SP-EYE on Sun Prairie Schools

Elementary Space Task Force Launches this Week

2012-01-29T15:38:00.000-06:00

(Thursday) Feb 02, 2012 - ELEMENTARY TASK FORCE, 6:00 p.m.

at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.

Chair: John Welke

A. Call to Order

Chairperson John Welke will call the meeting to order.

B. Roll Call

School Board Members - John Welke (Chair), Jill Camber Davidson

Committee Citizen Representatives - Mike Krachey, Steve Schroeder

Community Members - Rick Mealy, Al Slane

Elementary Administrators - Craig Coulthart, Kathi Klaas

We're still not certain why this is called the "Elementary" Task Force, because the Ad Hoc Committee's charge is certainly not simple.

But, thanks to school board member John Welke, who brought this task force to fruition, the community will finally have a transparent mechanism to vet out ALL options for dealing with anticipated space needs at the elementary level. This time, we're not going to consider only building another palace. This time, ALL options will be explored, vetted and discussed in public.

And that is a good thing.

We look forward to the fruits of this task force.
But the group needs a more fitting moniker, dontcha think?
Elementary Task Force? Does that really help the community understand the charge of this group?
There's that whole transparency thing again. This school district needs to do a much better job of clearly communicating what the mission of a committee is and what will be discussed. How does the public decide whether they wish to attend if they don't know what the meetings are about?

How about "SPACES"
Sun Prairie Assessment of Capacity for Elementary Students

Cackle Fruit! Annacannatuna!

2012-01-29T13:21:00.001-06:00

Remember that old 3 Stooges episode when the guys are making a "Bubble Gum" birthday cake at the drugstore...and they're shouting out ingredients?
"Cackle fruit! [Cackle Fruit]"
"And a can o' tuna! [Annacannatuna]"

That's kinda how we felt about the December Budget Adjustments. You look at these documents and it's a mishmash. It's completely Greek. Hell, we should be teaching Greek, not Mandarin Chinese. It's like the Bloomin' Onion at Outback. peel away layers and you just find more. It's like Rube-icks Financial Cube. But we digress...

On Monday January 23, the school board's Finance Committee met, and the major agenda item, which seemed innocuous enough at first glance, was "December Budget Adjustments. But--as usual--there's more here than meets the eye. And FAR MORE than was discussed in the situation report. The situation report, prepared by Business Service Manager (and Deputy District Administrator) Phil Frei, said,

The General Fund (Fund 10) was increased by $20,000 due to an Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse(AODA) grant. A component of the December budget adjustments wastransferring $84,074 from the Sun Prairie Education Association (SPEA) FTE budget into theworkers' compensation budget. The workers' compensation budget needed to be increased due toan audit, by EMC Insurance, of payroll. All budget adjustments were routine in nature.
--- December Budget Adjustments Situation Report

The Situation Report also indicated that, "The Special Projects Fund (Fund 21, 23, 27, 29) was increased by $78,743 due to special education grants and donations." But let's not even discuss that. Let's focus entirely on the General Fund (Fund 10), the mainstay of the school district budget.

Seems pretty simple...right? The district received an unanticipated grant for $20,000. That would count as revenue. It would then, of course, be offset by $20,000 of increased expenditures on the Expense side of the ledger. Then we have the matter of needing to transfer $84,074 from the salaries line into the Worker's Comp. insurance line. Gee...remember when we were told that due to "aggressive bidding", the district was able to achieve $150,000 in savings to the Workers Comp and other insurances budget? Guess that just got cut in half, eh? And how are we paying for this "oops"? By transferring the equivalent of 1.8 FTE of available but as yet unfilled SPEA members. Hmmm.

But let's look a little more closely at what transpired. At then end of the day, the expenditures line of the budget increased by exactly $20,000 (or roughly 0.025% of the entire district budget). The $84,074 is really immaterial because we just simply move the expense from one line to another. So really it should amount to maybe splitting the $20,000 into a couple of budget lines, right?

WRONG!

What actually happened was:
50 different budget line items were adjusted. 50!
A total of $753,812 was shifted between line items in the budget. That's nearly 40 times the total amount of the budget adjustment.
One specific line item was increased by a mere $80. $80 dollars???!
22% of the budget line changes amounted to $1,000...or less!

What's going on here?
The school district doesn't like to be micro-managed, yet we're adjusting budget line items by as small as $80?
Does it really matter? So one line item over spends by $80 and another is under spent by $80.

Clearly one of three things happened here.
A. This is yet another example of poor data coming out of the Business Service group.
B. We are witnessing first hand the Philly Shuffle as it applies to budgeting, or
C. Maybe this Situation Report was a tad less detailed than it should have been

The Most Alarming Part
If you follow the money (see Situation Report Attachment 3), the Business Administration function (Function code "25", or 250000) took the second largest hit, having their budget reduced by over $110,000. When asked about this, Phil Frei responded that "I wasn't planning on spending that money anyway".
What...what....WHAT!???

On how reducing the Business Administration budget reduced by $110,000 would affect the district,
"I wasn't planning on spending that money anyway"
--Phil Frei, Deputy District Administrator & Business Services Manager

Really! So...if you weren't planning on spending it...why was it in the budget in the first place?

This is precisely the lack of transparency and suspect accounting practices that continues to anger community residents.

We were hoping that the quality of data coming out of the district,m and overall transparency would improve. So far, 2012 isn't look much better than 2011.

Look! Up in the sky! It's Cackle Fruit!
It's A Bloomin' Onion!
It's Rube-ick's Financial Cube!
Naaaaahhh...It's just more of Sun Prairie's school district budget.

Fixing a Hole Where the Reign Gets In - Pt. 2

2012-01-28T15:11:00.003-06:00

In Part I, we looked at the law behind the school district tax levy. In Part II, we'll explore what exactly went wrong. The reins of this budget were shanghaied by a clever and concerted effort of a group of individuals with ties to the school district. In theory, the school board reigns over the realm of the school district. In practice, however, the annual meeting was literally raining with the fingerprints of Tim Culver's reign.

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

The school district budget presentation indicated a Projected ‐Overall Tax Levy of $47,087,483 or3.48% increase. But the presentation also included three slides devoted to the six top budget initiatives which the board did not include in its budget. What was this? Some Hail Mary attempt to incite the crowd to action? At this point, what else was the purpose? Why not show all thirty something initiatives that had been brought forward? Why not a slide indicating that the district would like to issue 10% raises across the board?

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.
Source: Minutes of the 2011-12 Annual Electors meeting

Funny how Ms. Fournier got the impression that the school district was presenting this as a proposal at the annual electors meeting, eh?

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.

Fixing a Hole Where the Reign Gets In - Pt. 1

2012-01-28T12:22:00.001-06:00

It's long time we talked about the manner in which district administration --with the help of school board member Jim McCourt-- ambushed the community at the annual meeting last October. That simply cannot be allowed to happen again. Decorum be damned; someone or someones must be held accountable.

Part I - What the law says.
In this first part, we look at what state statutes say regarding the annual meeting and setting a tax levy. As you will see, there is some confusion because in different sections of the statute it says that the "electors" vote a levy and that the school board established a levy. You will also see that when these disconnects occur--and they do occur-- an Attorney General Opinion is in order to clarify law.

We start with a little piece of the conclusions offered in an analysis prepared for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB):

"The budget law is aimed at makingpublic bodies more responsive to theconcern of taxpayers and for thepurpose of checking in somemeasure the trend in increased taxes.Therefore, the budget process is animportant community activity. Anadopted budget provides “the legalauthorization for the expenditure ofmoney as listed in the budget and forthe levying of necessary propertytaxes to finance these expenditures.”

Therefore, a thoughtfulbudget planning process with community involvement can contributeto the board’s fiscal responsibilitiesin the operation of schools duringeconomically difficult times."
---Lathrop & Clark, "The Budget Process" [prepared for WASB]

From, here we should dive right in and see what the statutes say.

CHAPTER 120, Wis. Statutes - SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNMENT

120.10 Powers of annual meeting. The annual meeting ofa common or union high school district may:
(8) TAX FOR OPERATION. Vote a tax for the operation of theschools of the school district.

120.12 School board duties.
(3) TAX FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. (a) Annually onor before November 1, determine the amount necessary to beraised to operate and maintain the schools of the school districtand public library facilities operated by the school district unders. 43.52

endnotes s. 120
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. 46.

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46 (1990)
The Assembly Committee on Organization has requested my opinion regarding the authority of a school board of a common or union high school district to approve a property tax levy for the school district that differs from the annual tax levy approved by electors at the school district annual meeting. Specifically, the committee asks: "[U]nder ss. 120.10 and 120.12, Stats., which body, the annual meeting or the school board, has the ultimate authority to determine the property tax levy for the operation of the schools of the school district?"

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46 (1990)
The question arises because two statutes appear to give authority to two different entities to approve the property tax levy for the operation of the schools. Section 120.10(8), Stats., authorizes the annual meeting to vote a tax for the operation of the schools while section 120.12(3)(a) authorizes the school board to determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools.

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)
The answer to your question is that the school board has the ultimate authority to determine the property tax levy for the operation and maintenance of the school district because section 120.12(3) requires the board to determine the amount necessary to operate and maintain the schools. Prior attorney general opinions concluded that earlier versions of section 120.12(3) gave the board the power "to operate and maintain a school regardless of whether the electors provide sufficient funds for such operation and maintenance." 13 Op. Att'y Gen. 380, 381 (1924), and 25 Op. Att'y Gen. 411, 413 (1936).

THE BOTTOM LINE
It should be crystal clear that the school board has ultimate authority over the tax levy.
But...wait...you say. What about when the taxpayers reduced the levy by $2M in 2009?
COULD the school board have reversed that vote? Sure, one might argue, but history always decides who was right, and history fell on the side of the angry taxpayers. They reduced the levy by $2M only to have the school district come in with a surplus of $1.3M. Clearly, the $2M was not "necessary to operate and maintain schools".

Wanted... Desired... Coveted? Absolutely!
Necessary? Absolutely not.

The law is clear that this is about determining a levy necessary to OPERATE and MAINTAIN schools. Not a levy to add new initiatives. Not a levy to enhance schools. JUST a levy which is necessary to operate and maintain schools.

While we maintain that the 6 budget initiatives were "good" things....they were not "necessary" things. Desired? Yes. But necessary? No.

I'm fixing a hole where the reign gets in
And keeps my tax bill wandering
How high will it go?

I'm filling the cracks caused by the Seabass
And kept tax bills leaping up
Where it will end?

And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.
---with apologies to Mssrs. Lennon & McCartney

"Our View" In Need of Corrective Lenses

2012-01-22T12:03:00.000-06:00

In this week's editorial ( Our View: Finger Pointing) Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes jumped on the school board for indecision on the Ashley Field project.

The school board thought the Cardinal Quarterback Club was raising money.
The Quarterback Club found it difficult to raise money for something that had not been approved by the school board.
It’s time for a directive from the Sun Prairie School Board -- one that will be clearly understood not only by everyone who uses the field, but also so the public knows the issue will be put to rest and not simply hanging out there.
--Chris Mertes, Sun Prairie STAR editor

Perhaps Editor Mertes needs to read his own newspaper .
A quick look into the archives finds that the STAR reported the following:

June 17, 2010 STAR- "Board authorizes fundraising for Ashley Field project"
At the Sun Prairie School Board’s Monday, June 14, meeting, the board followed the committee’s recommendation to allow the Quarterback Booster Club for the football program to begin fundraising for the project.

