Does SPASD have 50% Turnover in 3 years?

We've been hearin' t'ings.

Coerced resignation?

We've heard several reports that the district has an interesting way of removing folks....permanently.  The story goes that one is called into Human Resources (with no pretense given)>  The conversation allegedly goes down something like this:


HR:   "We're terminating you.   Or....you can resign."
Employee:  "Can I have some time to think about it?"
HR:  "No.  you need to resign right now or be terminated."

And when the unawares soon to be ex-employee agrees to resign, a sheet of notebook paper (notebook paper!!!) is whipped out and the employee is told to write down exactly what they are told.
Et voila...a resignation is created.

We happen to get a hold of one of these letters and learned of the existence of at least one more.
Sensing a pattern, we made an open records request asking to inspect all resignation and retirement letters received by the district over the past 3 years.  Of course we needed to broaden the scope to protect the identity of those folks that are very frightened of the power wielded by Culver et al.

This was the response received:

Tim Culver wrote:

To locate all records that might comply with your request will  require review of over 500 stored personnel files of ex-employees, which is estimated to take a secretary between 16 and 18 hours.    Therefore the cost to locate all such records that might exist is estimated to be between $336 and $378.  That is the actual, direct and necessary cost of locating such  records.  Please let me know if you wish to proceed with this request and incur such a fee(which will be finalized after the location effort  is complete, but will not exceed the maximum estimated).  After all  such records are located, if you wish to have copies following your inspection, there would be the customary copying fees for copies more than 10.

If you wish to modify your request and/ or make it more specific, we will be happy to recalculate the fee for locating records under different parameters.
If you wish to proceed with your original request please let me know.

Sincerely,

Tim Culver

So....one has to look through 500 employee personnel files to find resignation or retirement letters?
Retirements are usually about 25 or so a year.  That makes 75 total.
Does that mean we have 140 other people leave each year?

In a district of about 1000 employees, if they have to search through 500 employee files, doesn't that mean 500 leave over 3 years?  Doesnt that mean at least 50% turnover over 3 years?

Do we have a human resources / employee retention issue?

For a district that prides itself on its technical prowess, are you telling us that we don't have a database that can be queried for resignations?  retirements? over a specified timeframe?

And if we do...is this "charge" of $336-$378 simply a tool that Culver uses ...now... to discourage the public from seeking information?

Has the sun set on Sun Prairie?  Is transparency dead?
And is coerced resignation the way we do business?

All good questions.

Readers Write - Business Ed. Over Diversity Hire

<senorstubs@yahoo.com> wrote:

I see your point in saying that the district said there was no new funds to hire a "diversity specialist" and went to create a new position for a retired person for a job they did as a teacher. It baffles me too. However, without a dedicated person connecting the business and industry with education, it would not happen. Businesses have better things to do than chase public education to see what is happening and connect with a disconnected organization. Expecting a teacher with a full teaching load (which Ms. Everson DID NOT have when she was performing that job) would result in a lesser partnership. Was it right to hire back Ms. Everson and not pass on the duties to someone new? That is a good question and one worth chasing for an answer. To say the partnership is not needed will disconnect the schools from careers even more so than they are now.

We agree on some of your points.

We DO need someone who can work with the businesses...and perhaps it should be a dedicated role.  We just are not overly fond of pulling back a double dipper to fill a role that perhaps could have been filled with an individual in need of a job, and who could provide the district with valuable diversity recruiting strength.  And why are we bringing back a double dipper as an FTE with benefits???  We could have saved over $20K by offering the position as a LTE role. This economy requires us to put people to work...not putting cushy-pensioned retirees BACK to work.  

And where is the cross-training here?  Shouldn't we have been having Ms. Everson mentor someone to assume that role upon her retirement?  Perhaps someone whose salary is not a burden for the district.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves what is most critical: diversity recruitment or business-education liaison.  The diversity of SPASD students only continues to rise, yet we are not as fortunate in attracting qualified diverse candidates.

We also need to do our part to create jobs to keep the economy moving forward.  Hiring a bunch of double-dippers to serve as RTI tutors and fill the Business-Ed role did not create a single new job.  It just allowed retirees to cash their plush pension check (or even pout it off a bit) while still getting a regular check at a decent salary.  Could we really not find any young, energized, unemployed teachers who could assist with RTI efforts?  It's the ultimate "try before you buy" scenario.  If they work out, then they may be great candidates for future job openings.

