Of Sense and Sensibility...and Hockey Fees

After an often grueling (depending on your vantage point) 2 1/2 hours, last night the school board voted 5-2 to restore sanity to the athletic fees assessed for hockey.

Of course, the dissenting votes belonged to John  ("Swimming is a lifelong activity; the same can't be said for hockey") Whalen and Caren (" I don't know what's in my mind!") Diedrich.  No surprise there.

Ultimately the 5 board members voted the way they did out of fairness and equity.

Why should hockey players be "charged" for ice time when the cost of building and maintaining the field house and multiple sports fields is not "charged" to other programs?  Sorry, Mr. Whalen, but neither Ashley field nor Summit field are used for PE.

REDUCING HOCKEY FEES 

87 HUNDRED Dollars: cost of reducing hockey fees
900 THOUSAND dollars: 2011-12 budget surplus
73 MILLION dollars: 2012-13 SPASD budget
It's do-able people
...it makes sense
...and it's the right thing to do

Hell...just a few years back the district spent about $8700 a year on pizza for their staff meetings.

There are roughly 30 kids playing hockey now.
That means that reducing the fee from $375 down to $85 (the same Tier III as baseball, football, basketball and soccer) "cost" the district exactly $8,700.
This school district just completed a "tough" year with at least $900,000 dollar surplus.
Surely we could "find" $8,700 somewhere in a $73,000,000 budget in the name of equity...and perhaps giving more kids an affordable opportunity to play hockey.

Five board member thought so:  John Welke led the charge, with a supporting cast of Jill Camber Davidson, Tom Weber, Mike Krachey, and Steve Schroeder.

Thank them.

Support a ban on penalty shots

We don't mean the normal penalty shots occurring as part of a hockey game.
We're talking about the penalty shot leveled at the hockey program.

This past June we learned that Athletics Director Jim McClowry's operational budget was increasing by $32,679.
He had a plan to recoup that increased cost by changing the fee structure.
Instead of all sport fees being $50 (hockey assessed $200), he proposed a 4 tier structure with participation fees of $65, $75, and $85.  The 4th tier was reserved for hockey at a whopping fee of $550 (275% increase).

The $550 plan
Now mind you, if we look at all sport participants, that number is 1,043.
Of that 1,043 kids, only 30 play hockey (21 boys, 9 girls).
The total sum of the increased fees was $33,052.
Of that figure, at $550,  per kid, hockey was covering 32% of the operations budget increase.
That's right...2.9% of the kids (parents) were penalized into covering 32% of the operational budget increase.  We didn't hear anything about hockey costs actually being 32% of the budget increase...just that McClowry was levying a penalty shot to the hockey program.  Way to kill a sport, Jimbo!

Regrouping: The $375 plan
We suspect the district (and McClowry) received a helluva backlash, so on July 23rd, we heard that the district quietly had dropped the hockey fees from $550 to $375.  A nice gesture, but still a 188% increase.  Yes sports like football, baseball, basketball and soccer, are seeing a 170% increase, but the difference here is that those kids are seeing a DOLLAR INCREASE of only $35, vs. the $175 clam smacker laid on hockey parents.  Strike ONE!

Under this revised scenario, hockey kids (that 2.9% of all athletes) are still paying for about 16% of the total athletics budget cost increase.  Strike TWO!

Strike 3...you're OUT!
Here's the biggest secret the district and McClowry don't want you to know.  The numbers are out there, but they fervently hope that YOU don't put two and two together.


McClowry likes to highlight the cost of ice time....$22,200 according to his own budget numbers as the rationale for firing a penalty shot at hockey kids.  He likes to emphasize that no one else benefits from the ice time charges.


We have a response to that.  Do you know how much it costs annually to maintain and prepare the district's MANY fields?  They can't even tell you!  But what we DO know is data on what it takes to maintain just ONE field...Ashley field....used by ...what?  Football 5-6 games a year, a little for baseball?  Some Sound of Sun Prairie?  A couple of lacrosse games a year?


