And on the 3rd Day of Cringing...

Oh...did we type, "Cringing"?  Freudian slip...of course we meant "Christmas".

click to see the full-sized goat-saver

On the 3rd day of cringing, Santa SP-EYE pulled John Whalen's name out of the hat.  Of course Santa SP-EYE might have been spending too much time with the Naughty List because Santa SP-EYE apparently only put Mr. Whalen's name in the hat today!   :-)

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Well, Santa noticed awhile back that JohnE Whalen had adopted a goatee look.  Some opined that he was imitating the smashingly good look of his favorite blogger!  Then the goat disappeared.  A good goat is hard to manage and so Santa thought that Mr. Whalen might just need something to help him groom the goat.   How about a Goatee Saver!!!  Interesting gadget...it's like a mouthguard one puts in and shaves around. Actually the thing looks kinda Hannibal Lecter -ish, if you ask us.  "Well, Clarice...have the lambs stopped screaming?" 

Mr. Whalen has found his way to the Naughty List, so Santa is bringing him a whole bunch of books to read.  Seems appropriate for a school board member to be a role model and rad, right? And maybe do some soul searching and dive into a little self help, right?  Mr. Whalen suffers from uncontrollable body language issues.  He needs to work on that if he wants to stay in the public eye.  He also appears to have a difficult time maintaining objectivity when listening to people he does not like.  Tsk, tsk, JohnE!  That's not only unprofessional, it reflects poorly on the entire board.   It also eats away at the credibility you have left.  Santa's also giving him a copy of the book, "Toxic Men" to help him cope with the people that are most troublesome for him.



Finally, we understand that some things and some people just make JohnE's skin crawl.  Therefore Santa would be remiss in his duties if he didn't leave JohnE a little stocking stuffer:  a copy of Linkin Park's single, "Crawling".

Merry Xmas!

Why Policy Governance is a Cop-Out

Without calling it out as such, John Whalen and Caren Diedrich constantly extol the virtues of policy governance.  And in their minds--well, after July 30th we're clear that not even Caren Diedrich knows what's in her mind---the SPASD school board has historically operated on a principle of policy governance.

Apparently they did not get the memo.  Or their Cliff Notes was missing a few pages.

Because in their minds, the school board simply writes policy--or delegates the writing of policy to administration-- and then steps back with their rubber stamp firmly in hand.

The problem with a policy governance model is that at its very foundation is a committment to ADHERE to the policies.  We've just seen far too many cases where the school district and even the school board either "forget" or outright ignore their own policies.

Perhaps, in their defense, there are simply too many policies to remember.
Scratch that...even we can't begin to accept that rationale.
Plain and simply stated, policy governance will not work as a model when there is rampant abuse of policy and no consequences.  How do you get people to obey the speed limit?  Set up random speed traps.  Issue a few tickets.  Smacking people where they sit is a good motivator.

What exasperates this problem when it comes to Diedrich and Whalen, is that they believe that having to step in and fix things when they are broken constitutes micro-managing.  So...Mr. Whalen, and Ms. Diedrich...do you apply the same logic in your private lives?  If your financial advisor is making decisions that loses you money, is it "micro-managing" to step in and issue some directives to squelch the problem?  If you do not like the advice offered by your doctor, do you just blindly follow it, believing that to do otherwise would be "micro-managing"?

We think not.
And thus comes the real question...why do you apply different logic at the board table?

If you do not like what your own policies say/require, then by all means, bring them forward publicly and declare in public how you wish to change them... and the rationale to support the change.  Those are discussions we'd love to hear from you.  Of course, that would actually mean having to prepare a Situation Report.....

Kicking Can Down the Road

Proposing to add $1,000,000 to the 2012-13 tax (debt) levy to help reduce the impact of 2013-14's debt levy increase is ludicrous; it reeks of ill-informed representation.

Thankfully, clear headed Mike Krachey quickly made a motion to table this nonsense.  But John Whalen made a comment (as if he knew something) that we would be discussing this again at the annual meeting.

Caren Diedrich gets partial credit for at least requesting a report from the district on the "bounceback" impact on future debt levies.  Of course requesting clarity from the district administration is like asking John Whalen to cast a vote in opposition to district wishes.  Temper your expectations.

According to documents provided by the district, the 2012-13 debt levy portion of the total proposed (school district) tax levy is $11,505,387. And the scheduled debt levy payment for 2013-14 is $12,365,565. That means an increase in the scheduled debt service levy of almost $1M, which translates to about a 2% total tax levy increase (2013-14) before we talk about a dime in annual expenditure increases. 

