus two. Motion carried 7-0.

This is it.  This is the entire response provided by the elementary principals
 in response to the three motions made  by the Elementary Task Force.

2. John Welke moved to direct administration to review the interim capacities and prepare a
report with recommendations for each elementary school capacity if it's different than the
interim capacity. Motion carried 7-0.

3. John Welke moved to direct administration to prepare, as desired, a different model for
establishing elementary school capacities and present it to the Elementary Task Force
Committee. Motion carried 7-0.

Loaded with qualifiers.

• "...theoretically possible"
• "...practically...next to impossible"
• "...it would NOT be best"
• "...we would NOT be as effective as Instructional Leaders"

In fa ct, there were more words devoted to qualifying their response than actually providing relevant contributory information.

Really? This is what we get from the $100K club?
These folks are all pretty much card carrying members of the $100K salary club (or at the very least total compensation).  This is the best we get from this group?   No header, no identifying information....hell one wouldn't even know it came from them if it wasn't in BoardDocs.

How do you think any student would fare if they turned in a 249 word paper when a "report" was requested?   Maybe...just maybe...if they were the most concise but explanatory words ever strung together.  Just maybe 249 words would cut it. But we doubt it.  They didn't even put their name on their paper.

Was it even their work?
Some have theorized that the response came from somewhere on high (3 guesses) and the elementary school principals were forced to present it as their own.  Perhaps adding to that, the "author" of the document on BoardDocs is not any of the elementary principals but none other than the Secretary for Business Services.   It would seem unlikely that the principals would write their "report" in an e-mail, which had to be copied into a document.  But, if they presented their "report" in some word processor document, why wouldn't that have just been "PDF'd", carrying the author's name with it?
Just askin'....

An answer for everything

OK...truth be told, building a new school
was the ONLY idea which was NOT
met with a response of,
"That's not what's best for the kids"

When committee members expressed disappointment in the quality of the response received, the unified response was "we know what's in the best interests of the children".  To each of the multitude of options proposed to ensure adequate space at the elementary level while delaying spending money on a brand new school, administration just responded with their trump card, "that's not what's best for the kids".

No compromise.  No discussion.  Just a flat, "that's not what's best for the kids.  And the Elementary Task Force  (well, those members other than the administrative team) came up with dozens of really good ideas  representing ex-box thinking, including:

• move some (or even all) 5th graders to the middle schools
• move 7th graders into CHUMS
• reconfigure the grades in elementary schools: maybe four schools serve as K-2 and three schools serve as 3-5.
• relocate the 80 or so kids in the PPA and use the PPA building as a new elementary school.
• make better use of the old administration building (near the CHUMS)
• look for a building which can be converted to a new school, rather than build from scratch,
• make the next elementary school a charter or magnet school
• re-tool boundary lines to ease "crowding" in Horizon, Eastside, Bird and Northside

Perhaps these ideas will be explored at a later date.  Of course...what would be the point, seeing as our elementary principals don't see anything on that list as being "best for the kids".

We're disappointed. You should be too.

Losing confidence in Sun Prairie School District

Sadly, the credibility of the district is going up in flames, ignited by the sparks of a lengthening track record of poor quality information and financial freewheelin'.

The question we have is: how can we have any confidence in the fiscal management of the Sun Prairie Area School District?

Most recently we have the district exceeding the 2011-12 budget for certain line items and using 2011-12 surplus dollars to purchase items required for 2012-13 school year.  Without any public discussion. Or approval from the school board.

We also find out that the brand spanking new JV baseball field has drainage issues that is budgeted to cost $70,000 to repair.  Is this not something that should have been identified earlier and made the responsibility of the contractor that graded the field?

The Ashley field costing has blown credibility to shreds.  We were told that annual maintenance costs are $60,000 countless times.  Then late in 2010, the district re-calculated maintenance costs at only $15,000 per year.  However that figure has not been widely released.  Why?  Because the initial plan assumed that we'd save at least $450,000 in maintenance costs over 120 years, and therefor the district should pony up at least $450K.

And that's just this year.
Go back to last year and we have the whole candy fiasco, the inaccurate data coming out of the business office, the shenanigans which occurred at the annual meeting to name just the major hitters.

The *new* budget timeline works for the district but not for the community
This year we have heard no official word at all about the budget, and that's bad for the community.  The first time we officially see any form of a real budget, the new fiscal year will already have begun.
Seriously...how wrong is that?
That's like getting your tax bill after it's due.
Like getting your position description after you start a job.

We've gone backwards, people.
We should be reviewing the state of the CURRENT budget with the community from March through June, as the school and fiscal year year ends.
At the same time, we should be reviewing plans for spending for the upcoming year.


Mid-year budget changes are (almost) entirely unacceptable
With the exception of an unexpected grant or some major unanticipated cost, we should NEVER bee changing the budgeted amount for a given budget line.
Administrators get paid the big bucks to know how to budget...accurately.
And, if we DO need to exceed the budget, isn't that what fund balance is for?
Stop trying to con us into believing that leaving fund balance alone is required to get  a good rating and good interest rates. Poppycock.  That's the stuff that Walker feeds us.  Do we really want it from the district?

The complexion of the board has changed significantly.
We have a new board president.