Stackhouse said he wanted to be clear that the improvements to Ashley Field were not going to be just for the football program.

“This is brought forward by the football program, but it’s for all the students,” Stackhouse said. “We want to make this truly a community field. It’s not just for football. It’s for the community.”
He said soccer, youth football, lacrosse and baseball programs can use the field and benefit from the improvements.

The amount to be fundraised by the Quarterback Club is approximately $839,000. The amount of money the district is being asked to commit is about $475,000.

Stackhouse said the number one priority from the football program is the locker room facilities and then the turf, but “it’s a project that needs to be combined together to get the savings.”

“They’re [the football community] willing to do their part if the district is willing to do their part in all of this,” Stackhouse said. “Essentially, we’re not saying, you’re building locker rooms by approving this motion. This motion is saying go start raising funds, and talk to administration about facts and work on the plan and figure out the district obligation.”

The board approved the motion to allow the Quarterback Club to begin fundraising for the improvements. Diedrich voted against the motion

9/29/2010 STAR - "FTT to QB Club: 'Step Up To The plate' "
Committee member John Welke said that the community members he sat nearby at last week's homefootball game had no idea of any of the proposed improvements.

“The community won't support it if they don't know about it,” Welke said. “I'm not sure what moresupport they [the Quarterback Club] need. The Quarterback Club should have been at the game with atable saying this is our vision. I love this idea, I love this concept, but somebody has to take the bull bythe horns and lead it, and I think that's the Quarterback Club.”

Stackhouse agreed with Welke, adding that the Quarterback Club has to “step up to the plate.”

3/24/11 STAR-
The board voted unanimously to approve the lowest bid for the architect work at Ashley Field and forthe FTT Committee to establish the priorities for the Ashley Field project. The estimated cost for thearchitect fees for conceptual drawings of the locker room facility upgrades at Ashley Field is about$4,500. Diedrich did not vote, as she stepped away from the board table before the vote.

SP-EYE Level View
While we're not usually the biggest cheer squad for the school board, the school board has been abundantly clear regarding the "Ashley Field Project"--as reported by Mertes' own staff reporters. Over 18 months ago, authorization to conduct fundraising was granted. The school board paid $4,500 for architect work on the project. The Sun Prairie Cardinals Quarterback Club has done nothing.

School Board meeting minutes and STAR online history clearly indicate that the majority of funding for this project has always rested squarely on the community. It wasn't the school board that said, "Hey, let's spend some money and re-tool Ashley Field". The "football program", with former board member David Stackhouse as its spokesperson, came forward with the idea. And notably, they came forward only AFTER discussions were held regarding what to do with a surplus of $1.2M in referendum dollars. It sure looks like people pushing for the project are only interested if the taxpayers fund it and they don't have to lift a finger.

Sure, the project price tag has increased, but that doesn't mean that the tax payers need to take up the slack...or all of it. No one ever said this all falls on the shoulders of the Quarterback club, as the goal was to make Ashley accessible by many sport teams. But the Quarterback club needed to...well...quarterback the effort. Sadly the Quarterback Club's "quarterbacking" skills seem more Ryan Leaf than Tom Brady.

Coach Hamilton very quietly and pointedly spearheaded a hugely successful effort to upgrade Summit Field, raising over $300,000. And he represents only the baseball program. We always hear about "Sun Prairie" football. Well, they're not making any noise on this effort. And imagine what they could accomplish if they worked with the soccer program, the lacrosse program, the Sound of Sun Prairie...just to name a few.

But they've done nothing in 18 months. No one even attends meetings when Ashley is being discussed. Even the agricultural program had students and supporters present when the greenhouse was being discussed. And they raised more than the vaunted football folks.

If you ask us...the board needs to halt any discussions regarding Ashley Field upgrades until someone starts waving a pretty substantial check...or a lengthy list of funding commitments.

Excuse Me While I Kiss This Guy

2012-01-22T09:55:00.000-06:00

Who hasn't heard (or believed similarly) that the lyrics of the classic Jimi Hendrix scorcher, Purple Haze" actually were those words instead of "the sky"? After all, it was the the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, a prelude to the Summer of Love. You know...Woodstock? Make love not war?

You're probably wondering where we are going with this. It just somehow seemed at least a halfway decent segue into an agenda item we noticed on the school board meeting for Monday January 23, 2012.

Did We Misunderstand this? Or are some Administrators Missing?
Administrator Contract Renewals and Extensions

Each January, the school district issues, for board approval, a list of administrators whose contracts Tim Culver is proposing to either renew (for those on initial 2-year contracts) or extend for an additional year.
Maybe we missed something here, but there seem to be some names missing.

Last year's list included the following:

1. Authorize the Human Resources Department to send Notice of Contract Extension of one year to:
James Ackley, Tom Brooks, Craig Coulthart, ~~Lisa Dawes~~, Phil Frei, Nancy Hery.
Michelle Kelly, Kathi Klaas, Clark Luessman, Mike Mades, James McClowry,
Elizabeth Merrick, Annette Mikula, Rick Mueller, Alice Murphy, Ryan Ruggles, Lori
Schultz. Renee Slotten-Beauchamp, Jason Widiker

2. Authorize the Human Resources Department to send Notice of Contract Renewal to.
Lisa Bollinger, ~~Rainey Briggs~~. Tony Dugas. Lisa Heipp, Wendi Tavs (225 days),
Chad Wiedmeyer, Karen Ward (one year)

We also had the following new contracts issued this year: Jennifer Apodaca (replacing Lisa Dawes), Reginald McGee (replacing Rainey Briggs), and Jeremiah Holliday (replacing Lori Schultz)

What exactly does it mean if an administrator's contract is not being extended? Or did we hear this wrong?
Hmmmm

Tax Increase On the Table for Sun Prairie?

2012-01-22T09:36:00.000-06:00

How come Madison school district, far larger than ours, has already provided the public with a look at what the future holds...but Sun Prairie has not?
Historically, at the 2nd meeting in January, the school board's Finance Committee, chaired by (ahem!) Jim McCourt, has always provided a first look at the budget. But they're not planning to do that this year. Why not? Especially when this year we DEFINITELY are in the position of having to finance things that we had money for previously.

Madison schools facing $12.4 million deficit for 2012-13

Last we heard, the district doesn't plan on releasing budget information until late spring. They are hiding behind last fall's annual meeting FUBAR, but that's just a cover story. The district doesn't have the greatest news and they want to keep that from the public as long as possible.

And this is just plain wrong.
Instead of the tail wagging the dog, our illustrious school board members need to demand that the district produce at least a preliminary budget report....NOW. Go ahead...wave your hands, tell us the numbers are only preliminary, but you DO have some idea of what the budget picture looks like. And you owe it to the community to share it.

We already know (at least those that have been paying attention, that we suffer from some of the problems Madison faces:

Of the $12.4 million deficit, about $3.2 million is tied to disappearing federal stimulus funding for certain positions, such as maintenance and technology workers. The district will have to discuss whether to cut the positions or fund them some other way...

While we have less of a stimulus funds gap than Madison, we still have about $1.1M that will not be available this year. That means we either need to increase the tax levy, or make some hard decisions about cutting things we added due to stimulus dollars. And therein lies the whole problem with the stimulus packages. At some point the cord was going to be cut, and how does a district fund it once the funds dry up?

Really, it sure looks like there is no question that we will have a [yet another] tax increase. The only question is, how large will it be?

Formula For Victory: Don't Let Opposing Team Wash Their Hands!

2012-01-16T11:56:00.001-06:00

Thanks to an eagle-eyed community resident, we were alerted to take a closer look at the architectural plans which were drawn up for the proposed new team locker rooms/PPA lockers/public restroom complex at Ashley Field. What we found raised eyebrows; what we DIDN'T find raised the "ick" factor.

Excerpts from architectural renderings for Ashley Field Project

The home team (Sun Prairie) locker room is slated for 98 lockers (hold that thought!), 3 toilets (or "two-holers" as Caren Diedrich calls 'em), 6 urinals (or "one-holers" as [school board member] Caren Diedrich calls 'em), and 4 sinks. The visitors side gets ONE toilet, THREE urinals, and NO SINKS! We got news for you, Ms. Diedrich...those "one-holers" might be forced into service as "two-holers".

No Sinks
Really? We had a locker room facility designed with NO SINKS for the visiting team?

Bigger Shower Area...for the Visiting Team
We also couldn't help but notice that the visitors shower area is at least 25% larger than that of the home team. Does that mean we expect them to get dirtier than us? Or do Sun Prairie players (with 25% more lockers) just like to shower in a more cozy situation? You know...save water...shower with a friend? The team that showers [more closely] together performs better?
Oh wait...now we get it...instead of sinks, they wash their hands in the shower area!

NINETY EIGHT LOCKERS...AYFKM?
With any building, space is cost...right?
NFL teams are allowed a 53-man roster, yet only 47 can "dress" for the game.
We reviewed all 2011 Big Eight rosters and found that the largest was Sun Prairie with 72; the smallest team had 41 on their roster (tie: Madison West and Madison Memorial).
Anyone that knows anything about building knows that cost is by square foot. Building in larger locker space than is really needed or excess shower area just means a higher price tag for whoever pays the bill.

Are Women Are Just More Sanitary?
The design for the women's public restroom calls for 7 toilets and 4 sinks (3 plus 1 which appears to be optional). The men's public restroom includes just one toilet (Dude...do you know what those stadium hotdogs do to a guy?) and 3 urinals. Then there is one less sink than in the womens (2 plus 1 which appears to be optional).

Never Mind the Beef...Where's the Quality Control?
2012 isn't starting out much better than 2011 for the quality of information provided by the district. How did these things pass muster? Didn't ANYBODY review this? At least we can understand from the drawings, as the drawings were both created and reviewed by a "JLP". So they didn't receive a second tier review by the firm, and IF they were reviewed by district staff, it was clearly a sub par review.

This is really status quo for this district. Tim Culver constantly verbalizes what a stellar district we are, but those are just words. This is information available to the public, and it just doesn't cut it. The school board and taxpaying public should certainly expect better data from people that are paid more than $100,000 per year.

Yes it only cost $5,000...but that's $5,000 we won't ever get back, and it's money that could have been better spent elsewhere. Wasting other peoples' money has simply become first nature in this school district.

The Worst Cut of All
What is really the most embarrassing part of all this is that no one from the district caught these issues. It took people from the community that have no knowledge whatsoever about architecture. But you know what? They know when something makes no sense...and it appears that's something they have over the highly compensated district administration.

Maybe someone should do some homework:
How To Design a High School Team Locker Room--by Rich Young (Young Equipment Sales) OCTOBER 27, 2011

And So the 2012-13 Budget Hurt Begins

2012-01-15T12:05:00.003-06:00

Most probably didn't notice this report last week about a close neighbor school district just beyond the Dane Co. line:

Our own school district doesn't plan to bring anything forward regarding the 2012-13 budget until late spring.
Hmmm....why wouldn't they at least show the projected expenditure obligations?

Lodi School District Considers Cuts
District Faces $1.6 Million Budget Hole

That figure represents 12.5% of the entire tax levy for 2011-12!

Slipping One Past the Goalies?

