When They Get Behind Closed Doors... Time To Talk Transparency.

At the risk of seriously dating ourselves, does anyone recall the Fifth Dimension singing,
"Let the sun shine, let the sunshine in!"

Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people.  At least that is the concept of "open government".  The Sunshine Review (http://sunshinereview.org/core/home  ) is a great website devoted to keeping government open.  When Johnnie gets behind closed doors, out of the public eye, that's when shenanigans come about.  That's why there needs to be less closed door sessions and more accepting of public input.  How the hell else can our elected "leaders" represent us if they won't hear us in open session?


Many school and municipal boards use a very broad application of Open Meetings Laws exemptions to discuss things behind closed doors which SHOULD be discussed publicly.  Certainly, we all agree that if some employee is being dragged into the 'splainin' room, we the public don't need to be privy to that.  Similarly, we need to protect the privacy of even students being expelled.   But things like raises need to be presented to the public who are going to be asked to pony up their tax dollars to pay for them.


So let's review the rules of the game shall we.

WISCONSIN'S OPEN MEETING LAWS
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and the Department of Justice have compiled an awesome guide to Wisconsin's Open Meetings Laws.  You can download it here.

Key excerpts are provided here:
------------------------------------------------
What is a meeting?
● The open meetings law applies to every “meeting” of a “governmental body.” Wis. Stat. § 19.83.

● The definition of “governmental body”  is broad enough to include virtually any collective governmental
entity, regardless of what it is labeled.

●The Showers test. The statutory definition of a “meeting” applies whenever a convening of members of a governmental body satisfies two requirements:
(1) there is a purpose to engage in governmental business and
(2) the number of members present is sufficient to determine the governmental body’s course of action. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 102.  [SP-EYE: is there a quorum?]

What are the Requirements of a Public Meeting
The two most basic requirements of the open meetings law are that a governmental body:
(1) give advance public notice of each of its meetings, and
(2) conduct all of its business in open session, unless an exemption to the open session requirement applies.

What is Required for Open Session Meetings?
1. Accessibility. “All meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(2).
2. Access for persons with disabilities.
3. Tape recording and videotaping. The open meetings law grants citizens the right to attend and observe meetings of governmental bodies that are held in open session. The open meetings law also grants citizens the right to tape record or videotape open session meetings, as long as doing so does not disrupt the meeting.
4. Citizen participation. Although it is not required, the open meetings law does permit a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open meeting as a public comment period. Wis. Stat. §§ 19.83(2) and 19.84(2). Such a period must be included on the meeting notice.

Though Bales says that is not uncommon for such financial issues to be approved by the board without public discussion, others are uncomfortable with what they see as a lack of transparency.

Public Meetings Require Giving Public Notice
The chief presiding officer of a governmental body, or the officer’s designee, must give notice of each
meeting of the body to:
(1) the public;  [by posting the notice in one or more places likely to be seen by the general public.]
As a general rule, the Attorney General has advised posting notices at three different locations within the jurisdiction that the governmental body serves.  Alternatively, the chief presiding officer may give notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium likely to give notice in the jurisdictional area the body serves. 63 Op. Att’y Gen. 509, 510-11 (1974). If the  presiding officer gives notice in this manner, he or she must ensure that the notice is actually published. Meeting notices may also be posted at a governmental body’s website as a supplement to other public notices, but web posting should not be used as a substitute for other methods of notice.

(2) any members of the news media who have submitted a written request for notice; and

(3) the official newspaper designated pursuant to state statute or, if none exists, a news medium likely to give notice in the area. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(1).

What Information must the Public Notice Contain? 
Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting,
including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2).

How detailed must the Agenda Information Be?
The information in the notice must be sufficient to alert the public to the importance of the
meeting, so that they can make an informed decision whether to attend.  In some circumstances, a failure to expressly state whether action will be taken at a meeting could be a violation of the open meetings law.

Does "Non-represented Employee Contracts 2010-2011" as an agenda item provide the public with enough information to know that significant raises were being considered? State law requires school districts to either notify staff of non-renewal of contracts, extend their contracts, or renew contracts each year. But that is separate and distinct from the issue of wage increases. Arguably, listing an agenda topic this way--and under a Consent Agenda--, when the intent was to vote on significant raises violates the intent of the Open Meetings Laws.