If we wanted to cherry pick, like Mr. McClowry, we'd use the figure David Stackhouse tossed out--and it held for many years-- $60,000 per year!!!!  That would mean that the cost of maintaining Ashley field is nearly triple the cost of ice time for hockey.  Now...we'd rather bring you real, unfiltered data instead of cherry picking.  Two years back the district determined that the ACTUAL cost to maintain JUST Ashley field, is about $16,000 per year.  (Of course that figure hasn't been widely publicized because Stackhouse's intent behind the $60,000/yr figure was a 10-yr savings of $600K...which he felt the district should contribute to turf for Ashley.  At only $15K/yr, the district "contribution: shrinks to only $150K.)


...and field maintenance is covered out of the general fund...NOT the Athletics operations budget.
...so why is ice time not covered b y the general fund?
...or greens fees?


The cost of maintaining Ashley field ALONE amounts to about 72% of the cost of ice time.
So why are we essentially charging hockey kids for the cost of their "field" when we don't charge other kids for their sport "fields"?


What is the solution?
The school board needs to take the cost of ice time (hockey) and greens fees (golf) out of the athletics operations budget.  The cost of fields and field maintenance is not covered there.  For hockey and golf, those ARE their "fields".


The school district paid about $1.4M for an incredible gymnasium that serves most sports...bit not hockey or golf.  $8.8M was spent on "site work", including the development of Summit fields, the new track, and all those other beautiful fields.  Hockey and golf got zip.  Even the arts program got over $500K for a fly loft.  We built a greenhouse, and added $75,000 towards a concert grand piano.  Hockey and golf?  Nothing.


It's time to make the athletics program equitable.  We need to cover ice time and greens fees under the general fund.
We also need to re-set the hockey fees back to the 3-tier system.  Put it on the highest rung...but charge no more than for any other sport for which the district cannot even begin to tell you the "operational cost" of their fields.  We know Ashley field costs alone are just a bit less than ice time for hockey.


Re-set hockey fees at $85.
Transfer excess athletic program fee revenue to the general fund.
The net "cost" to the district is $8,327.
In a $73M budget, that is peanuts...about 1/100 of a % (0.01%)

What did hockey & golf get?

Monday July 30 is the big school board work study meeting on atheltics and activities:

See the agenda and materials

This all started with Athletic Director McClowry proposing to raise all athletics fees a little bit ($40 max) EXCEPT for hockey.  The hockey kids--girls and boys--got poked with a very sharp stick to the tune of a $350 increase from $200 to $550.

As justification,  Mr. McClowry verbally presented some cherry-picked facts that suggested we were the only district NOT charging that much.  He alluded to the incredible cost of ice time.  We recall him using a figure of $30,000 or more.  The real number seems to be closer to $22K.

10 E 410 940 162223 000 BOYS ICE HOCKEY DUES AND FEES GENERAL 22,200.00

What we want to know is this:
As part of the new high school referendum, virtually every sport BUT hockey and golf got complete new "digs".   They got zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  So...if the taxpayers can cover that and field maintenance, why aren't we covering (taking out of the equation)  ice time and greens fees?

Isn't this all about equity, Dr. Culver?
Or do we just like skewing the data to make a point?


Sorry to say folks, but SP-EYE doesn't even have a dog in this fight.  We're not hockey fans.  But we believe in equity and fairness...and it's not fair to raise the hockey fees one iota.

Halfway is nice...but not good enough

In a surprise move Monday night, the district office announced during the school board's Finance Committee meeting that it was lowering the hockey fee increase from $350 ($200 => $550) down to $175 ($200=>$375).  From the bewildered looks of school board members in attendance, they had no clue.

Hockey fees reduced from $550 to $375!

Don't get us wrong, the reduction is nice, but it's not good enough. Clearly, the Powers That Be simply cut the fee increase in half.  Where was the data that drove that decision?  It sure looks like they got an earful about the increase and decided that cutting it 50% would make the issue go away.  Maybe for some...but not for us!  We need to stop pulling this crap out of our butts and start making sound, defensible, data-driven decisions.