"The district said it won't bring forth a new referendum in April, but it won't rule out a possible referendum in August."

Gee.... let's see...this spring could see a very LARGE electoral turnout....so why wouldn't they do a referendum then...rather than in August, when nobody other than the people that would want to push it through would be around and paying attention? Kinda makes one wonder...eh? Be they shenanigans afoot?

Turfing Ashley Field: Project PriceTag Rockets 42% to $2.4M

2012-01-15T09:57:00.002-06:00

The hardest part of this story is how to title it. There were so many subplots that were dragged into the daylight at the January 9, 2012 FTT Committee meeting:

Stackhouse Tossed Under The Bus!
"Better" Numbers Means Bigger Price Tag!
Now Seeking Referendum to Turf Ashley!
How Much Fundraising For Asley? Zilch. Zero. Zed. Nada. 零.
18 Months Later and NO Fundraising for Ashley Field!

It's been nearly a year since we heard anything about the project to put artificial turf on Ashley Field, build new team locker rooms, and add parking (after we cut out so much parking during the CHUMS re-model). Many wondered if the idea had withered on the vine.

Now we learn that the project, which was originally (April 2010) said to cost $1.3M has soared off the charts to $2.4M. Asked for an explanation, district administration simply said, "We have better numbers now", effectively tossing former school board member and Ashley advocate David Stackhouse under the bus.

What Referendum? Costs That Multiply Like Rabbits
How does a project increase 42% in less than a year? How does it mushroom 83% in less than 2 years?
WHY WHY WHY does this district continue to pound for more than more, better than best? And how do these numbers keep growing? What originally was discussed as a maximum taxpayer commitment of $475,000 has ballooned into the idea of going to referendum with the "new building (elementary school) referendum? Note once again that no decision has been made to even BUILD a new building...but athletic director McClowry and district administration put forth a Situation Report that sure seems certain that that is what's going to happen?

Let's stroll back through time, shall we? Take a look see at how the landscape of the Ashley Project has changed.

April 26, 2010 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.314M ($475K District; $839K fundraising)
RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.

District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.

May 24, 2010 FTT Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.
Step 1: Allow the Sun Prairie Quarterback Club to actively campaign and be the primary contact for private donations and fundraising for artificial turf and to help create locker room facilities to be attached to the SOAR building. This will be done through a collaborative effort with other organizations that will utilize the facility.
Step 2: For the district to back the funding of the project, as they have done with the turf project for baseball, based upon the commitment of the fundraising effort. A complete plan will be submitted for board review.
Step 3: District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.
Action needed at this time:
To approve Step #1 as outlined above, request details for Step #2, and request the Quarterback Club to obtain concept drawings and cost estimates for Step #3.
The result of school board action on that was to postpone the item and refer it back to the FTT committee for its 5-24-10 meeting.

June 14, 2010 School Board Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

5.05 Ashley Field Improvements
Motion as recommended by the Facilities, Technology & Transportation
Committee TO APPROVE STEP 1 AND ALLOW THE SUN PRAIRIE
QUARTERBACK CLUB TO ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN AND BE THE PRIMARY
CONTACT FOR PRIVATE DONATIONS AND FUNDRAISING FOR ARTIFICIAL
TURF.
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 2:
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 3:
APPROXIMATE DISTRICT COMMITMENT OF $475,000.
Motion carried

March 21, 2011 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.68M (no breakdown of who pays for what)
Fundraising: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.04 Ashley Field Improvements

Motion by David Stackhouse, second by John Welke TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE LOWEST BID FOR THE ARCHITECT WORK AT ASHLEY FIELD, AND FOR THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH THE PRIORITIES FOR THE ASHLEY FIELD PROJECT. Motion Carried

Note: The official recommendation from FTT included the following:
In exploring the project it was clear that the funding would be shared both by the district and independent fund-raising, with the majority coming from independent sources. The district funding would primarily come from maintenance savings, additional use fees and the yearly School Board approved capital projects budget.

At this point, the committee recommends that the board considers this project to be a future priority and one that will be explored as funding becomes available, while independent organizations are engaged in fundraising activities.

January 9, 2012 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $2.4M (no breakdown of who pays for what; discussion of referendum)
Fundraising to-date: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:

The Athletics & Activities Director, the Supervisor of Building & Grounds, the Deputy District Administrator (Business & Operations), the Principal of Alternative Programs, and the High School Football Coach met several times to discuss the next steps. The recommendation is:

To not anticipate nor ask for any school district contribution for the project outside the normal capital projects budget
To encourage the Quarterback Booster Club to begin fund raising to support this project.
To gain broader community input, ask the School Board to include upgrades to Ashley field with the next referendum; either as a separate question or included with the building question

And Nobody Came...
We're not sure which chaps us more...
....whether it was Mr. McClowry, when asked how much fundraising has occurred to date, stammering that none had occurred and that he wasn't aware that fundraising had been approved.
...or that a $2.4M project of this magnitude was being discussed and NON ONE from the football community (or any other sports that might benefit) even showed up to support it!

Is it apathy? unmitigated gall? Or is it that the people behind this project don't want to spend one minute seeking donations? Why should they? When they can tack the whole project onto the elementary school referendum which the school board seems to think is not necessarily even in the cards? What do the McClowry's, Frie's and Kaminski's know that the school board--and the public-- does not.

For Shame!
When baseball Coach Rob Hamilton wanted to upgrade the new baseball field and make it a state-of-the-art, drool-worthy competition site, he didn't ask for public monies. He went out and solicited public donations to pay for the upgrades.

When the music boosters wanted to upgrade from a really nice concert piano to a breathtaking Steinway Model D, what did they do? They busted their collective hump to solicit not only the funds needed for the upgrade, but also for funds to pay for future maintenance and tuning of the piano.

Even the agriculture program hit the streets and collected donations in support of the new greenhouse.

But footballers? Not to mention all the other sports that could use an upgraded Ashley Field?
Nothing. Not one thin dime. What IS up with that?
Epic failure. SOMEONE ought to be ashamed.

Hey! The Media Has Finally Cottoned To Superintendent Pay!

2012-01-15T09:18:00.000-06:00

At long last, the gilded, incentive-laden contracts of district administrators sees the light of day.
Hey school board...stop treating Tim Culver like some hallowed CEO saint and start considering the taxpayers!

Wisconsin State Journal: School superintendents' bonuses may be 'an issue from the public's point of view'

An "issue"? Puh...LEEZE!
If only the article had mentioned that these people earn more than the governor.
We throw money at these people like it's going out of style.
Barring some conviction or gross performance issues, they never get shown the door...they leave when they're good and ready...and only after their pockets are sufficiently padded. In our own school district, has there ever been a time when a district administrator got anything less than a good performance review? One has to wonder.

Don't tell us that removing these golden paychecks is going to prevent us from hiring a well-qualified individual. Poppycock! Tim Culver will be retiring likely in the next 3-5 years. What are we going to do? Up the ante and pay his replacement even more?

"Many districts provide a monthly vehicle stipend to superintendents, ranging from $300 in Madison to $600 in Monona Grove.
Monona Grove School Board president Susan Fox said the amount of the vehicle perk in her district raised eyebrows among board members who weren't around when [District Administrator] Gerlach was hired in 2009. The board is currently renegotiating Gerlach's contract."

"[Vehicle stipends, etc.] doesn't get reported anywhere and that's the problem,"

Meet Gary Alan Naud, Candidate for SPASD School Board

2012-01-08T14:01:00.002-06:00

Many of you have asked...who is this new name in the school board race? Who is this Gary Naud guy?.
We figured we'd just ask him to tell the community about himself...and he was kind enough to provide the following:

I am running for Sun Prairie City Council and Sun Prairie School Board to deepen my connection with the families and kids that I work with every day. Our city is a beautiful, enriching environment for raising a family. We take pride in our Main Street, local stores, roads and parks, schools, and community centers. I am connected to our families– I will meet with the people who want to speak with me, and stay in constant contact with my constituents.

As an afterschool teacher and daycare provider, I work with parents and address their children’s growth and development needs. I was the U.S. Census district coordinator for Sun Prairie and have experience working “on the ground,” serving my neighbors and working with the government. Additionally, from my years as a store manager, I know how to run a business and manage finances. I know how to work with people, build productive collaborations, and have extensive experience in hiring the right people for the tasks needed at hand.

Too many government decisions are based on hot tempers and hot headlines. Decisions about the future — the future of our children and our city — should be based on evidence, not hotheaded politics. I have many connections to the scientific community at UW-Madison, including several close colleagues who study economics, child development, education, and intergroup relations. These advisors keep me connected to the latest scientific data that are relevant to the needs of our schools and our city. We need to make thoughtful, well-reasoned decisions that will actually improve our community and schools.

I've met many people who yearn to be involved in our local government. I will be their messenger and satisfy their desire to be connected. My primary duty is representing the concerns and opinions of my Sun Prairie neighbors. I will maintain transparency and keep open communication with our citizens – through neighborhood outreach, social media, and by continuing to be an integrated member of the community.

I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible, and cannot wait to build the bridge we need between the people of Sun Prairie and our local government.

--Gary Alan Naud - City Council and School Board, Sun Prairie

Feel free to contact Gary with any comments or questions at:
e-mail: garyalannaud@gmail.com
Facebook.com: GaryAlanNaud
Twitter.com: GaryAlanNaud

...and long-time readers will recall that we have a penchant for identifying celebrity look-a-likes for our community leaders. We hope Mr. Naud will play along and won't be offended. We couldn't help but see the resemblance to action film star Jason Statham. Ok...so maybe he has friendlier eyes.

It's Time to Get Rid of the Grid

2012-01-08T13:39:00.001-06:00

OK, teachers...calm yourselves and read through all this before passing judgement.

Let's start simple...what is this "grid" of which we speak?
It's the magic chart of teacher salary structure. What's magic about it is that the way contracts are written (and this is true for ALL school districts), each year of experience allows the teacher to move one complete "step" down the grid...which translates to a 3% salary increase. And that assumes ZERO change (i.e., general wage increase) to the grid.

The Magic of STEP increases
The real magic is what happens when a school board agrees to pay raises to teachers. Let's say the board agrees to a 2% pay raise. That means that each "cell" on the grid is increased by 2%. BUT...and here's the best part....they STILL get that automatic 3% increase by virtue of earning another year of experience. And what's really, really cool is that the district and board can say---somewhat truthfully---"We negotiated firmly and offered a 2% increase". This explains the old joke, "How do you know a politician is lying to you?" Answer: Because their lips are moving.

What they DON'T tell you, and which you'll only find out if you follow the budget or at property tax bill time, is any general wage increase and step increases are additive. Every teacher that stays in the district (for the next budget year) earns the 3% (step) increase PLUS the 2% (general wage) increase for a total of 5%. Of course some leave and new ones come in that aren't eligible for the the step increase because they haven't been HERE for a year. And that's how what is effectively a 5% increase becomes a 4.something% increase.

"For teachers, the grid provides automatic annual salaryincreases with no performance reviews, no salary negotiations, and no newspaperheadlines reporting increased teacher pay..."

--- How Teachers Are Paid: The Salary Grid

LANE increases

Lane increases are like Double Jeopardy...where the cash really adds up. From Bachelor's degree to Master's degree, every 6 credits earned (max. of 36) teachers earn a 1.9% additional "bonus" on their salary because they move one column to the right on the grid. So...if the board approved a 2.0% pay increase, and a teacher also earned 6 continuing education credits during the previous year, then they get the 2.0% increase plus the 3.0% STEP increase plus the bonus 1.9% LANE increase for a total salary increase of 6.9%.