What About "Closed" Sessions?
Closed sessions “must contain enough information for the public to discern whether the subject matter is authorized for closed session under § 19.85(1).” [ SP-EYE: Establishing a salary range for a position is NOT a valid item for closed session. However, determination of what specific salary to offer a potential candidate for hire is.]

How Much Advanced Notice is Required?
The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.”  If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in advance of the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3).

Must Votes be recorded?  Are "secret" votes allowed?
● No secret ballot may be used to determine any election or decision of a governmental body, except the
election of officers of a body. Wis. Stat. § 19.88(1).

● The open meetings law requires a governmental body to create and preserve a record of all motions and
roll-call votes at its meetings. Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3).

What Level of Detail is Required for Record of Motions and Voting?
Although Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) does not indicate how detailed the record of motions and votes should be,
the general legislative policy of the open meetings law is that “the public is entitled to the fullest and most
complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1). In light of that policy, it seems clear that a governmental body’s records should provide the public with a reasonably intelligible description of the essential substantive elements of every motion made, who initiated and seconded the motion, the outcome of any vote.

What about "Consent" Agenda Items?
Regardless of whether a decision is made by consensus or by some other method, Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) still requires the body to create and preserve a meaningful record of that decision. Huebscher Correspondence, May 23, 2008. “Consent agendas,” whereby a body discusses individual items of business under separate agenda headings, but takes action on all discussed items by adopting a single motion to approve all the items previously discussed, are likely insufficient to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3). Perlick Correspondence, May 12, 2005.

What Issues are Exempt? (When is it Allowable to hold Closed Sessions)?
● Judicial or quasi-judicial hearings. (e.g., Expulsion hearings)
● Consideration of dismissal, demotion, discipline, licensing, and tenure.
● Consideration of employment, promotion, compensation, and performance evaluations.

Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) authorizes a closed session to discuss the qualifications of and salary to offer a specific applicant but does not authorize a closed session to discuss the qualifications and salary range for the position in general. 80 Op. Att’y Gen. 176, 178-82.  The section authorizes closure to determine increases in compensation for specific employees,
67 Op. Att’y Gen. 117, 118.

Bales said the actual school board discussion on personnel costs took place over several months as part of the board's budget development strategy. Discussing the actual contracts, however, took place in closed session.

● Consideration of financial, medical, social, or personal information. (if discussed in public, would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect upon the reputation of any person referred to in such
histories or data, or involved in such problems or investigations)
● Conducting public business with competitive or bargaining implications.  Competitive or bargaining reasons permit a closed session where the discussion will directly and substantially affect negotiations with a third party, but not where the discussions might be one of several factors that indirectly influence the outcome of those negotiations.
● Conferring with legal counsel with respect to litigation.

What About Re-Convening in Open Session Following a Closed Session?
A governmental body may not commence a meeting, convene in closed session, and subsequently
reconvene in open session within twelve hours after completion of a closed session, unless public notice of the subsequent open session is given “at the same time and in the same manner” as the public notice of the prior open session. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(2). The notice need not specify the time the governmental body expects to reconvene in open session if the body plans to reconvene immediately following the closed session. If the notice does specify the time, the body must wait until that time to reconvene in open session. When a governmental body reconvenes in open session following a closed session, the presiding officer has a duty to open the door of the meeting room and inform any members of the public present that the session is open.

"When people got inflamed about it, there was sort of this assumption that that's going to be a conversation at the table in terms of who's going to get what," Bales said. "Honestly, from a board perspective, you do that every year ... It's a part of board work to approve contracts and approve compensation levels. They wouldn't have published a list of names of people and what they're doing." [how could there be public discussion when it was done in closed session?] This has nothing to do with a decision regarding HIRING a new employee and at what salary, Mr. Bales....this is simply information that you and the Board would prefer that the public not know.

WISCONSIN'S OPEN RECORDS LAWS
The Department of Justice/Attorney General have also developed a great summary of Open Records requirements which can be obtained here.

What is a "record"?
A record is any material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, visual or electromagnetic information is recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which has been created or is being kept by an authority in connection with official purpose or function of the agency. A record includes handwritten, typed or printed documents; maps and charts; photographs, films and tape recordings; computer tapes and printouts, CDs and optical discs; and electronic records and communication

Electronic records and records produced as the product of a computer program  are subject to the open records law are subject to inspection and copying.  A person can not require creation of a new record by extracting and compiling information from existing records in a new format.  When information is stored in a database, a person can "within reasonable limits" request a data run to obtain the requested information.