We learned that the Athletics budget was re-instated from 90% to 100%. So that means Mr. McClowry will have more money (and thus need to lean less on hockey people).  What has NEVER been presented is the dollar amount represented by  10% of the athletic budget.  IT seems that the district is telling us that the cost of adding freshman boys and girls soccer plus $175 fee increase for hockey players adds up to 10% of the Athletic budget.  Sorry...we're not buying it.  This $175 reduction was clearly pulled out of somebody's....well...you get the idea.

We say that the hockey fees  MUST go back to $200 until such time as the district can deliver a complete accounting of revenues and expenses for ALL sports.  And that means the cost of field maintenance, transportation, uniforms and everything else.  Then the board needs to establish a clear policy that underscores the extent to which costs are to be recouped via fees.

For example...
let's say football "costs" a total of $100,000 per year
...and total revenues (gate receipts, WIAA reimbursements, etc.) total $50,000.
That means the net "cost" to the district/taxpayers is $50,000.
Then, let's say the board's policy is that fees must be assessed to recoup at least 25% of net costs incurred.
That would mean that football athletic fees must be set at a rate which will amount to $12,500.
Then...if we have 100 kids going out for football (we can use the prior year's real data), then $12,500 ÷ 100 = an athletic fee of $125.00

It's not that difficult people!  We need to change the way we do business.

What we find most interesting is that when the board voted to allow the fee increase it took mere hours to change the fees on the web site.  Now...fully 48 hours later, the website shows hockey fees at $550.  Hmmmm...Mr. McClowry isn't so quick when he doesn't get his way, is he?

Ashley Field- One Lone Donor

Six months ago, we asked Jim McClowry how much money had been raised through donations for Ashley Field upgrades.  The answer...a big fat goose egg.  We thought however, that the message was clearly delivered.  Nope.  If you review the 2011-12 Donations list, only a single donor for Ashley Field appears.  And we find that just a tad ironic because it's not even a sport, but a club, and one for which playing on Ashley Field is a dream, not a reality.



Date Donor Purpose          Amount
3/10/12 Sun Prairie Youth  Monetary Donation to   $ 675.00
Lacrosse Club        SPHS for Project  Related to 
       Improvement of Athletic Fields 

We won't call them out, but where are the sports boosters who actually get to use Ashley Field?
This is a CLUB...while lacrosse is a recognized and growing sport, it isn't here in Sun Prairie School District. All they were offered is to be a "club".  By the way, did you know that lacrosse is the largest growing sport in the nation?

Source:  http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2011.php 
NFHS= National Federation of State High School Associations

Wow....good thing lacrosse players are tough.  Because this group has taken a slap despite being the ONLY group to make a donation towards Ashley improvements.  And it was a sizable donation.

We've seen fundraising by the greenhouse folks, many sports and clubs, and even the Pro Start (culinary arts) group.  But only lacrosse has stood up for Ashley field.

Wow.  Somebody or somebodies should be ashamed.

http://www.uslacrosse.org/TopNav/NewsandMedia/PressReleases/USLStudyRevealsContinuedGrowth.aspx
2010: High school lacrosse also continued to boom with 255,314 players, up 12.2 percent from 2009.

2012-13 Budget released- are you sitting down?

Is there a doctor in the house, people might be feeling faint.
The school district has finally released its draft 2012-13 budget, and the bottom line is...wait for it....a projected 2% tax DECREASE!

Yes, we do mean the Sun Prairie School District.
Yes...we did say a 2% tax DECREASE.

While there is a natural inclination to give a round of applause to the district, and we're certainly all in favor of applause where it is merited,  you should know some things first.

1. Once again we had a pretty substantial surplus from 2011-12.  (Remember Caren Diedrich saying that the 2011-12 budget was so tight it squeaked?  Seems that was something else she heard squeaking 'cause there was plenty of fluff in this budget) Note that we still haven't heard the total of that surplus, but what we have ;learned is that it was at least $650,000, because they used that much of the 2011-12 budget to purchase textbooks and computers for 2012-13.  So  they want you to pat them on the back because that move helped towards having a decrease for 2012-13.  It's kind of a sham decrease though...because they didn't reduce their spending or cut back anything.