Perhaps overly optimistic, but we believe we could have shared the wealth and come up with solutions to both our needs.  The Everson re-hire was clearly a stick of political dynamite that everyone shied away from.   Sadly, we should be able to expect better from our commander-in-chief.

Getting Back To Diversity Issues

This one's been brewing on the back burner for a bit.  At the August 16, 2012 public hearing on the budget, there were some public comments related to the need for a more diverse staff.

We've heard rumblings that blame the school board for not investing in diversity.  Let us be clear, that the record reflects that the school board voted to authorize the district --Tim Culver-- to hire a diversity recruitment specialist.  Their only stipulation was that it had to be done within the existing budget.

The district declined, basically saying that "no new money means no diversity specialist".

What we DO find interesting is that if one looks through the DPI list of 2011-12 staff, one should notice that VERY QUIETLY the district hired back Nancy Everson, who retired at the end of 2010-11 school year.

She was apparently brought back as a "double-dipper" at a salary of $44,436 with benefits of an additional $17,593.  Ms. Everson retired at a salary of over $86,000.  That must make for a pretty nice pension.

Noun 1.  double dipper - someone who draws two incomes from the government (usually by combining a salary and a pension)

Now don't get us wrong.  Ms. Everson served an incredibly vital and valuable role as the district's link to businesses to provide learning opportunities for our students.  We're just wondering...couldn't some of those skills have been passed on to existing staff?  Cross-training?  And what's more important to the district?  We seem to recall diversity being a primary goal.  We didn't see business education on that list.

Instead of blaming the school board, we might suggest that people ask Dr. Culver why he opted to spend over $60,000 on the Business-Education Partnership program when he could have invested in a diversity recruitment specialist.

We'd like to hear that answer.

SPASD Loses Two Administrators

[Updated 6-5-11: SP-EYE offers sincere apologies to Rainey Briggs and affected board members for an inadvertent--and non-Freudian-- typo.  An astute follower reported to us that our initial post indicated that "3 board members voted AGAINST accepting his reputation.--instead of his RESIGNATION".  We assure you that while many questioned his resignation,  NO ONE questions Mr. Briggs' reputation.]

The Monday June 6th HR Committee agenda  indicates that, Executive Director of Student Services (Special Ed.) Lisa  Dawes ($116,240)  has tendered her resignation.  Ms. Dawes will certainly be missed.

At the last school board meeting, we learned, in a late addendum to the Personnel agenda item, that High School Assistant Principal Rainey Briggs ($75,971) is also leaving the district.  Word on the street is that he has been offered a Principalship in the Madison school district.  Hmmm?  Don't we have a Principal position open here in Sun Prairie? At Creekside elementary?  Was Briggs interested in that position?  Was he interested but Culver was not, n'est ce pas?  Enquiring minds are wondering.

Briggs has developed a reputation as a charismatic, inspiring, and aspiring leader within the district and the community.  We've heard anecdotal tributes to his efforts to work with kids at the high school and middle school level.   We're hoping we didn't let him go without a fight.  In fact, the board meeting got a little edgy when 3 board members voted AGAINST accepting his resignation.  It came down to poor Terry Shimek having to cast the final vote to accept the resignation of Briggs as well as the Sound of Sun Prairie leaders who resigned amid stormy allegations.  It was the right move for Shimek...they couldn't really deny these folks...right? (although Briggs had technically committed to honoring his contract earlier this year).   You can't force people to stay when they wish to go...right?

The harder question, however relates back to the HR Diversity issue.  Wasn't retention of existing diverse staff as important as recruiting new staff?  District administration can hold up their hands and try to lay this on the school board, but the motion was clear:  go ahead and hire the HR Specialist within your existing allotment of FTEs--and there seem to be plenty of those available.  Administration chose NOT to fill the position.  Apparently it wasn't as high a priority as, say, an administrative assistant for Business Manager Phil Frei.  And here's a better question:  why did they need a new position to RETAIN existing staff?  Isn't a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?  To what extent did administration work to retain Rainey Briggs in our district?

Cart Before the Horse...Again?

Tomorrow night the HR Committee will discuss --again-- the hiring of a new position...a Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist.  The concept of the position is, and has been, quite good.  The main stumbling block that does not appear to have been removed is:  What is the plan for this position?  How can one individual single-handedly change the culture of a 1000-staff, 7,000 student school district?