Pretty skippy, ain't it?

One-of-a-Kind Deal
What other employee classification receives such a sweet deal? An automatic guaranteed 3% raise each year PLUS whatever the school board approves PLUS another 1.9% if you earn 6 continuing education credits.
Nobody...that's who.
Oh...many occupations have "grid systems"; one example being state employees. But for these, the grid is only used to determine initial salary upon hire. State employees ONLY get an increase when approved by the legislature and governor. Speaking of state employees, our governor has already declared --even though Act 10 allows annual increases up to the Consumer Price Index...that there will be NO increases for at least the next 2 years.

Does Act 10 Kill It Anyway?
Wisconsin Act 10 ties the maximum of any wage increases for "governmental" workers to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In that the CPI is highly variable, and could even be a negative number, then fixed grid increases would not be allowable anyway. Right? Certainly raises due to "lane" movement would have to disappear, as arguably Act 10 does not allow for such increases.

So...what do we need to do?

Raise the Floor...
Teachers...are you still listening?
We need to be able to hire good, qualified, energized, effective teachers. To do that, we need to offer a fair, competitive wage. And $32,500 is not it....even considering the fact that teachers work only 9 months per year (except summer school). That means the entry level wage is effectively $43,333. And please....cease with the arguments that you all work 12 months and nights and weekends. You know what...so do most professionals. Deal with it. The difference is that the average non-teacher professional works 260 calendar days per year, and you work like 190.

So let's just say, for argument's sake, a fair starting wage for a teacher is $50,000 equivalent (you know...based on 260 work days; 2080 hours per year). That would mean that we should raise the floor on our 9-month scale to about $37,500. And that would put about $400/month more in each teacher's pocket.

The problem is...how are we going to pay for that? For 580 teachers, that translates to about $3M in additional budget cost every year. In terms of property tax, that $3M would mean an additional $0.80 on the mill rate this year, or an additional $160 on a $200K home. How DO we pay for that?

Well, for one thing, we could have ALL employees pay 12.8% of health insurance premiums, like the rest of the (Wisconsin) world. We could do away with the "alternative health benefit" option which pays teachers whose spouses are teachers $300/month to NOT take the insurance. We also need to look at making dental benefits equivalent to what the rest of the world gets, and have everybody pay at least what Local 60 pays: 14.5% of premiums. That would put a dent in the $3M.

All those things would at least help to mitigate the additional cost. We don't profess to having all these answers, so we cannot offer a complete solution to getting there; but we at least offer what the endgame should be. Another selling point is that we would restore transparency to the budget process. No more would we be told "2%" when the actual salary budget would be increasing by closer to 5%. No more would school board members or administrators have to disingenuously wave their hands, hem and haw, and then declare that the difference is due to new teachers coming in.

"Through its nationwide salary initiative, NEA is advocating for:
a $40,000 starting salary for all pre-K-12 teachers [SP-EYE: at 8 hours per day and 190 days/year, that translates to $26.32/hr, or $54,700/yr for those in the 2080 hr/yr world ]
raises that exceed the cost of living in at least 50 percent of NEA higher education locals
a minimum starting salary of $28,000 for all education support professionals" [SP-EYE: at 8 hours per day and 190 days/year, that translates to $18.42/hr, or $38,300/yr for those in the 2080 hr/yr world]
-- National Education Association (NEA)

...But Establish a Reasonable Ceiling Too!

Is it really "all for the kids"?
Or is it all for the administrators?

The public simply will not accept kindergarten teachers or elementary school librarians earning $95,000 per year. Would it be nice? Sure! But it's neither realistic nor sustainable. Adjusted for a typical worker's full 260 days, that amounts to more than $125,000! This cap needs to be established for administrators as well. This is how we close the door on the long-time game of one-upsmanship, whereby the DeForest du jour gives its administrators ridiculous raises and then other districts in turn want their share of the pie. No more should district administrators earn more then the State Superintendent of ALL schools...or the governor. Yes, even our be-something governor deserves to be paid more than Tim Culver. Seriously...regardless of how you feel about him...he's in charge of an entire frickin' STATE! Compare that to responsibility for a school district of less than 1000 employees and 7,000 kids.

"From an economic standpoint, the only general question relevant to teachers' pay is: what mix of salary, benefits, and other job dimensions are necessary to hire competent individual teachers? Since these vary across states, school districts, schools, and teachers' talents and competencies, there is no rational one-size-fits-all answer, such as the grid. "
--- ParentAdvocates.org, "Teacher Salary Grid Hampers Education Reform

Now we just need a school board with sufficient cojones to make it so.

A final note for teachers...
Teachers...we support what you do...really. Truly. And, if we were in your shoes, we'd probably make the same arguments you do that you are overworked and underpaid. But inside, we'd also be a bit sheepish. We don't fault you for trying.

You should NOT have to pay for instructional materials out of your own pocket. But you also really do work only 9 months a year. Some have even glibly termed the month of November as "no-school" November because of all the days off. You have your summers free. You get a week off in the spring. You get more than a week off at Christmas. And you STILL earn additional leave time!

So we support what you do, but the game needs to change. You need to earn a fair wage, but you have no right to an exorbitant wage. Many of you start teaching right out of school at the age of what...22? 23? 24? Then you work 25-30 years. You're barely into your 50's and you retire with a damn fine salary: the average teacher in Sun Prairie over the past 5 years retires at a salary of $76,000. And that makes for a damn fine state retirement pension.

So we support you...but you need to work with the rest of us to fix this mess.

We Got Us a Horse Race!

2012-01-06T16:09:00.001-06:00

2 school board seats are up (Shimek and Whalen)
1 incumbent (Shimek) is not vying for re-election.
That means at least one new face at the table.

3 people submitted nomination papers:

Mike Krachey (current school board FTT Committee member)
Gary Naud (the "new guy")
John Whalen (6 year incumbent)

Mr. Naud presents a curious addition as he may be making a bit of history. Not only is he running for one of the school board seats, but he is also a candidate for the District 4 aldermanic seat (Mary Polenske, incumbent). He has spoken one and possibly attended a second school board meeting.

We can tell you that in the past 22 years no individual has run for both offices simultaneously. Frankly we suspect it's never been done. Former school board member David Stackhouse often told folks (off the record) that it was his personal goal to "be the first" to serve on both the school board and the City Council.

Could Mr. Naud make history?
Could we have TWO new faces on the school board?
Has the district simply had enough of John Whalen, who really has not shown an ability to have an independent thought?

Oh what an interesting spring it will be!

Did You Know - Capacity Issues Edition

2012-01-02T09:53:00.000-06:00

Dr. Culver has introduced a new twist in his "Inspired" blog. He calls it "Did You Know". We think there's a few other things you did not know, but perhaps should. Seeing as the district is desperately seeking to launch plans to build an 8th elementary school, we thought it fitting to give you a behind the curtain look at capacity.

Did You Know:

That the average "class" size (one grade level) is 499, with a range of 448 (8th grade) to 548 (Kindergarten)?
That the capacity we build elementary schools for is also 500?
That the national median (most common) size for elementary schools is 600

That the 7 elementary schools (K-5) are at 85.5% capacity for the 2011-12 school year?
That the 2 middle schools (Gr 6-7) are at 64.6% capacity
That the CHUMS building (Gr 8-9) is at 51.2% capacity
That the high school (Gr 10-12) is at 67.8% capacity
That the former Junior High School, now Prairie Phoenix Academy (Alternative High School) and which has a capacity for at least 500 kids has only approximately 80 students?

That Creekside, the newest elementary school has the lowest number of kids at 364?
That Creekside is at 70% capacity while Horizon (about 2.5 miles away as the crow flies), which is the 2nd newest elementary school is at 99% capacity?
That Horizon and Eastside elementary each have 510 kids (3rd Friday count) yet Eastside has 27,000 less square footage?

That the total of all elementary school kids in the district grew 39% from 2001-02 to 2011-12, yet the UW APL estimates (if you believe them) that the growth will be even greater (42%) over the NEXT 10 years (2011-12 to 2021-22)?

Kinda makes ya wonder about...perhaps...whether Smith's Crossing was the best location for the 7th elementary school (Creekside)? Or (ouch) whether the last elementary school boundary change made the most sense? Or whether we really need to build a new elementary schools...rather than making use of existing capacities?

Act 10 Reduces Property Tax Bills? Not in Sun Prairie!

2012-01-01T11:53:00.000-06:00

We've all heard reams of rhetoric declaring that Gov. Walker's Act 10 reduces spending and gives communities the "tools" to reduce property taxes. Well....we must not have used all the tools. Or not used them properly. Or something. Clearly WE must have screwed up...right? Because surely the Governor means what he says and says what he means...right?

Or maybe like some Stephen King novel, Sun Prairie has somehow been trapped under a dome immune from the curative powers bestowed upon other districts. Why? Because we took a gander at the tax bill for the one home in the district that Culver et al have paraded for years as being the representative home. Not only did the overall property tax bill increase by 2.6% ($150) over last year, but the assessed value DROPPED by 4.3% (over $10,000)!

Barring any huge new valuations added to the tax roles, even a flat tax levy will result in increased property taxes if property values shrink. So this year we got the double whammy. The net effective mill rate (property tax bill divided by assessed value/1000) amounts to a 7.2% increase.

The property tax bill for this "model" home has risen over 15% over the past 5 years, adding an additional $753 to the property tax bill. We should be on The Biggest Loser what with all the pizza we've had to give up!

2011 Closeout - Was Act 10 ALL Bad?

2011-12-30T10:53:00.001-06:00

We're in duck and cover mode...purely from the title of this entry.

But, you know what, folks? Whether you are a Walker devotee or a Walker detractor, you have to admit that EVERYTHING that Act 10 did was not bad. Yes, at its heart, Act 10 was a heinous attempt to cut public employees down at the knees. That was neither right nor fair. You can argue whatever you like, but the fact remains that for these scorned public workers, benefits were improved over the years IN LIEU OF salary increases. Rightly or wrongly so, that is what it boiled down to. Publicly, governors declared victory by giving public employees only modest raises (1-2%) each year. In some years, they got nothing. Quietly, however, behind the scenes, they negotiated with the unions to pick up the tab for a greater percentage of benefits...or offered another few days of annual leave(vacation).

This didn't happen overnight, people! This process developed over the past 25-35 YEARS! We know of many examples of private sector workers who took a job with in the public sector at a substantial demotion in terms of pay. These workers made a choice to do so in exchange for enhanced job security. Again...be it right or wrong, that's what they did. It took many of these workers 10 years or more to be earning the same salary they did when they left the private sector. But it was a choice, and they were OK with their choice.

Don't tell us that the private sector is struggling. Certainly, many private businesses and employees have suffered since the economic crisis which began over 3 years ago. But many are faring much better. We are hearing of BONUSES being given this holiday season. Public employees have never and WILL never hear of such a thing. We also know many private sector employees that have good to excellent health and retirement benefits.

What Governor Walker and Act 10 did was to institute an 8-10% reduction in take home pay for ALL public sector workers. He made them pay more for benefits, but did so without increasing the salary that these folks gave up in return for the benefits. Now he has proclaimed that state employees won't see a raise for the next 2 years... at least. The last raise any state employees will have seen was back in 2008.