2. The biggest reason for the decrease is that DPI estimates that we will receive $3.8 MEEELYUN dollars more in state aid this year (you might recall, we ranked 5th in money received out of 420 something districts).  Even our hired financial advisors predicted only a $1.2M increase.  That $2.4M extra --on its own-- would amount to about a 5% decrease in the tax levy.

3. What will the board do about raises (closed session discussion Monday night) ?  This budget currently includes (as a "placeholder") about $850,000 from staff salary increases.  Take that money away (did YOU get a raise this year???) and the tax levy drops another 2%.  Now we're not advocating that the board do that, but does Tim Culver need a raise?  The ten members of the $100K club?  Teachers that are already making over $75K per year?  We don't think so.

Any money that is allocated for raises should primarily be allotted to those low on the totem pole.  If we now say that they are no longer teachers, but professional educators, then let's pay a better starting wage.

There...and we did it with just one slide. But if you want to see the district's show, click here:

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/files/8WBLQ8579FF7/$file/Preliminary%202012-13%20Budget%20Presentation.pdf

SP-EYE Turns Five!

What a difference 5 years makes!
Hard to believe...we know...but SP-EYE has been on-line for 5 years today.

Let's set the Wayback Machine to July 15, 2007 and see what was going on back then.

First...the school board composition:

Boylen...Gone! a 1-yr blunder

Carrel...Gone! We had mixed feelings about Jim.

Diedrich...Still going...perhaps going away next spring. 

Havel-Lang...Gone! Death by Boundary fiasco.

McCourt...Gone!  Off eating seabass nightly in San Fran

Stackhouse...Gone!  To court & possibly a bright orange jumpsuit

Whalen...Still with us. Taking a licking but still kicking.

Reminisce with us at our very first post....before we had honed our graphical skills!

---

SUNDAY, JULY 15, 2007

Top 5 things to know...

1. District Administrator Tim Culver's salary is higher than that of Governor Doyle. The combined salaries of the top 4 administrators in the district exceeds one-half MILLION dollars.

check it out:
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html

2. While the rest of the world , including state employees, pays some or all of their health care costs, we, the taxpayers, covered 100% of school district employees' health benefits up until this year. Now they still pay only 2-4% of health care costs. State employes typically pay 6-8% or more.

3. During the past school year (2006-07) taxpayers paid for over $7000 worth of pizza, subs and other food for administrators and staff, typically charged to "[Department] Supplies"

4. Instead of appointing an individual who narrowly missed election in both 2006 and 2007 to a school board vacancy, the School Board appointed an individual who has lived in Sun Prairie for less than 3 years, and whose career experience is in school administration. Think we got a vote for taxpayers here?

5. It's budget time again! The annual public meeting is in October. Did you know that when the rest of us have a co-worker who loses a family member or celebrates some big event, we all chip in and buy flowers. The School District, however, has a policy that allows it to purchase flowers for its employees on these occasions on the taxpayers' dime.

---

What's changed...
1. Not much... Dr. Culver still earns more than our Governor.  But now at least Dr. Culver has like 3 more degrees than the governor.  Degrees are worth more...right?

2. Success! Thanks to Act 10, this year ALL employees are paying half of their retirement, 12% of health insurance benefits, and 8% of dental insurance.  Progress is slow...but change has come.

3.  Mostly Success! They still do the pizza thing on occasion, but FAR less than they used to.

4.  Success! This was Boylen.  Despite having an applicant that narrowly missed being elected in April, come June the board selected Boylen after a poorly connected 5-minute telephone interview from some bar in like Eagle River.  Genius.  This year, under new board president Tom Weber's reign, they did it right and selected a very worthy Steve Schroeder.

5. Failure.  The floral memorials for employees and their families still continues at the taxpayer's expense.  Is it a nice thing to do?  Sure.  But it's also wrong for taxpayers to pay from memorials for district employees and their kin.   The state doesn't allow it and neither should the district.  Hard to get 4 board members that will say, "No", though.

What's still to come...
Sp-Eye is staying around until we're no longer needed.  After seeing just the tip of the iceberg with the budget, athletic fees and Ashley Field, we'll be flying cover for you, the people, for some time.

What if you trust but cannot verify?