This is a window of opportunity
for a board  with a new majority

We have a new board treasurer.
It's time to change the way the Sun Prairie Area School District does business.
But it starts with the board; it must take action to address and correct the issues.
And that action begins with a Situation Report and a public discussion.
Any volunteers?

Budget shenanigans alert: $384K of OVER-expenditures identified

Instead of an Annual Meeting Book
or a  150 pg Monitoring Report, how
about each resident gets a copy of this?

We knew it was too good to be true.
We saw at least $700K in surplus, Phil Frei kept saying only $200-400K.
Ah...but he controls the purse strings, so he knew.  He knew.
The questions are, however: did his supervisor, Tim Culver know? Why didn't the school board know?

Budget Shenanigans#1: $300K over-expenditure for textbooks
District administration had to know these were coming.  So why weren't they budgeted for?
Or did Mr. Frei know that there would be a surplus to cover the shortfall in these budget lines?


Budget Shenanigans#2: Who knew? And why wasn't it reported?

District administration certainly, without a doubt knew they needed to purchase these textbooks; they'd been meeting on the issue through 2011.  It is our understanding that when board members asked if there was money in the respective department budgets for these materials, administration indicated affirmative.  Clearly that is not the case.  So where did they think this money was coming from?  Fund Balance?  Budget surplus, hmmm?
Why was this not reported as part of the March budget adjustments?  Did Tim Culver know about/approve this?

Budget Shenanigans#3: Robbing Peter to pay Paul
Clearly, the intent was to purchase $300K of textbooks required for the 2012-13 school year using projected surplus dollars from the 2011-12 budget.  This is not appropriate.  Budgets are budgets. Any budget surplus belongs to the taxpayers, NOT district administration.  Could they ASK nicely (via the school board) if the taxpayers would be so kind as to allow surplus dollars be used to pay for next years expenses?  Sure.  And likely it would be approved.  But that's not what was done here.  The manner in which this was handled is questionable at best and subject to repercussions at worst.

The question that this brings, however, is what OTHER budget hijinx is going on that we have NOT yet discovered? It brings to mind the old adage that if one would steal a candy bar, it establishes that the individual has thieving tendencies, which leads one to question: what else will be (or has been) stolen...and when.


Budget Shenanigans#4: Money Manipulation 101
How can any budget manager, in good conscience, DECREASE the amount budgeted for a specified line item when expenditures for that line item already exceed the budgeted amount?  Because that's what happened for line 471, Textbooks.  The "budget" in March 2012 was $70,173, which was reduced to $66,814 in April 2012, the same month in which the budget was not just exceeded, but shattered by $161,500?   More to the point, the budgeted amount even in December 2001 was $186,003.  Why was it reduced by $120K when Mr. Frei KNEW these purchases were coming?

Wait...why are we even adjusting budgeted amounts on a monthly basis?  Hello...McFly!  A budgeted is a fixed amount by which one's spending is constrained.  If one simply moves the target every month, it defeats the purposes of even having a budget!  This little known trickery has got to stop.

In an attempt to rationalize this practice, Mr. Frei has used an analogy that a teacher might in the spring decide they want top purchase a magazine, but come fall, decide they no longer want the magazine and instead want to buy construction paper.  Therefore Mr. Frei decreases the magazine budget and increases the paper budget. NO!  What happens is that one line item will be a little short and the other will be a little high.  But they balance each other out in the end! So no harm, no foul.   Changing the budgeted amounts just muddies the water.  Of course, sometimes we muddy the water when we don't want people to see what we're doing.

Budget Shenanigans#5: Disingenuous Information
The value "FYTD %" on the monthly Expenditure by Object report is disingenuous at best. It ONLY reflects actual expenditures vs. budgeted amount. This value MUST also include encumbrances, which are financial commitments the district has made. School board members and residents who look at this stuff will generally simply scan the FYTD% column and look for anomalies. The April report shows that we've only spent 64.69% of budget for line 479 "Other Instructional Books", which at a glance, seems like we will have a surplus with only 2 months remaining. Only if you look at the Unencumbered balance and recognize that -133K represents a budget exceedance would you catch it. And it appears near the bottom on page 2 of a 3 page report.

Budget Shenanigans#6: These Are Not The Only Ones
Take a look at budget line items 440 (Non-Cap Equipment) and 550 (Equip. Addition) as we are now $57K and $27K over budget respectively for these lines (roughly 8%). Was the board made aware of this? What did we purchase that required us to exceed budget for these lines?

Eroding the Public Trust

Really!  What if you needed to pass
a referendum for a new school now?
Does anyone really trust the information
coming out of 500 S. Bird St.?

 It is incidents such as this that continue to erode the public trust in the district as good stewards of taxpayer money. People are hurting, and a surplus used to lower the levy for 2012-13 would have been very nice. Instead, it continues to look like the district wants to squeeze and spend every single taxpayer dollar even using questionable means.

District Leaving the School Board with Egg on their Faces
 The quality and shadiness of data coming out of the district is unacceptable, and these things also make the board look either ignorant or complicit. We don't believe either is true...we know how much information there is and how hard it is to peel all the layers of this onion. However, the district has placed all board members in a very bad position.