This is the 3rd time the position has been discussed.  Each time, it failed not only for lack of funding, but also because the grand scheme has never been revealed.  Last fall, HR Director Annette Mikula related that of 40 new hirees, only one new teacher (2.5%) was not Caucasian.   Currently the district’s student population is about 25 percent students of color, while the staff population is 6 percent employees of color.

RECOMMENDATION:

Hire a 1.0 FTE, 260 day per year, Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist for the remainder of the 2010-11 school year as soon as practical using the attached job description so that we will be able to build a program to address the diversity of our workforce within the SPASD.  This position would be in the Administrative Support Staff group at a salary of $55,016.00 ($26.45 per hour) per school year.  The funding will come from the un-spent, unallocated FTE that is currently in the 2010-2011 budget

Key Aspect from the District's"Minority Recruitment Plan" 

Tasks/Action Steps

13.  Propose a district level position with an emphasis on minority recruitment and retention. Responsibilities 

Executive Director of Human Resources Management Team

Resources 

$42,9000 salary and benefits with a January 2009 start date

(2 years later and with our booming economy, the proposed salary increases 28.2% to $55,019

Timeline

Ongoing with potential budget proposal for November 2008

Questions:

1. District Commitment

If this is such a major need position....and given the single-handed responsibilities, why is it considered "Administrative SUPPORT"?  And why is the pay roughly equivalent to that of the district communications manager ($26.19 per hour as of the 2009-10 school year).   Doesn't the position description seem rather monumental?  While we're sensitive to salary costs...does  the salary reflective of commitment?

"--Develops and implements a plan to promote the cultural competence and educational practices of employees creating an inclusive learning environment for all students.
--Develops and presents new initiatives in the area of minority and high need recruitment, retention, and career development"

---- from the HR Committee's Position Description

2. Where's the Plan, Stan?

As usual, the district offers no specifics....even after the board voted against hiring this same position last fall BECAUSE of the lack of a plan in place.

“I see the need, I see the value. It seems like we’re moving very quickly without a goal in place. I sit here with a bit of uneasiness because there doesn’t seem to be a comprehensive plan to address the issue... 

The biggest conflict I have is the budget and funding on it. The other piece of it is where have we been and where are going. I don’t have that today. If I don’t support it, it’s not because it’s not a good idea. I want to make sure we have all the pieces in place.”

-----John Welke (Sun Prairie STAR 9-30-10

Do we need to better match the diversity of our district staff and teachers to that of our students?  Unequivocally, YES.  That being said, however, the district tends to attempt to solve all of its problems one-dimensionally:   Let's throw a position at it!  The grim reality is that once a person is hired, it ceases to become a position, and instead becomes a real human being.  What if the plan doesn't come to fruition?  Do we then sever ties and send this individual packing?  It's precisely this question why board member John Welke is correct to be cautious about leaping into something without a concrete plan.  Perhaps there IS a plan...but if there is...the sun hasn't shone upon it.

Perhaps more to the point, there have been numerous side discussions that suggest that the district culture is not exactly inviting to individuals of more diverse cultural backgrounds.  These of course are sensitive discussions that the district would prefer to keep solidly locked in the dirty laundry closet.  But....these cans of worms have to be opened and not allowed to fester.  If the 3rd time is the charm, and the board decides to hire this position, the individual has to have a fighting chance of success.  Many quietly believe that old Sisyphus had a better odds.

Lastly, the inquiring public is interested in knowing of the success we have had to date with our minority recruitment and retention efforts.  A Recruitment Specialist is designed to bring minority hirees into the fold.  But then it's up to the district to have a commitment to giving these individuals the necessary tools to succeed. There have been reports of minority hirings only to have those teachers contracts not renewed.  That would be disconcerting if there is any element of truth to those rumors.  Unfortunately, we haven't seen any data from the district regarding the RETENTION of its minority hires.  Seems like that would be a good place to start.  Before we forge ahead, we need to know the level of carnage already in our wake.  

GO PACK GO

...And the Line Holds

Many of you may have turned off the Packer game in disgust to check in on the school board.


The main issue of the night was DO WE or DO WE NOT hire a new administrative Human Resources position specializing in minority relations and recruitment.


As board member went around the table, it sure started to look like John Welke would stand alone in his no vote.  But Stackhouse was pretty quiet and that';s usually an indication that he's not supporting something.  Then Jill Camber-Davidson, who had apparently been leaning to vote Yes, voted "no:.   So here it was:  McCourt/Diedrich and Whalen in favor of hiring the $69K position and Welke/Stackhouse/Camber-Davidson opposed.