We won't necessarily call "bullshit" (remember that old card game?)...but we did a little independent verification of the hockey fee information presented by Athletics Director Jim McClowry, and it doesn't pass the smell test.

This is why we need to (A) see the data and (B) know the source of the data before making any decision.  In the absence of tangible corroborating data, any vote to support should be  a resounding "NO".  In the old exhibitionist's game of chicken, we'll show him ours if he'll show us his!  And because our source is student and athletics fee information largely published in 2011-12 student handbooks, a student could certainly make a strong argument that (if the school district was trying to charge more), just like when shopping, if the price tag says "X", the store cannot charge "Y" without evidence to support fraud.

Based on the Situation report for June 11th, McClowry indicated:

"...the fee for participating in hockey is planned to increase 275% from $200 per year to $550 per year. This would bring the SP Hockey fee into line with other districts in the conference, which range from $450 to $800 and last year averaged $644."

No matter how we twisted the data, we could not come up with an average hockey fee cost for the Big 8 of $644.  Now...the only fee we could not find was the fee for Middleton girls hockey.  All available information indicates that the cost for hockey is $172, ("...except for girls").

The highest average we could come up with was $588, when we used the increased SPASD fee and counted the three Madison schools individually rather than as a single district.

Perhaps more to the point, what we did not hear was how Sun Prairie's proposed fees compared to the 20 districts similar in enrollment size.  Here, we found that our previous fee ($200) was actually higher than the mean!  In fact, only 4 of 19 districts for which we found hockey fee data had higher fees.
Hmmmm.

What's the Sequel to "Trust But Verify"?
The phrase "trust but verify" originated from ex-President Ronald Reagan.  I think everyone understands that it means that we can take things on face value initially, but that we should verify the information  before acting upon it.   We think the corollary should be:  ...and if you cannot verify the data, no longer trust the source.

Oh, Jim.....

If Dr. Culver wonders why a large portion of the community has lost trust in the school district, this is only a single clear example (there are many others).  A verbal only report was presented to support a significant increase in fees for ONE sport.  If anyone were to do even a cursory analysis on their own, they would quickly find that the information presented by Mr. McClowry was cherry-picked at best.

Now that it's clear that his data cannot be verified....what should the consequences be?
....you know...to intervene and promote more positive behaviors.

Behavior Modification Therapy

When a new puppy peediddles on the carpet, what do you do?  You don't say, "there's a good puppy!", right?  Hopefully you also don't smack it either.  But what you need to do is SOMETHING to alter the course of future events.  Otherwise, young puppy is gonna be thinking, "YeeeeeeHAH, my master doesn't give a rat's hairy tookus if I just lift my leg and let loose on this nice comfy carpet.  And it's oh so absorbent, so I think I will."

Are you with us so far?

Along a similar vein, our school board needs to introduce some form of behavior modification therapy when administration does not produce what is expected.  Like a puppy who pees on the carpet, administration will continue to engage in unacceptable behaviors so long as the board allows it.  Ultimately, of course, it should be Tim Culver that is instituting the behavioral modification therapy (because ONLY Dr. Culver reports to the school board; all others report to the good doctor).  But, if he is unwilling, or unable, it falls on the school board.

In the real world, many people/businesses do something called a "post-mortem" after a decision has been made to evaluate the process and the decision made.  Let's do just that, in abbreviated form, and look back at the decision to raise hockey fees by 275%, when the most any other sport fee was raised was 70% (from $50 to $85; baseball, basketball, football, soccer, and wrestling).


It started with an informational item at the May 14th 2012 school board meeting.  Note that informational items require no action by the board--they just are told what transpired.  In addition, responsibility for establishing athletic fees was delegated to administration years ago (and maybe THAT is a decision to re-consider).

Discussion was had at the May 14, 2012 Board Meeting (https://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/Private?open&login) regarding the changes being proposed by the Administration in fees related to students participating in district sponsored sports.  Fee changes were recommended for all sports, however, the fee for participating in hockey is planned to increase 275% from $200 per year to $550 per year. This would bring the SP Hockey fee into line with other districts in the conference, which range from $450 to $800 and last year averaged $644.