Wish I were transparent
You could see right through me
Everything apparent
What I really am

Don't have much to hide
What I have I'll show you
--Pet Shop Boys ["Transparent"]

Storm Clouds over DeForest; Hot Air Gusting at Bales Strength

The heat is officially here...and we don't just mean the 90 degrees yesterday.  It's much hotter than that in DeForest!
 
Local media have picked up on the ridiculous "equity adjustment" raises given to DeForest Area Administrators.  The issue is out there, and so far all we're hearing is empty rhetoric in response.

Our question is this:  who exactly in in charge over there?  All we hear from is DA Bales.  Last we checked, the Board of Education is HIS boss.  Why are we hearing so much from Bales and not enough from ELECTED board members to explain themselves?

The interviews themselves speak volumes.  Look at the tag cloud created from Bales' own words.  Ut's pretty clear what's on Bales' mind....and, more importantly...what is not.

What's a tag cloud?

Sun Prairie School District Adopts New Slogan

"...at least we're not like DeForest!"

Whodathunk that your friendly neighborhood SP-EYE blog would ever see the day when things weren't so bad in the Sun Prairie school district?!

That school board...excuse us...Board of Education...in DeForest is nuts!

DeForest Special Meeting Tonite...

But who the hell knows what's being discussed!!!

Have you EVER seen such a poor agenda?
What the hell does "Consider official Board communication to stakeholders" mean?

What is the topic?
Will public comment be allowed?
Has this got anything to do with covering one's buttocks in the wake of the disaster caused by their ridiculous raises give to administration?

And we love DA Bales' explanation for the lack of transparency about the raises:

Though Bales says that is not uncommon for such financial issues to be approved by the board without public discussion, others are uncomfortable with what they see as a lack of transparency.

---http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/blog/article_542f4f78-8c64-11e0-9016-001cc4c002e0.html

Updates on DeForest's Extreme Case of Salary Bloat

http://www.facebook.com/pages/DASD-Administrative-Bloat/147668358638705

Follow the DeForest Administrative Shenanigans at the Facebook link above

The DeForest Debacle: Self-Serving, Self-Perpetuating Opulence

Equity, Schmequity!
DeForest administrators' cries for salary equity are weak at best.  Does a doctor at John Hopkins earn the same as a doctor in some podunk community hospital?  We don't think so.  Does a police officer in a small midwestern village earn as much as a New York City cop?  We don't think so!  It doesn't make sense!

Equity has to be based on comparing apples to apples, not apples to pineapples!  You can't compare DeForest school employee salaries to the 16 Dane Co. school districts because they are so variable.  DeForest has an enrollment of 3249, while Dane Co. districts range from 800 kids to 24,800 kids.
Even the average enrollment of all Dane Co. districts is 34% higher than DeForest's enrollment.

Looking at enrollments, DeForest administrators do not
warrant pay at the same level as those in much larger districts

DeForest fits best in a group with 6 other Dane Co. districts:  Oregon, Waunakee, Stoughton, Monona Grove, McFarland, and Mount Horeb.  In addition to enrollment size, other factors including community housing market, per capita income, and student socio-economic factors must be considered.   We don't think DeForest did that.

Self-Perpetuating Opulence
These are tight times, people.  How can anyone --yes, including Exxon executives--consider themselves worthy of obscenely grandiose raises?  All around, people are having their incomes REDUCED!  Those relying on Social Security haven't seen an increase in 2 years, and may see a very slight increase in January 2012.  State, county, and municipal workers are seeing their take-home pay REDUCED by 8-10% as soon as Gov. Walkers gets his plan approved.  How can any individual take this without getting up and speaking their piece?

The "new" money that will be paid to DeForest administrators amounts to over $300,000 in cost.  For a district with a tax levy of about $21M, that means that these new raises will add at least a 1.4% increase to the tax levy.  And like some STDs, this is the gift that keeps on giving.  Salaries will only INCREASE!

What makes matters worse is that districts feed off of themselves.  If DeForest is allowed to award these excessive raises, then other school districts will just want more, which will result in DeForest administrators wanting even more!  It's one giant game of leapfrog.  At what point do we stop the madness?  Look...we get it.  These people manage our schools that teach our children.  It's an important job.  It deserves to be amply compensated.  But "amply" does not equate to "obscenely".