So...that's the despicable part. There was however a silver lining. What Walker did, along one tangent, was to do what none of the school boards across the state was willing to do: stop the madness. If you think state and municipal employees had it good...you never looked into school teacher and administrative compensation. In Sun Prairie, teachers and administrators were paying $200 per YEAR for health insurance that cost the tax payers more than $14,000 per year. Yep...that's barely more than 1% of the premium cost. And to make matters worse, teachers [still] work off a grid that gives them an automatic 3% salary increase every year. Even if the board votes for a 0% salary increase, each teacher moves one step on the grid each year and gets awarded a 3% increase. THAT is how a "2% salary increase" actually translated to a 5% increase in the salary budget...because in addition to any annual approved increases, the board still had to pay for automatic "step" increases.

To make matters worse, for every 6-12 credits earned by a teacher, they get a "lane increase" that adds another 2% to their salary.

How many of you receive an AUTOMATIC raise of at least 3% per year..EVERY year? We thought so.
So, what the Governor did was to force districts and school boards to do what we all wonder why they hadn't done on their own. After all...it's all for the children...right?

Act 10 cut revenue limits and then made rules for public employees to all pay a specific share of their retirement contributions and health insurance benefits. Most districts rushed to use the "tools" which Walker provided. Duh!!! They had too! Without those savings, and with the reduced revenue caps, it was comply or cut staff (hello...Milwaukee?). If only these school boards had done this on their own, maybe we wouldn't be in this position now.

In the end, nobody likes bully tactics. So the way things were done was wrong. We do not agree with Walker and his Act 10 in entirety. But something had to be done. The state was writing checks it couldn't cash. School districts were spending money like they printed it themselves. Where else do the employees (e.g., district administration) earn more than the CEO (State Superintendent Tony Evers), the Governor, or even the President of the United States? Yes, we have district administrators in this state that earn more than the President. That doesn't make sense.

Walker is not good for this state. He had a couple of good ideas, but the same can be said for some of history's greatest screwballs and monsters. When one considers his absolute disregard for union rights, the cronyism, his business interests, his sugar daddies, his lack of transparency, and the spectre of the John Doe probe, we need a do-over. But, what we do NOT need is to go back to the way things were, either.

EVERYONE needs to be paid a fair wage and be treated equitably. We cannot tolerate the way workers belonging to the former Local 60 have been treated....perennially forced to accept the short end of the stick. School districts have always balanced their budget on these peoples' backs...the ones who can least tolerate the load. We need to pay teachers a fair and decent starting wage (raise the floor), but at the same time, we can't have kindergarten teachers or elementary school "librarians" earning over $90,000 either. We need a salary cap...just like in major league sports. Statewide...hell, nationally...we need to rethink the compensation given to school district administrative staff. Sure they are important in molding our children's futures. But doctors and nurses save lives...and can be paid less than the average administrator.

2012 is huge year for this school district, this state, and this country. We have a number of major decisions at stake. And we have this one chance to get it right.

Teachers....we appreciate what you do. But please remember that you are paid for working only 9 months per year. You can try to rationalize that if you like, but every worker can make the claims you do. Do you honestly think that you are the only people that work "for free" on nights/weekends...or all summer? Really? Now is the time for EVERYONE to GET REAL.

Happy New Year. May 2012 be brighter...a LOT brighter...than 2011.

Welke Wipes Egg Off District Face

2011-12-28T11:35:00.000-06:00

At the December 12th meeting of the school board's FTT committee, we heard the UW Applied Population Lab's analysis of growth projections. It all lead into what we've been expecting: the district believes it will very soon need more elementary school space. And district administration has a one-track mind: BUILD. That means (in their minds) another Horizon/Creekside palace. Of course, Phil Frei said that "there have been discussions" regarding other options. When questioned, however, we learned that said "discussions" had been held in private and (we assume) school board members were not present.

Wrong song, bucko! These discussions MUST be held in public. Thankfully, FTT committee chair John Welke stepped up and made it abundantly clear that the SCHOOL BOARD had not made ANY decisions regarding a new school. He also emphatically stated that any such plans would go through the FTT. So just hold the phone, Tyrone!

The STAR quoted resident Rick Mealy as asking whether the district had considered increasing class sizes at least as an interim measure. For the record (ahem!), Mr. Mealy prefaced his remarks by saying that "while he was not advocating for such, measures such as increasing class sizes MUST be fully vetted by the district/board". Mr. Mealy was simply demanding full disclosure of what options had been considered and why those that were rejected had been rejected. That is only right and just. There are numerous options to building a new palace.

One resident who caught wind of the FTT meeting had the following to say:
It’s not books, copy paper, teachers, and desks that cost big money, they grow incrementally with each new student, who brings a pot of state aid and perhaps a new house and it’s taxes with him. It’s what I would call periphery that kills the budget. If you build another building you have all sorts of stuff that you don’t duplicate when you just add a class or two.

Principal
Secretary
Lady to sit by door
Librarian and library
Custodians
Grass to mow
Sidewalks to shovel
Guidance Counselor
Psychologist
Social Worker
Case Manager
Cook
Aides (may increase incrementally)
PA System
Copier
Gym and equipment
Playground equipment
Oh, yeah, a piece of land and a building
Etc.

This is exactly why the district needs to look at options. How many more teachers could we pay if we didn’t have to pay for all of this?

and we'll add some other big "hidden" costs:
Gas for heating
Electricity
Water/Sewer

Creekside cost 14.5 MILLION dollars. and that was 3 years ago. A similar building would cost upwards of $16-17M now. And then we need land, as our resident points out.

We need to be more creative in this school district, folks. Adding bricks, mortar, and bodies is not necessarily the answer.

2011: The Headline That Wasn't :(

2011-12-27T08:24:00.001-06:00

Weber Grills Seabass!
If only....

Folks , we've had this one just waiting in the wings. We wished upon many a star bright. We know that rookie school board member Tom Weber has the financial wisdom. We firmly believed that he has sniffed out the whereabouts of the copious socks of money hidden in the budget. And frankly, we've grown weary of Jim "Seabass" McCourt's approach as Treasurer of the school district.

Therefore, we hoped against hope that we might see Mr. Weber go all flame-on and grill the Seabass on all his cockamamie explanations for the financial sleight of hand at foot.

Even though we never got to use it as a headline, we can still dream...can't we?

Shimek OUT; Whalen All IN

2011-12-18T11:25:00.001-06:00

Folks....we WILL have a new face on the school board next April.
Terry Shimek told several members of the public that he was NOT running for re-election.
We wish Mr. Shimek the best in his endeavors; we know he'll be around, as he has been for about 15 years.

Now on to Mr. Whalen, who seemed to be somewhat clandestine as he gathered fellow board member signatures for his nomination papers. Whalen has been on the board for 6 years; in our opinion, 3 more would be to be too much. Johnny, We Hardily Know Ye....and the school board needs someone with a thought in his head other than Tim Culver's.

The early leader would appear to be Mike Krachey. Krachey brings a lot to the table as a long-time resident, member of the school board's FTT committee, and someone with a strong business mind. We also understand that nomination papers were taken out by Gary Naud. Little is known about Mr. Naud. We'll find out for certain who's in the race come January 3rd.

Fumbling Towards Equity

2011-12-11T19:30:00.000-06:00

With sincere apologies to Sarah McLachlan...

Way back last spring, the good Dr. Culver brought forward a situation report in the interests of securing equity for all staff.

"...it is in my heart to speak up for these 31employees and say let all employees take the pain at the same time."

---District Administrator Tim Culver

This would not make them entirely "whole" (e.g., they would have to pay FICA and other required taxes on the miscellaneous income), but on the district end there is no added cost above what is already in the budget. We would be spending funds that were not mandated by law to do so. But, please consider letting all employees take this pain at the same time. We aren't strapped for this $32,500 in this year’s budget - we had planned to use it to compensate these employees through June 30.

---District Administrator Tim Culver

Cut to present day.
What happened to Culver's desire for equity? Three (3) GINORMOUS inequities remain. When will the school board/district do something to fix them?

1. Culver's Miscellaneous Funny Money
Culver's contract: l. In lieu of other expense reimbursement for miscellaneous costs incurred carrying out official duties, District Administrator shall receive $125 per month to defray miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses.

Who gets ANY money for which no receipts are required? He can do nothing and just pocket the additional $125/month. People this kind of benefit exists no where else but Wall Street and school district administrators.

2. Culver's Mileage re-imbursement
Culver's contract: k. Flat monthly payment for the use of personal automobile of $325 per month for use in district and in Dane County.

Other administrators (gulp) got that rolled into salary and now must submit mileage reimbursement reports, like us normal folk. How come King Tim gets treated differently?

3. Dental Health Insurance Premiums

All employees EXCEPT Local 60 pay 5% of their dental insurance premiums. Local 60 get it all the way with a ted hot poker and pay 14.5%. Why are we stickin' it to the lowest paid employees?

Keeping Up With the Jones #2 - Payments In Lieu of Health Insurance

2011-12-10T14:55:00.001-06:00

Muskego-Norway School District will pay employees who opt out of health plan
Journal Sentinal Online Dec. 6, 2011

The least expensive of three options to encourage employees to opt out of the Muskego-Norway School District health insurance plan has won the approval of the School Board.The district will continue to pay employees 87.4 percent of the premium for single coverage if they take insurance from the employer of a working spouse. That will come to about $6,900 next year.The $784,785 cost of the opt-outs is sizable, but the program has been shown to actually save money for the district, said board member Brett Hyde.In a full year, the opt-out plan would avoid nearly $1.5 million in premiums, leaving a net savings of $673,560, said Scot Ecker, director of business services.

Of the 36 area districts in CESA 1, 23 give opt-outs ranging from $9,216 in Shorewood to $3,000 in Mukwonago and Cudahy, Ecker said. Of the 23, Muskego's $8,676 this year is fifth highest. The median opt-out is $6,000.

Least Expensive Option?
Really? REALLY? Um....just spitballin' here...but wouldn't the least expensive option be to pay them ZERO? After all...that's tax dollars we're talking about. So...um...we don't think so.

Cost Avoidance?
We always love the term "cost avoidance". Suddenly we go from "avoiding" costs to realized savings. What happened to the word POTENTIAL? After all...how many families do you know where both spouses select the family insurance from their respective employers. Herro...McFry....those benefits usually COST the employee something out of pocket...right? Who in their right mind is going to pay double the amount of out-of-pocket cost to have TWO insurances, which ultimately does very little to lower one's personal out-of-pocket costs? Especially school districts, which generally have really excellent health plans. And then you have to deal with the issue of who is the main carrier and then they want to charge a chunk to the "secondary" carrier. We have never met a family that enrolls in TWO family plans. So let's not kid ourselves...we're not "avoiding" any costs at all.

Is it a Win-Win?
Payments in lieu of taking insurance is most definitely something right out of Dr. Feelgood's game plan. It's a nice thing to do to offer employees some benefit instead of watching empty-handed while co-workers receive a benefit with real dollar value. That benefit can easily amount to as much as $1,000 per month--or more.
What does the district get? Well....in Sun Prairie a family health plan costs about $16,000. The district typically pays about 91%, or roughly $14,200. It costs the employee about $1,400 per year. Currently SPASD offers a benefit of $300/mo ($3,600/yr) to employees who opt not to enroll in a health insurance plan. So, in our case, we--the taxpayers-- pay these employees $3,600, when POTENTIALLY we could be shelling out $14,200 each. Looking at from only this angle, it looks like a no-brainer for us to offer this option.