Subsequently board members Jill Camber-Davidson and Tom Weber put together a Situation Report to re-visit the athletic fees for 2012-13 at the School Board Meeting of June 11, 2012.  Now, bear in mind, those that present a Situation Report usually do so for a reason.  This Situation Report, an Action item this time, outlined the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATIONS:Direct administration to research and prepare a report answering questions above and to:
Option 1:  Direct administration to maintain the current $200 hockey fee until further information can be obtained and research completed on a justifiable and appropriate fee adjustment and fee setting procedure.
Option 2:  Propose a modification to policy JN that would include language stating that any fee or fine amount change greater than ‘x’% in a single year be approved by the Board.
Option 3:  Propose that the Board take over the ownership and execution of procedure JN-R and have fees and fines established directly by the Board.
Option 4:  No action on this item

So...clearly a number of options were provided.  This was the meeting at which Athletics Director McClowry provided a long, ramblingly chaotic discussion in an attempt to rationalize his fee increase for hockey.  The problem was that (A) McClowry was obviously unprepared, and (B) the board was given NO hard data to support McClowry's ramblings, and (C) there was no verification of data which would have allowed the board to see that McClowry cherry-picked the data which supported his position.  A more complete analysis and more complete set of hard data would have shown a very different picture than the one McClowry painted.  A lengthy board discussion ensued.  In the end, however, the following motion was made, and you can see how the vote went.

Motion & Voting

hockey fees 4.06 - TO TAKE NO ACTION - (leave fee as in the procedure, but still bring to F[inance Committe] in 2 weeks)

Motion by John Whalen, second by Caren Diedrich.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried

Yea: Caren Diedrich, Mike Krachey, Tom Weber, John Whalen

Nay: Jill Camber Davidson, John Welke

So...ultimately the board decided to take no action, which essentially translated to "go ahead with your fee increase".  It was passive support.  Only board members Camber-Davidson and Welke felt that something else should have happened.  It's not our intent to throw board president Tom Weber under the bus, but we have to ask the question: "why did you support a motion that kept the fee increases when you co-authored the report to re-visit them?"

The next ...actually more of a comment... is for the four board members who supported the motion to leave the fee increases as is:
Your decision to take no action effectively rewarded Mr. McClowry's unacceptable report. (You DO realize that this kind of filtered, oral only information is unacceptable...right?)  This is Behavior Modification Therapy 101.  If you reward the unacceptable behaviors, then they will only continue (and multiply).  You need to get on a long term path to consistently enact consequences to correct (not necessarily punish) inappropriate behaviors.  This is the teachable moment...right?  Didn't we just invest a huge amount of time and money in PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support)?  Did we not learn anything at the board table from this?  You must also see that ultimately these behaviors fall upon the district administrator to correct.  Your role is to make it abundantly clear with Dr. Culver that these behaviors will no longer be tolerated.  Call it tough love; call it whatever you like...but call it.

When administrative student problem behavior is unresponsive to preventive school-wide and classroom-wide procedures, information about the administrator's student’s behavior is used to (a) understand why the problem behavior is occurring (function); 

(b) strengthen more acceptable alternative behaviors (social skills); 

(c) remove antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain problem behavior, respectively; and 

(d) add antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain acceptable alternative behaviors.

Sorry to be hard on you, school board, but if this district is ever going to be what it could be, you need to be doing it better than the other guy.  You need to hold administration accountable.  You can trust...but you must verify.   And, perhaps more to the point...if you can't verify the information, you need to revoke the trust.  Do not let the puppy to continue to pee on the carpet...unless you care to spend an awful lot of money on carpet cleaning and replacement.

Need More Input!

Just perusing the "Future Meetings" portion of the school board agenda for Monday July 9.  We noticed with interest that there is a school board "work study" meeting which appears to begin right after the first public hearing on the 2012-13 budget on July 30.

That timing is nice, as people (you know ...all those tons of non-district employees that attend these sessions) can hang out after the public hearing listen in.

What would help however, in an era in which personal calendars quickly get filled, is if we had a tiny bit more information regarding the subject of the work study.  While it seems logical to suspect it could be post-budget discussion, it would be nice to know if that were the case...or what else might be discussed.