Here's a question:  just exactly how much time is being spent figuring out what the other guy is earning--and how to spin that into justification for raises-- instead of focusing on the educational outcomes of our kids?

Just as we need to raise the floor and lower the ceiling for teachers, we need to establish a cap for administrators as well.  You don't like ceilings for teacher pay?  Look...there can't be a one of you out there that can rationalize a kindergarten teacher or elementary school "Library Media Specialist" earning over $90,000 per year for 9 months work.  That's just plain insanity.  In fact...we offer this challenge....if you really think you can rationalize the merit of such a salary, then e-mail us at sp.eye1@gmail.com and we'll publish your argument...anonymously if you wish.

State leaders are so quick to put caps on spending.  You know what happens?  These people pay themselves first and take the cuts in supplies and services that directly affect our kids. Hello!  McFly!  Salaries and fringes account for as much as 80-85% of a school district's budget!  When is one of our well-compensated legislators going to push a bill that will places the caps on PAY, not supplies and critical services?  But we digress.

Let's look at how DeForest's "Dane Co. Market Salary Adjustment" has yielded:

District Administrator
DeForest's District Administrator, Jon Bales, is currently the 6th highest paid District Administrator in Dane County.  While Bales did not receive anything as part of the "market adjustment" increase, he already received a 5% increased (reported to be a 2% increase) for 2010-11. He now  earns $146,243, which is $4,000 per year more than the WELL-compensated Dr. Culver in Sun Prairie!  Dr. Culver runs a district with TWICE the number of students as DeForest, and has 2 more years experience than Dr. Bales.  Think Culver will be wanting more now?

Business Manager
The average salary of the 13 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Business Manager" is $106,700. DeForest' Business Manager, Diane Pertzborn was earning $111,855 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $118,580. Her salary previously ranked 8 of 13 and now will rank 6 of 13, just behind Sun Prairie's Phil Frei ($123,345). Pertzborn's salary previously was 4.8% above the Dane Co. average ($106,700) for Business Managers, and now will be 6.3% above average. Is that equity?

Human Resources (HR) Director

The average salary of the 7 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Central Office Administrator, subtitle Human Resources" is $112,768. DeForest's HR Director, Vickie Adkins was earning $93,500 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $115,000. Her salary previously ranked 7th out of 7 and now will rank 3rd of 7, just above Sun Prairie's Annette Mikula ($114,000). Adkins' salary previously was 15% below the Dane Co. average for HR Managers, and now will be 1.4% above average.   Keep in mind that only 7 school districts (Madison, Verona,  Sun Prairie ,  Waunakee , Middleton-Cross Plains, Stoughton,  De Forest) are large enough to even have a dedicated HR Manager

Director of Instruction
The average salary of the 25 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Director of Instruction Manager" is $103,600. DeForest' Director of Instruction, Sue Wilson was earning $94,554 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $112,181. Her salary previously ranked 16 of 25 and now will rank 10 of 25, just behind Sun Prairie's Alice Murphy ($113,200). Wilson's salary previously was 8% below the Dane Co. average ($103,600) for Directors of Instruction, and now will be 9% above average.

Director of Special Education

The average salary of the 13 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Director of Special Education" is $107,900. DeForest's Director of Special Ed., David Perrodin was earning $96,700 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", he will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $112,181. His salary previously ranked 11 of 13 and now will rank 4 of 13, about 3.5% less than Sun Prairie's Lisa Dawes ($116,200). Perrodin's salary previously was 9.5% below the Dane Co. average for Directors of Special Education, and now will be 4% above average.

High School Principal

The average salary of the 20 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "High School Principal" is $107,500. DeForest's HS Principal, Machell Schwarz was earning $98,145 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", she will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $113,000. Her salary previously ranked 13 of 20 and now will rank 7 of 20, about $2,000 more than Sun Prairie's Lisa Heipp ($111,044). Schwarz' salary previously was 5.6% below the Dane Co. average for High School Principals, and now will be 7% above average.