What we're forgetting, however, is this: if the employee did NOT stand to gain $3,600 (i.e., pay them $0 for opting out), what's the likelihood that they would then choose to enroll in the insurance? Many of the 75-100 employees who receive this cash benefit have spouses that work in the district (or the state, or a municipality). They already are receiving equivalent health benefits. Now, it is possible that, in the absence of the "opt out" benefit, some may drop the spouse's insurance and choose the district's. Would those employees whose spouse work in this (or another) district simply choose to enroll in the insurance as a giant "Nyah Nyah!"? Not when that "Nyah! Nyah!" costs them $1400 per year (or more).

Does it make sense?
Certainly offering payment to employees in lieu of enrolling in insurance is a fairly common thing. The amount, however, is considerably variable. We've only looked at school districts. State employees, for example, are not offered this benefit. Neither are most municipal employees. We're aware of such plans in the private sector, but they generally offer much less (we hear as low as $50/month).

But in this economy, people (ahem...board members!) need to start getting real about benefits that the taxpayers can no longer support. Or you may find yourselves very unhappy when you go to referendum. A school district is not a Koch Brothers' private sector venture.

What could we do with $270-300,000 annually if we eliminate the benefit?

Obviously, the possibilities are endless. We could give it all back to the taxpayers to lower their property taxes. OK...forget we said that; a majority of the current board would NEVER do that.

It could fund, in future years, 50% or more of the "6 initiatives" introduced in the 11th hour of the budget process. Or....we could apply it to the salaries line and raise the entry wage paid to teachers. Wouldn't that be a nice, zero net cost way to make SPASD more competitive in hiring? Of course, if we do that, someone needs to seriously start talking about establish a cap on pay.

Or we could give half to the taxpayers and use half to improve the starting pay for teachers.

Will Sun Prairie Employees Want More?
As word gets out that other districts shell out, on average, $6,00 per year ($500/mo), will SPASD employees feel like they've gotten the shaft? That is indeed the question. Stay tuned.

Unpretty

2011-12-10T13:00:00.000-06:00

Seeing that the district is quietly working towards presenting a plan to build yet another elementary school (to the tune of $18-22M), we felt it was long overdue to take a look at our debt picture. That is what people do before planning big purchase, right????

Pick up any newspaper or magazine and it won't be long before you see what folks all over the country are doing during this 3 year (and counting) downturn in the economy. They're paying down their debt and not creating new debt. Sounds like a solid plan...right? Nope, at least not in Sun Prairie. The FTT Committee will be reviewing APL population estimates this coming Monday, and that will be the first shot fired in a battle to build an 8th elementary school. APL estimates are ALWAYS a prelude to "time to build".

Suppose we could get
an elementary school cheap from China?

In all those many pages of the school district's Annual Meeting booklet, what you probably did not see (and neither Jim McCourt nor Phil Frei pointed out in any of their slides) was any reference to the total outstanding (and not in a good way) debt. Sure...we have a (gulp) nice Taj Mah High School to go with two palatial elementary schools.

But way back on page 39 of the Annual Meeting booklet is the sum total of our debt: $171,349,618 as of October 2011. Unfortunately, DPI data only show the debt picture as of June 30, 2010, at which time the debt was $175,456,911. How appropriate that the figure ends in "911", because we think that this much debt constitutes an emergency.

When you look at DPI debt data for all 424 districts, Sun Prairie ranks #2 in total debt (only Milwaukee has more!!!), #8 in total allowable debt%, and #6 in debt-to-value percent. Those aren't exactly the areas in which we wish to be leaders, folks. Sure, these schools look McDreamy, but we're mortgaging the futures of our residents for bricks and mortar. Last time we checked, the bricks aren't the ones teaching our kids. We also recently heard that the wonderful geothermal system we put in the first of the new schools (Horizon 5-6 years back) is aging. The system depends on a large number of pumps and these have started to fail. Have we budgeted (or even talked about budgeting) how much that replacement cost will be?

By State Statute, the Sun Prairie Area School District is able to borrow up to 10% of its equalized

Debt payments due over the next 17 years
(from the 2011-12 SPASD Annual Meeting Book)

value. The 2010 equalized value was $3,858,367,621; therefore, the district could borrow an
additional $214,487,144 ($385,836,762 - $171,349,618).

Do the math folks, as the graphic from the 2011-12 Annual Meeting Book shows, for each of the next 17 years we will be paying at least $10.2M and as much as $16.1M in taxes just to pay down this debt. Add it all up and we'll be paying a little over $225 MEELYUN DOLLARS for a debt which currently stands at $171.5M. That means we'll be paying INTEREST of almost $54 MILLION DOLLARS during that time. We may have gotten great bond rates, but any way you slice it, it's costing us 31.5% of the principal.

Maybe...just maybe... we need to be a tad more creative before we jump to spending another $18-22M on a third palatial elementary school.

So damn unpretty
I'll make you feel unpretty too
--TLC "Unpretty"

Keepin' up With The Jones #1 - Look What Middleton Did!

2011-12-10T07:19:00.001-06:00

Raises approved for all Middleton-Cross Plains school employees
Posted: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 [Madison.com]

Middleton-Cross Plains School District employees are getting an early holiday present after the School Board voted unanimously Monday night to give them all raises.The raises and bonuses, which will add 1.5 percent to the average teacher's pay, will cost the district $643,000. Both union and nonunion employees will receive them.

Teachers will get about $405,000 of the $643,000 in new pay, according to district figures.The rest of the school district's employees will get a 1 percent salary increase, along with bonuses ranging from $300 to $500, though administrators will not receive bonuses. The average total pay increase ranges from 1 percent for administrators to 2.93 percent for food service employees.

Yup...this is exactly where you mutter half out loud, "WTF!"

Gee....where was THIS little gem nestled within the confines of the budget and tax levy documents?
Or did Middleton mysteriously FIND the money after Nov. 1st?? We know how that goes!

In the Sun Prairie school district, every additional $375,000 to the tax levy would translate to an additional $0.10 on the mill rate. So...this lovely raise package would have raised our mill rate another $0.17 (from $12.56), or added an additional $35 in taxes for an average home valued at $200,000. What say, people? Is it worth 3 large pizzas to give all employees a raise between 1 and 2.93%? What was it we read about state employees? Oh yeah....no raises for the next 2 years.

The next logical question we can expect from the SPASD employees would seem to be "where's ours"?

Final 2011-12 Tax Levies & Mill Rates

2011-12-04T14:21:00.001-06:00

Wow....talk about standing out in a crowd!
The SPASD Administration wants SPASD to stand out, and it sure does now.
We're the leaders! Well...in millrate anyway.

If we look at SPASD vs. the 20 similar sized school districts (10 larger and 10 smaller in enrollments), Sun Prairie is head and shoulders above the rest in mill rate ($12.62) and has the 4th highest tax levy!

While our rival, Middleton-Cross Plains bests out slightly in terms of tax levy, we cream them in mill rate.
A $200,000 home in Sun Prairie will pay $482 MORE in taxes this year than a similar value home in MCPSD.

Statewide, the average mill rate is $9.84 per $1000---SPASD's mill rate is 28.3% higher.
We rank in the top 15% of all districts in terms of tax levy increase over last year. In fact, the statewide average was a 1.45% DROP in mill rate. How "wonderful" does Sun Prairie's 3.5% INCREASE look now?
269 (out of 424) school districts set a tax levy either the same or lower than last year. 211 districts have a mill rate the same or lower than last year, while Sun Prairies mill rate is rising 4.1%.

Oh...and while we're at it....lest anyone overlook it, our tax levy ($10.9M) SOLELY for referendum-related debt is now second only to Kenosha. Yikes!

We'll be here all week....enjoy your tax bills! Be sure to tip your waitresses and thank the school board members who approved all this.

This School Board Member Is Engaged...NOT!

2011-12-03T17:54:00.001-06:00

School Board Member hard at work...sawing logs.
Shimek Elected Chairman of the Bored.
Is that a bee we hear...of wait...never mind...it's Terry Shimek snoring...again.
We could do this all day, folks.

School board member Terry Shimek...who is up for re-election this spring... has been caught dozing pretty frequently. If you watch closely, on lengthy discussions, his eyelids start drooping, and then he eventually nods off. Lately it's been worse. He's had to be nearly nudged awake. At last week's board work session, he actually just started snoring. Some board members leave water rings at the board table from their bottles of water (Koolaid?). With Mr. Shimek, we're starting to fear that he might be leaving sleep drool rings. Word for the day, folks, there's actually a term for it: sialorrhea.

Either Mr. Shimek's heart is no longer in the game, or he has some health issues that need to be addressed. Regardless, this is not the level of board member that the taxpayers deserve.
Either stay awake for the meetings, or step down.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Terry! Better yet...wake up and DRINK some coffee.

Seriously, Mr. Shimek...perhaps you should file that notice of non-candidacy. Something's not right.
Either that or maybe you should start downing some Venom energy drink before meetings.

Who is "Karin, School Board Member" in the pro-Walker Ads>

2011-12-03T12:21:00.001-06:00

Karin was a whole lot easier to find than Kristi.
But then, we had more info from "her" ad. She started out by saying that her school district has 25 schools.
Ok, then, if Sun Prairie has 11, then we were looking for a far bigger school district.
Hmmm...which one comes quickly comes to mind? How about the axis of all things Walker: Waukesha?
Bingo...got it in one. If you scroll down the school board member page on the Waukesha website, there she be... Karin Rajnicek ("Rhine-a-check")

"We were worried when the state budget was going to mean less money for our school district. And we have 25 schools..."

---Karin Sue Rajnicek, [Waukesha] School Board Member

There are some concerns about whether "Karin" should be speaking in terms of "we" when she does not represent the entire school board.

Who IS "Kristi, High School Teacher" in those Walker Ads?

2011-11-26T16:02:00.001-06:00

Unless you've been in a coma for the past week or so, you MUST have seen those pro-Walker ads. They only air them like every 15 minutes...wonder what THAT is costing!
Many of us share the same instant questions: Is she really a teacher? Which district does she work for? Is she really "just" a teacher? What's her story?

A little detective work was in order, starting with the DPI's list of all Wisconsin teaching staff. There were a ton of "Kristi"s. So then we narrowed it down to those that only taught high school. Finally, we figured she's early to mid 30's but to be safe, pared it down to those high school teachers named Kristi between ages 30 and 50. That whittled the list down to 18. Finally, we started focusing on those who teach in the Milwaukee area.

From there, we focused on a couple of individuals and then did a little 'net sleuthing to find a picture and documentation that matched up with our quarry. Think about it....if she's a teacher, surely the people she teaches with know who she is. Once one knows, many know. What we found interesting is most news sites seemed to be as clueless to her identity as the rest of us.

After narrowing it down, all signs point to our "Kristi" as one Kristi Lacroix, a teacher in the Kenosha Unified school district, specifically at the "Lakeview Technology Academy", a specialty high school preparing students to enter the field of engineering or higher level technology. This public high school has 375 students in grades 9-12. DPI salary data for 2010-11 indicate that she is 37, with 34.9 years of teaching experience. Huh??? Something's not right there. Other sites we find indicate she has 13.5 years experience. That seems about right. Her salary is $60,377.00 with fringe benefits totaling $32,840.00. Not bad for 13.5 years experience!!!