Signs , Signs, everywhere...signs

In fairness to Mr. McClowry, we thought we should do a mini-tour and scope out the status of reserved parking at schools in the district.   After checking 6 of the 11 schools, here's what we found.

What exactly does a specialized reserved parking sign cost these days in the onesie twosies?
We have two different reserved parking sign for Watch D.O.Gs.  We have signs for Staff Member of the month and employee of the month.

The only individual reserved parking we've noted so far is for the Principal at Creekside, and then for Athletic Director McClowry.

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

And the sign suggested anybody caught parkin' here might be towed on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the school, "Hey! What gives you the right?"

---- (loosely adapted from) Five Man Electrical Band,  "Signs"

Entitlement, Sense of????

Honestly.
Thanks to those who mentioned the existence of this special parking spot for SPHS Athletics Director Jim McClowry right t the gate to Summit field.  Another hint of preference for baseball?

Note that there is no sign indicating "Reserved Parking for SPHS Principal"....although more to come on the subject.

Mushroom Cloud of Questions Looms Over McClowry

A few weeks back, Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry brought forth his...well...jumble of personal notes... supporting a 275% increase in athletic fees for hockey.   The board approved those fees, but, based on comments, it seemed like that decision was not final; it was pending the outcome of a full report to the Finance Committee on June 25th.

Which never happened.

What Mr. Clowry should have learned by now is that his lack of public information and subsequent delay results only in idle fingers.  And idle fingers tend to seek out the Internet to find information on their own.  And that never bodes well.

Initially our quest was to rebut some of the data McClowry presented to support the huge increase to hockey fees.  He raised the cost of ice time, which is a valid issue.  But what he didn't offer was the cost to maintain other sports that he seems to favor.  What is the cost of Ashley Field maintenance?  We have been told as much as $60,000 per year (but have since learned it's only $15,000/year).   But...what other sports than football is Ashley Field used for?   That's a hefty cost for 5-6 games per year.

And what about all that equipment used by football.  Blocking sleds?  Helmets?  Pads.  How much did they cost?  How long do they last?  How much will replacement cost be?  Who's paying for that?  These are all good questions, but we want to talk about some other things that popped out of Google.

Did anyone know that Mr McClowry is on the Board of Directors for Sun Prairie Little League?  We're not saying it's a bad thing.  But is it the only sport with a board on which he sits?  We checked youth football...nope.  We're not going to waste any time checking hockey.  It's clear he's no fan of hockey.  Does THAT pose a problem for someone who is supposed to equally represent ALL sports/activities?  Was that the best decision?  Is it appropriate?  A conflict of interest?

And what about using his school district e-mail as his contact information for little league?  We keep hearing how busy Mr. McClowry is.  We wonder how much of his district time involves Little League matters.  Varsity baseball coach Rob Hamilton is also on the board of directors (which makes sense a s a feeder program).  But coach Hamilton is a model for integrity.  He uses a private e-mail address.  Hmmmm.

Oh...and then we found very interesting the fact that Mr. McClowry has quite frequently reserved the JV baseball diamond (behind CHUMS, field D) for "McClowry Baseball Practice".  Huh?  What's that.  Doing a little digging, we found that McClowry coaches a ....wait for it...BASEBALL team.  Gee...guess we don't anticipate any big increases in baseball fees!

But what of using this field?  Are other teams in his league allowed to use that field??  In fact, we hear some rumblings in the community that this field is not in the greatest shape and the district is trying to limit the volume of use.   Guess that doesn't apply to Team McClowry...right?

There is district policy for using these fields.  And it involves paying a rental fee or "donation in kind".  Is McClowry paying these fees?  Or just piggy-backing on the blanket Little League donation in kind?

We have a few concerns.  And a LOT of questions that seem to be begging for answers.

Taking Stock

Has this book finally been 

removed from circulation?

We're told the economy is improving (depending on which day it is).  Is it time to re-invest?

A lot of changes have been made on our school board.   While sometimes it may not seem so, we have come a long way since the days when the board was ruled by the triumvirate of Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, Cheryl Batterman, and Caren Diedrich.  Of course, Caren somehow has hung on to her board seat.  She is the veritable Energizer Bunny of school board members.