Middle School Principal

The average salary of the 16 Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Middle School Principal" is $97,500. DeForest's MS Principal, Paul Herrick was earning $91,400 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", he will earn (effective Jan.1, 2011) $103,371. His salary previously ranked 11 of 16 and now will rank 5 of 16.  This is still about $10,000 below the average for Sun Prairie's two middle school principals, Clark Luessman and Nancy Hery, but Sun Prairie is at the head of all Dane County Middle School Principal salaries!  Herrick's salary previously was 5.6% below the Dane Co. average for Middle School Principals, and now will be 6% above average.

 Elementary School Principal

The average salary for Dane Co. Administrators titled, "Elementary School Principal" is $90,950. The average pay of DeForest's elementary principals, Michael Finke, Ann Schoenberger, and Michael Weisensel was $90,000 following a 5% increase for 2010-11. With this "Dane Co. Market Adjustment", the average (effective Jan.1, 2011) will now be $94,300. DeForest previously ranked 9 of 16 for elementary principal pay and now will rank 6 of 16.  This average is $700 more than the average salary of Sun Prairie's seven elementary school principals.  DeForest elementary school principal pay previously was 1% below the Dane Co. average for Elementary School Principals, and now will be 4% above average. 

Can't See DeForest For The Greed

Confidential?  Yeah...we can see why they didn't
 want THIS document to ever see the light of day!

 The pressure is off of district administrators and the school board here in Sun Prairie, because of the shocking cajones of the DeForest Board of Education and DeForest Area School District Administrators.

While we're getting worked up --and justifiably so--- about our own district administration on the cusp of getting 1.6% increases in the midst of tight times, the DeForest Administration Team ---with the support of the Board of Education-- awarded themselves titannic raises under the guise of "Dane County Market Equity" adjustments. The raises are retroactive to January 1, 2011. For appearances sake--you just KNOW they'll spin this in budget documents--- their salaries are being frozen for 2011-12. Geeeee whiz! With those increases, they should be frozen permanently.

How much of raises are they getting, you ask? The AVERAGE salary increase since the 2009-10 school year (for which administrators received a whopping 5% increase) is 16%. For a group of 22 administrators, the lowest increase received was 5.1% and the highest 39.1%. The price tag for salary adjustments comes to an incredible $304,000! And that amount is an expense for EVERY future year, further compounded by future wage increases.

Simply...SHOCKING!

For the top 11 DeForest Administrators, the AVERAGE salary increase in dollars was $15,700 per year. That increase in pay amounts to $1300 per month! Many senior citizens on Social Security (who have not seen an increase in the past 2 years) earn less than $1300 per month TOTAL! These fat cats are getting that as a RAISE!

Questions abound in DeForest as early indications suggest that the board of education (school board) did not vote on these increases in open session.   That would be a clear violation of Open Meetings Laws.  We could find no documentation or agenda that suggested these raises were even considered, let alone a done deal.  We were, however, able to obtain a document that appears to have been leaked from within the school district.  The members of the DeForest Board of Education should be ashamed of themselves, to say the least. They'll be lucky if they don't get tarred and feathered right out of the community. Recall elections are the soup du jour this spring. We may be seeing a few (or all) board of educations members facing recall elections.

Clearly these folks have no clue as to how badly things could heat up for them. Sun Prairie taxpayers put the whammy on the school board here 2 years ago by voting to cut the tax levy by $2,000,000. That amount could pale in comparison to what DeForest community members could do at their annual meeting this summer.

Why is this such a poorly timed move? First of all, folks, the economy isn't exactly hopping along like an Energizer bunny. Second, the time is quickly approaching when state, county, and municipal workers' paychecks will be severely cut by Governor Walker's agenda. These ridiculous raises will be hitting people's pockets when they can least afford it.

One other problem this situation poses is that we could very quickly get into a game of keeping up with the Jones. Our administrators will see DeForest's raises and want similar bounty.

The DeForest Times reports the following:

[District Administrator Dr. Jon] Bales said the decision was based on a desire by the board to have every district employee compensated at a level of at least the average in the market. "Over the years, we've been able to accomplish that with support staff and teachers," he said. "The effort with administrators was exactly the same. It's been put off, frankly, for years, because it is a high-cost group. We wanted to do it last year, we didn't do it. We wanted to do it this year, we didn't do it. We implemented it mid-year because you only pay half of what that base increase would have been. While it looks like a dramatic sort of adjustment for some people, at the end of the day, they're paid an average wage in the county." "I don't discount the timing, I don't discount the pressures on the district, but that was built around a balanced budget before the new state budget."