Kristi has been very busy of late...

Files amicus curiae (more Latin, Jimbo---for "friend of the court")brief to disenjoin from the state unions' lawsuit against Gov. Walker et al

National Institute for Labor Relations Research, July 2011

In which Kristi firmly announces her stand with the Gov.

- Kristi posted a link to Walker Backers Watching Walker Stalkers's Wall.
- Kristi posted a link to Conservative Wisconsin's Wall.
- Kristi posted a link to We Support Scott Walker in Making Wisconsin Great Again's Wall.
RECENT ACTIVITY
- Kristi answered How do you feel about drug testing for welfare recipients?with For It.
RECENT ACTIVITY
- Kristi answered I am cleaning up my Facebook friends... let me know if u would like to stay...· with Yes.
  · Follow · Ask Friends
- Kristi answered The second endorsement of the 2012 Presidential cycle: Chris Christie endorses Mitt Romney for Presi... with No.
  · Follow · Ask Friends

So there it is, people. For those that were curious, "Kristi" is indeed a high school teacher, perhaps one of a very small number that support the Governor and his initiatives. It seems only fair that people have all the facts, regarding the barrage of advertisements we are seeing now and will for the next 6 months. In this case, based on our fact-checking, we believe "Kristi" is Kristi Lacroix, a teacher in the KUSD. While we believe that we should have all the facts, we also believe that her privacy and the right to her opinions should be respected.

December 1 means School Board Nomination Paper Time!

2011-11-22T15:47:00.001-06:00

It's that time again!
December 1 marks the date on which those interested in running for the Sun Prairie School Board can start circulating nomination papers. All it requires is a cakewalk 100 signatures.
We've already heard rumors of several potential candidates...possibly enough to require a primary!

The seats available this year are (at least currently occupied by) John Whalen and Terry Shimek.
Will they even run for re-election????

Whalen hasn't been looking so hot lately...with all the squirmingly unprofessional body language he's shown at the board table. Shimek is well....the King of all Flip Flops and a Teller of Tall Tales. Neither is serving the taxpayers of this community, particularly senior citizens.

Who's that in the back of the room at recent school board meetings?
Some folks have identified an individual seen at the back of the room at recent school board meetings as Missy Vervoort-Landsness. A member of the Eastside parent group, could she be on an advance scouting mission in anticipation of a run for the board? Word has it she's precisely what Culver is looking for as one of his "bosses".

Stay tuned

This Cat's Outta The Bag

2011-11-22T07:41:00.001-06:00

Those listening carefully at the Monday Nov. 14th school board meeting would have learned all they needed to know about the district's push for Mandarin Chinese.

The good Dr. Culver reported that he had a magnificent time in China and noted that other school istracts brought a large contingent with them--including...wait for it.....SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS!

Dr. Culver then suggested that "next year" we should bring a group of people. Hmmm....does the "we" include a return engagement for him? We're wondering how long it took Jim McCourt to ponder whether he could postpone his big business deal for at least another year so that he could be one of those school board members to get a trip to China for peanuts.

"Other school districts brought a whole contingent, including school board members [to China]."
--SPASD District Administrator Tim Culver

Clearly, there's much more to this China deal than just adding Chinese I.

WHO's Not Listening, Jimbo?

2011-11-22T07:15:00.001-06:00

Hey Jim...did you have
YOUR listening cap on?

Leave it to good old SeaBass Jim McCourt to pounce from his podium on a resident who refuses to drink from the district Kool-Aid tap. After questioning the value added by introducing Mandarin Chinese to the district language program, McCourt could barely contain himself and immediately shouted, "That last presenter obviously wasn't listening. We're adding Chinese because that's what the students have requested."

"That last presenter obviously wasn't listening. We're adding Chinese because that's what the students have requested."
--Sun Prairie School Board Treasurer Jim "SeaBass" McCourt

So...we do what the students want...is that right, Jim?
Does that mean we should just give 'em Pepsi and Skittles, Jim? The students wanted an open campus...and they didn't get that. So...Jim...it's clearly not "whatever the students want." The question is: what exactly is the driving force here?

The rest of the story
The presenter WAS listening, Mr. McCourt...and so were we. The question is: were you? High School Principal Heipp clearly stated that "in a survey" students listed Mandarin Chinese as something they had interest in. But they also listed Arabic...and we don't see that being offered. What we see is Mandarin Chinese...which seems to dovetail so nicely with our Chinese visitors last spring and Dr. Culver's and Ms. Heipps' trips to China this year. And, as Dr. Culver was so kind to point out, 80% of his trip was financed by the Chinese government. So, it would seem to be that we offer what the students want as long as administrators get a nice kickback.

We also heard (did you?) Ms. Heipp's response to Board member Tom Weber's question regarding how student educational needs factor into the equation of deciding new curriculum. Ms. Heipp's response was that if something is deemed critical for students to have, then they make it a mandatory part of the graduation requirements.

AHHHH! There it is! The old, "we'll let the students select the course they want unless we decide it's really important and then we'll make them take it" play. We heard that, loud and clear.

And now, Mr. McCourt, we ask again whether YOU were listening. Because the presenter listed clear FACTS that Mandarin Chinese is not going to help our students succeed. If that is our goal, then we should be adding Latin to our curriculum, not Chinese. Latin would reap immediate benefits in improving Language Arts scores, as well as reading for comprehension. Count how many students that MIGHT someday be in a career in which they do business in China and need to know Mandarin Chinese. Then count how many students will be in a field where they need to write clearly and professionally, or be involved with science, medicine, or law. Now tell us which group you think would be larger.

That is the group on which we need to be focused. Now.

Oh...and did we mention how poor a form it is to rebut facts offered by a resident just because you support the opposite position? We hope you don't operate like that in your business dealings. Or could that have something to do with not having a paycheck? Points to ponder.

On Monday's Menu: Mandarin

2011-11-12T11:59:00.001-06:00

Not the food. That would be just fine. The course is the problem.
It passed the committee level this past Monday and on the 14th it goes to the full board.

Problem #1
Here's our first problem. This is a major shift; an introduction of a whole new language. One with a plan to offer II,III, and IV plus AP all in the next several years. Yet, it's lumped in with 7 other courses within the agenda heading, where you vote Yes/No on the entire suite: 2012-2013 New Courses: AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination); Chinese I; Arts of Industry; African Literature; Native American/Latin American Literature; Science of Motion; Weather and Climate

Solution: It takes a board member motion to pull out the Chinese I for a separate discussion/vote.

Problem #2: It's further lumped within the class "Consent Items", which itself is a lumping of 12 OTHER agenda items. Yup...the board is all revved up to rubber stamp all 12, which includes the introduction of Chinese language.

Solution: So now a board member must motion to pull agenda item 6.07 (2012-2013 new course proposals) from "Consent" and further pull Chinese I out separately from that!!!!

See the concern? Administration is burying what amounts a potentially very expensive major curriculum move two tiers deep. Hide much? And why are we hiding it? Is it because it's Tim Culver's legacy to be and everyone is bowing to King Culver's wishes?

At issue
Course Title: CHINESE I
Sounds like any other language class, right? French I. Spanish I.

E. Course Description: Provide a short but complete descriptive paragraph about this course to be
used in the course catalog. Include a brief outline of learning expectancies, intended content, and plans for assessment, i.e. brief form of a syllabus.
Chinese I is an introductory course in Mandarin Chinese. Students will learn fundamental skills in
listening, speaking, reading and writing. They will also learn about many aspects of Chinese culture from
pop culture to calligraphy, from festivals to how culture is embedded in everyday interactions. Class
activities will include role playing, stories, poetry, songs, recipes for culturally authentic food, student
presentations and more. Resources will include materials from a standards-based textbook and authentic
materials such as music and stories. Students should expect homework every day outside of class.
Does THAT sound like a language course?

List the major learning targets (what you want the students to know and be able to do).
Chinese I is an introductory course in Mandarin Chinese, incorporating listening, speaking, reading and writing skills into a standards-based approach. Students will be able to engage in conversations on topics of everyday interest, successfully engage in targeted listening activities based on textbook and authentic materials, recognize and be able to read and compose texts using at least 100 of the most commonly used Chinese characters. They will be able to identify and discuss various patterns of behavior and interactions typical of Chinese culture and understand underlying cultural perspectives.

Time hit the brakes on this one
The expense for just Level I is over $5000, not including the costs of sending Culver and Heipp to China. Not only is developing a Mandarin Chinese program Culver's last stand, but this is something driven by the Chinese government. We didn't want the big corporate spectre of Pepsi of Coke...why do we ant to do something which is the brainchild of the Chinese government?

The studies abound that will tell you that Chinese is THE most difficult language to learn, and has virtually zero value unless one is planning on moving to China or working for a Chinese corporation. If you want to teach a language that will directly and immediately help kids with their learning TODAY, it's LATIN (yes, Mr. Shimek...Latin. We heard all about your lack of decorum when Latin was suggested at the committee level. Seems like you are back to your old unprofessional skills you used to show at Finance Committee meetings, remember Terry?). Laugh all you want, the number of studies that support learning Latin far outweigh those supporting Mandarin Chinese.

Bad Form (again),
Mr. Shimek!
Board member Terry Shimek got busted
once again for chuckling when another
'committee member suggested Latin might
be of more value to kids than Mandarin Chinese.

Common Latin phrases used in every day america

Didn't we just cancel the German language program only now to be quietly re-starting it behind the scenes? Is Chinese going to go away after we've invested precious tax dollars into it? Heck we don't even have a commitment that students are interested in taking it!

Do we really need to be part of the "cool kids"...you know the 31 WI school districts (out of 424) that offer Mandarin Chinese? Isn't that small a set kind of like being in a clique? And aren't "cliques" a big part of bullyism?

A move like this should not be buried two tiers deep within a Consent Agenda. At the bare minimum it should be its own agenda item. The school board should take it's time on this one. This isn't adding "a" course. It's launching a major initiative.

And what's the real end game here?

Some good (quick read) links

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6669953/forget-mandarin-latin-is-the-key-to-success.thtml

Unlike other languages, Latin isn’t just about conjugating verbs. It includes a crash course in ancient history and cosmology. “Latin is the maths of the Humanities,” says Llewelyn Morgan, “But Latin also has something that mathematics does not and that is the history and mythology of the ancient world. Latin is maths with goddesses, gladiators and flying horses, or flying children.”

“In 1971, more than 4,000 fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade pupils of all backgrounds and abilities received 15 to 20 minutes of daily Latin instruction. The performance of the fifth-grade Latin pupils on the vocabulary test of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills was one full year higher than the performance of control pupils who had not studied Latin. Both the Latin group and the control group had been matched for similar backgrounds and abilities

Llewelyn Morgan, an Oxford Classicist and co-author of a recent Politeia pamphlet on why Latin should be taught in primary schools. “Those kids are learning through Latin what I did: what verbs and nouns are, how to coordinate ideas in speech and writing, all the varieties of ways of saying the same thing,” he says. “I did not and could not have learned that through English, because English was too familiar to me. It was through Latin that I learned how to express myself fluently in my native language.”