We've lost some very good members who understood the need for a quality education while balancing that against holding the district accountable to the taxpayers: folks like Jim Gibbs and Steve McHoes. There have been others of course.  We think Al Slane had it figured out just as he was voted out.  But these were the people that were not afraid to stand up to the cameras and say what had to be said without regard for how it would play in some aspect of their lives, whether it be grocery store conversations or disgruntled individuals. We're pretty sure Mr. Gibbs and Mr. McHoes moved on because there simply weren't a majority of board members willing to speak up at the table.  We've heard LOTS of bold talk outside of the board table over the years.  But there's something about sitting at the table and knowing the cameras and mics are on.

Perhaps it's time to reflect on that change and project the effect the new face of the school board could have on the Sun Prairie Area School District.  One noticeable change we've observed is that rubber stamps seemed to have been traded in or discarded.  We now have a clear majority of board members that care (or demand) to see and review hard data before making decisions.  That is a huge change, people.

President Tom Weber.
We see Tom as both a thinker and a harmonizer.  He wants to avoid unpleasantries if possible, but deep down he knows that things need to change at the district.  Our only advice to Tom is that sometimes hard work means getting a little dirty.  Pro education with fiscal restraint and accountability.

Vice President John Welke
Mr. Welke has brought hope back to the community.  He is well-spoke, does his homework quite well, and is not afraid to make the hard statements at the board table.  We suspect that his style is to give people every opportunity to fix things on their own before he rolls his shirts sleeves and digs in.  Those are good qualities.  He's often found himself standing alone, yet others are starting to gain the courage to join him.  Pro education with fiscal restraint, transparency, and accountability.

Treasurer John Whalen
John Whalen is a nice guy...but a softy.  It's's pretty clear that he doesn't invest the time into independent review of data (you know...trust, but verify).  He trusts Culver and district administration implicitly.  And that is the problem.  He pays lip service to the taxpayers on occasion, but ultimately supports whatever the district wants.  And that is dangerous.  Education regardless of cost.

Clerk Jill Camber Davidson
Ms. Camber-Davidson is somewhat of an enigma and harder to nail down than the other tenured board members.  At times (e.g., wellness/nutrition, advertising in schools, huge increase to hockey fees) she stands firmly and speaks boldly and passionately.  At other times, where we would expect her to stand with other board members on a particular issue, however, she does not.  We think some of that comes from being outside her comfort zone.  She does do her homework though, and that is critical.  Pro education with fiscal restraint and accountability.  Pro education with concern for the taxpayers as well.

Deputy Clerk Mike Krachey
After o mere three months since election, it is clear that Mr. Krachey  is a data guy.  That is a good thing.  He's also not afraid to ask the tough questions, recently exposing another $200K of technology purchases for 2012-13 using "surplus" 2011-12 funds.

Member Caren Diedrich
Ms. Diedrich is like that Forrest Gump box of chocolates...you never do know what you're going to get.  Except, after observing her for a number of years, we can count on the fact that in the months prior to an election, she suddenly starts playing the role of the taxpayer's ally.   Too bad that, as soon as she's re-elected, she goes back to fully supporting whatever Culver wants.  Of course, maybe its all those lunches he takes her for.  Unfortunately with Ms. Diedrich, it's all opinion (Tim Culver's that is) and no data.  Whatever "the big dog" wants, she supports.  We think that 5 or 6 3-year terms is several terms too many.  It's time for some new blood.  It's eductaion regardless of cost unless we're within 6 months of an election date.  Forget education and fiscal responbsibility.  Whatever Culver wants, Diedrich will support.

Member Steve Schroeder
Newest board member Steve Schroeder, recently  voted by the board to fill departed member Jim (Seabass) McCourt's seat,  is another promising board member.  As assistant dean of UW's Business school, he's got the chops to understand the budget madness, and he appears to believe strongly in holding firmly to a budget.   We think there's a lot of potential here.  Too soon to gauge, but we suspect, based on his background, that Mr. Schroeder is pro education but also favors running the district more like a business.