What would Shimek do?  In a surprising move, Mr. Shimek voted "NO"---as he did two weeks ago-- and the line held firm at the goal line.  Kudos to Mr. Shimek for standing pat like a newbie holding a pair of kings at the blackjack table.


Do we--as a district-- need to clean our own house a bit as it relates to multi-cultural acceptance?  Absolutely.  But hiring a new HR position is not going to solve that problem.  That message needs to comes from the top: Tim Culver.  And it has to be a message of zero tolerance that is backed up by the HR equivalent of a trip to the woodshed.


People in this district, and some in the community, need to come to grips with the reality that Sun Prairie has not been a farm town populated by European or Scandinavian descendants for quite some time.  The world is a melting pot, and Sun Prairie is just a bowl from that pot.  Having a minority recruitment specialist is not going to change peoples' attitudes.  Attitude adjustment therapy needs to come from the top.

No Doesn't Mean No Anymore

Here we go again!
After being voted down 3-4 , suddenly appearing on the Board agenda for Monday 9-27-2010 is a recommendation to hire a  HUMAN RELATIONS AND RECRUITMENT SPECIALIST 


Cost: At least $67,000 PLUS benefits

"During the budget and Edu-Jobs Program funding discussions at the Finance Committee on September 13, 2010 there was an approved motion from the Finance committee to approve the funding for this position in the 2010-2011 budget.  This motion failed on a 3-4 vote at the Board table. It was requested by Pastor Rayford to prepare a situation report to formally bring this matter to the board that would contain all of the appropriate support and background materials so this could be more adequately discussed and decided upon."

From the 9-13-2010 Meeting

TO AMEND THE MOTION AND CHANGE THE AMOUNT IN ITEM #6 TO $670,000 APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2010-2011 BUDGET AS PRESENTED WITHOUT ADDITION OF NEW PERSONNEL. ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING AS A BUDGET PLANNING PARAMETER FOR THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR: "USE APPROXIMATELY $175,000 OF EDJOBS PROGRAM FUNDING TO RETAIN TITLE ONE ARRA FUNDED STAFF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE LAID OFF IN SPRING 2011 FOR THE 2011-12 SCHOOL YEAR." CONSIDER THE USE OF EDJOBS PROGRAM TO FUND RETIREMENT INCENTIVES AS AN SPEA NEGOTIATIONS ITEM TO ASSIST IN THE RETENTION OF STAFF IN FUTURE YEARS. ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING AS A BUDGET PLANNING PARAMETER FOR THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR: "TO USE THE EDJOBS PROGRAM FUNDING TO RETAIN EMPLOYEES WHO PROVIDE SCHOOL-LEVEL EDUCATIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES IN 2011-12 IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PRESENT LEVEL OF SERVICES AND TO REDUCE THE LOCAL TAX LEVY TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE." EXTABLISH THE FOLLOWING AS A BUDGET PLANNING PARAMETER FOR THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR: "RECONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING THE FOLLOWING NEW POSITIONS FOR THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR, PENDING OVERALL BUDGET PARAMETERS AND WHEN MORE DETAILS ARE KNOWN? (A) HUMAN RELATIONS AND RECRUITMENT SPECIALIST, (B) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING STAFFING, AND (C) LITERACY COACHES."

Motion by Jill Camber Davidson, second by John M Welke.

Motion Carried

Yea: David Stackhouse, Jill Camber Davidson, John M Welke, Terry Shimek

Nay: Caren Diedrich, Jim McCourt, John Whalen

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for Terry Shimek to flipflop his original vote.


Didn't the board also vote (6-1) that the 2010-11 budget would contain NO NEW POSITIONS?
TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED MOTION RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE MANAGEMENT TEAM OF 9-2-10 APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2010-2011 BUDGET AS PRESENTED WITHOUT ADDITION OF NEW PERSONNEL.

Motion by Jim McCourt, second by John Whalen.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried

Yea: David Stackhouse, Jill Camber Davidson, Jim McCourt, John M Welke, John Whalen, Terry Shimek

Nay: Caren Diedrich

Read the Minority Recruitment plan and costs to-date. Note that the salary including benefits was listed as about $43,000 for November 2008. How did it increase to $67,000 salary alone now?