Mark Zuckerberg. The 26-year-old founder of Facebook studied Classics at Phillips Exeter Academy and listed Latin as one of the languages he spoke on his Harvard application. So keen is he on the subject, he once quoted lines from the Aeneid during a Facebook product conference and now regards Latin as one of the keys to his success.

http://lissie.hubpages.com/hub/Which-Language-is-Easiest-for-an-English-Speaker-to-Learn

However economically important Chinese may be this ignores the fact that it is incredibly difficult to learn languages which have no vocabulary in common with English, are written in a different script and are tonal to boot - the same word can have completely different meaning depending on whether you use a rising, falling or flat inflection! Its a bit like expecting a student to study calculus without having to learn basic arithmetic!
Spanish will take you as a first or second language from Texas south to Argentina. The only exceptions are
Portuguese speaking Brazil, English speaking Belize and Dutch and French speaking Guyanas. In addition Spanish is spoken in Spain. It gets better Spanish and Italian are so close that they are mutually comprehensible. Portuguese, French, Romanian are also closely related languages. Spanish will take you a long way around the world.

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/robert-lane-greene/should-you-teach-your-kids-chinese

So should you teach your kids Chinese? Well, foreign languages are always a good thing to know, and if you really want them to live and work intensively in China, sure. But despite China’s rise, Chinese isn’t the world language of the future; the writing system simply makes it far too hard for the vast majority of the world’s people to use if they care to reach for the widest possible audience. I simply can’t imagine a Dutch physicist in 2110 learning Chinese in order to write up his research, or Finnish musicians recording in Chinese, the language “everybody” knows.
If China switches to an alphabet? That’s a different story

http://www.thechinaexpat.com/5-reasons-why-learning-chinese-could-be-a-waste-of-your-time/

Why Learning Chinese Could Be a Waste of Your Time
1. Many Well Educated Chinese People Would Prefer to Speak to You in English
2. Little Applicable Value Outside of China
3. Possible Negative Market Value
4. Huge Opportunity Cost
5. Non-Negligible Maintenance Costs

http://ezinearticles.com/?Which-is-the-Easiest-Language-to-Learn?-Rating-the-14-Most-Popular-Course-Offerings&id=656519

Difficulty, according to Uncle Sam
First, consider some cold facts. The U.S. State Department groups languages for the diplomatic service according to learning difficulty:

Category 1.
The "easiest" languages for speakers of English, requiring 600 hours of classwork for minimal proficiency: the Latin and Germanic languages. However, German itself requires a bit more time, 750 hours, because of its complex grammar.

Category 2
Medium, requiring 1100 hours of classwork: Slavic languages, Turkic languages, other Indo-Europeans such as Persian and Hindi, and some non-Indo-Europeans such as Georgian, Hebrew and many African languages. Swahili is ranked easier than the rest, at 900 hours.

Category 3.
Difficult, requiring 2200 hours of study: Arabic, Japanese, Korean and the Chinese languages.

博士卡尔弗进入中国

2011-11-06T13:14:00.001-06:00

What started as a one-week trip to China will morph into a 2-week vacation for the good doctor.
Nice!

Mandarin Chinese 101 is Here!

2011-11-06T11:34:00.002-06:00

Tomorrow night at the school board's Education & Policy Committee meeting, will be the first official foray into Tim Culver's Mandarin Chinese dream.

Read the course proposal and then do some homework on your own. Don't listen to us. Make your own assessment. This course proposal makes the budgetary fluff like like Gilbert Grape's mom's sofa cushion. Administration has proposed a year-long "Chinese 1" course open to grades 9-12.

The situation report lists the following school districts with Chinese programs:

"The following Wisconsin school districts offer Chinese as a choice of world language: Amery, Argyle, Arrowhead Union High School, Elkhart Lake, Grantsburg, Green Bay Area, Greenwood, Hudson, Janesville, Kenosha, La Crosse, Madison Metropolitan, Marathon City, McFarland, Middleton-Cross Plains Area, Milwaukee, Mosinee, Northern Ozaukee, Oak Creek-Franklin, Oconomowoc Area, Oshkosh Area, Port Edwards, Sheboygan Area, Sheboygan Falls, Shorewood, Somerset, Verona Area, Waukesha, Waunakee, West Bend and Winneconne Community."

That's 31 out of 425 districts. Really? That's worth all the hullaballoo? So that we can become one of the 7%? Now if we were becoming one of the Seven-Ups? Different story.

Here's another part of the proposal we find would extend Pinocchio's nose to record lengths:

List the major learning targets (what you want the students to know and be able to do).
Chinese I is an introductory course in Mandarin Chinese, incorporating listening, speaking,reading and writing skills into a standards-based approach. Students will be able to engage inconversations on topics of everyday interest, successfully engage in targeted listening activitiesbased on textbook and authentic materials, recognize and be able to read and compose textsusing at least 100 of the most commonly used Chinese characters. They will be able to identifyand discuss various patterns of behavior and interactions typical of Chinese culture andunderstand underlying cultural perspectives.

Really? exactly what "texts" will they be able to compose using only 100 Chinese characters? Are we talking "texts" as in text messages? You know...like CU L8R? That's like 3% of the number of characters deemed necessary to "get around". The LOWEST estimate we've seen is that one needs to learn at least 1500 characters. So now our percentage is up to a whopping 6.7%!!! Also...learning Chinese characters is a whole lot different than learning words in other languages. It's all about brush/pen strokes. And the average character requires about 9 strokes. And there are 8 different types of strokes.

At what cost?
Initial cost of over $5,200
Textbooks: 48 x $69.95 = $3,357.60
Software- Voice thread: http://voicethread.com/products/k12/school/ Min. price $350 for 1 subscription.Software- Arch Chinese: http://www.archchinese.com/arch_membership.html $89.99Curriculum Development Cost: 40 hours x $24/hour=: $960Annual subscriptions to online resources: $450

So many questions
What's the end game here? 4 years of Chinese? Full-immersion?
Who will teach this and what are their qualifications to teach the course?
How many students will opt for this? Is there a number below which it wont be offered?
Is this going to become the equivalent of basket-weaving for a small group of students who already have a rudimentary understanding of/experience with Chinese?
FORTY EIGHT textbooks????????
Can't the Sun Prairie Education Foundation at least partially fund this start up? Doesn't look like we even asked.

Mandarin Chinese? Is this REALLY helping our students achieve more?

Check these sources out
http://speakingadventure.com/how-many-words-is-fluent

http://www.mcfc.foryousoft.com/writing/memorizingTips.php

http://www.scipress.org/journals/forma/pdf/1504/15040409.pdf

Doesn't look so easy...does it?
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...
这是最好的时代，这是最坏的时代

I do not like green eggs and ham
我不喜欢绿鸡蛋和火腿

Lesson Time - Electors DO NOT Get the Final Say

2011-10-30T12:03:00.000-05:00

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

2011-10-30T09:41:00.002-05:00

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

2011-10-30T09:11:00.002-05:00

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

2011-10-29T08:31:00.000-05:00

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 OEstudents don't need to reapply (unless they are changing levels for example, elem to MS). I tried to show this to you on the newsheet. The % of applicants that followthru for "in" is 19% and for"out" is 25%. We only get the full DPI amount if the student attends afull year. Many OE students stop OEduring 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 complexand bureaucracy issue.
-- Phil Frei

Our thanks to Mr. Frei for clearing this up.

Shame on You!

2011-10-23T15:44:00.000-05:00

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

2011-10-20T19:34:00.002-05:00

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!"

2011-10-18T18:40:00.001-05:00

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?

2011-10-16T10:42:00.001-05:00

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

2011-10-16T10:22:00.003-05:00

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!"

2011-10-14T18:29:00.001-05:00

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

2011-10-14T14:59:00.000-05:00

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

2011-10-09T11:35:00.001-05:00

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

2011-10-09T10:22:00.001-05:00

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

2011-10-08T14:29:00.000-05:00

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 byat 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?

2011-10-01T09:09:00.000-05:00

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

We Know Why The Postage Budget is So High!

2011-09-30T18:39:00.000-05:00

We received this from a parent of the school district,

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

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

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

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

Culver Gets His 2%

2011-09-30T18:24:00.000-05:00

We grow weary of McCourt's antics

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

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

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

McCourt's behavior at meetings? Check!

Bad form, Jim.

Talk Won't Cook Rice

2011-09-25T11:34:00.001-05:00

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

Talk doesn't cook rice.
-Chinese proverb

Talk doesn't cook rice!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-09-25T09:47:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

YOU know...decorum

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

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

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

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

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

Whalen Going Rogue?

2011-09-20T18:53:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

什么他妈的!

Where's The Money Hidden NOW?

2011-09-18T10:02:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does something smell rather fishy?

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

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

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

2011-09-17T11:40:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

So...we can...

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

All good questions...

The Great Candy Debate

2011-09-10T14:13:00.001-05:00

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

"Not all candy purchases are used for motivation."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-09-07T13:52:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Great News At Westside Elementary

2011-09-07T07:04:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-09-06T07:49:00.002-05:00

BUDGET AWARD

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

The Meritorious Budget Awards Program (MBA):

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

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

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

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

Time to Brace Ourselves?

2011-09-05T08:03:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

Read about the tax levy revolt in Burlington

This Lunch Smells Funny

2011-08-28T16:57:00.000-05:00

A funny thing happened while we were looking at Free/Reduced lunch percentages. We were looking at SPASD data and happened upon the DPI files for individual school eligibility percentages.

And then we noticed that SP4K was listed in the 2009-10 all school data.

And THEN we noticed that SP4K had a Free/Reduced (F/R) price meal eligibility percentage of 2% (6 out of 381 kids).

And THEN we wondered how could that be...when the rest of the district averaged 27% for 2009-10 (ranging from 15% to 48% at individual schools)?

And THEN we noticed that the SP4K data was not reported for 2010-11.
An we wondered, "What's up with that?"
And so we went to work...

We tried to locate as many 4K schools across the state we could and compared the free/reduced meal eligibility of the 4K program to its district-wide percentage.

Granted, we could only positively identify 14 schools as being 4K (we wonder why...is it naming convention, or are most districts not reporting data for 4K). But of the 14 schools, only 3 had 4K F/R %ages over 11%. 9 of the 14 has 4K F/R percentages at or below 7%.

And we found that interesting because the average district-wide F/R eligibility percentage for these districts was 36% (statewide, the average is 37%). Hmmm....

Wasn't the whole idea of 4K to give kids a jump on learning to better prepare them for school? And weren't kids from lower socioeconomic status homes identified as the kids that could benefit most from 4K?
If that's true, then why is the socioeconomic makeup of kids attending not very well mirroring the makeup of their districts?

Isn't anyone looking at this? Particularly Sun Prairie...a district that prides itself as an academic leader?
These data, limited though they may be, sure seem to lend credence to those opposed to 4K, citing that it was merely serving as a form of taxpayer funded, elitist daycare.

You know...for a district that's showing a widening achievement gap in some of its schools, maybe it's time to spend more effort getting the kids that could most benefit from 4K into the program, instead of, say... buying candy as "rewards to motivate" kids? Trips to China?

Are these highly paid administrators just bored with their jobs? Constantly seeking some new"thing" to sink their teeth into? When are we going to start focusing on the programs and kids we have now?

Wait...after hearing about her aversion to large numbers of F/R eligible kids, Caren Diedrich must just LOVE SP4K!