Finance Committee Citizen Rep Mike Hietpas is desperately trying to get the board to tax us $1M for 2012-13 for the purpose of reducing the debt levy for 2013-14. Well...truth be told, he initially wanted to simply add it to fund balance with no express purpose other than building savings. Someone must have quietly whispered to him that you cannot simply budget (tax) to increase fund balance with no express.

 But....but...hold on a second...according to other documents from the district, the "one-time additional state aid" ($350K) will be used to lower the debt levy for 2012-13. And didn't the district also tell us at last year's annual meeting that $450K in construction "savings" would be applied to lower the debt levy for 2012-13? Welll...that adds up to $800K to reduce the 2012-13 debt levy.

The question we have...and certainly it's not clear in district documents...is whether that $800K being applied THIS year means that instead of taxing $11.5M for debt service, will we actually be taxed only $10.7M?   Because if that is the case, then the bounceback for next year (2013-14) is not just $1M due to programmed debt service payments.  It becomes closer to $1.7M ($12.4M - $10.7M).

The concern with making one-time payments to reduce debt levy (or any tax levy) is that it becomes a game of kicking the can down the road one year at a time.  And that means that EACH successive year we need to tax more to kick the can further.  The only time this approach works is when the next fiscal year projects to see a scheduled REDUCTION in debt service payment.  For SPASD, the first time programmed increases in debt service payments occurs is in 2017-18 (5 years from now), when instead of increasing by $500K, the increase is only a bit over $100K.  The first time a scheduled reduction in debt service payment will occur is the year 2021-12, nine years from now.

So...in sum...don't hold your breath, and don't tax us to reduce further debt levy.

Now...if someone is barking up the "let's make an extra payment towards principal" tree, that is a separate issue which would have to be discussed.  That's the equivalent of winning $2,400 in the lottery and deciding whether to blow it all on vacations and other things or whether to make an extra payment or three on your mortgage to pay it off earlier/gain equity.

That is the root of our situation.  SPASD is projected to receive $2.4M more in state aid than it anticipated.  That is currently being applied to reduce the tax levy by 2% over last year instead of having an increase of 2.5% or more.   Gee...people are still struggling, the economy isn't that great (unless you're a 1%er)....maybe  giving a year of tax relief would be a good thing to do.  You know...maybe to buy some good will with the electorate  for 3-4 years from now when you (really) need a $20+M referendum for a new elementary school.

Wait...what's this thing called Debt Service Fund Balance?
You know...historically when the talking heads speak about "fund balance", they are referring to Fund 10, or the "General" Fund.  In reality, there are a number of "funds" (think of them as individual checking accounts) that comprise a school district's finances.    At the end of fiscal 2012-13, we are still projecting to have a little over $4M in Debt Service (fund 39) fund balance.  Hmmm.

Perhaps the bigger issue is that the Debt Service fund balance is slated to drop almost $900K for 2012-13.  Hmmmm...we don't recall that ever being discussed.  Is THIS the magic holding pen for the $350K and the $450K being applied against this year's debt levy?

Oh happy day...we get to use one of our top all-time phrases here.  It would seem that our questions here would suggest that the budget information presented by the district is tantamount to exegesis without clarity.
Look that up in your F&Ws.  In any event, we can't be having any of this exegesis without clarity nonsense.

2 People Does Not a School District Electorate Make

So...why are we suddenly talking about putting money into fund balance this year?
That idea came from TWO...that's right...EXACTLY TWO people who attended the August 16th Budget Hearing.

We seem to recall a certain resident being concerned at the July 30th meeting about "proposals" that come out of the woodwork.  We think this fits that bill.

Oh...and it gets better...those two people BOTH have direct ties to the district.  Hmmmm...sensing a plant scenario here.
We don't need to "out" these folks, but one is currently an SPASD teacher and the other happens to be a citizen representative on the Finance Committee whose WIFE happens to be an SPASD teacher.

Gee...does that mean that when two citizens that normally attend Finance and School Board meetings speak out , THEIR wishes should be taken up by the board?

Kudos to board member Mike Krachey, who sits on the Finance Committee, for sniffing out the whole "let's put money into fund balance" and subsequently making a successful motion to postpone any fund balance discussion until December or January.

Shame on Administration...or was it Finance Chair John Whalen's work....for bringing forward a folly supported by exactly two people who both have ties to the district.  Shouldn't we have a little stronger c=omposition of the electorate before suggesting any moves to the budget?

Is This the PSU Butterfly Effect?

We've observed a marked change in the Sun Prairie School Board of late.  Maybe its the new faces we have on the board.  Maybe it's subconsciously some sort of butterfly effect coming in the wake of the PSU/Sandusky firestorm.   Maybe it's both.  For whatever the reason, we like what we're seeing.

Board members are engaged.
They're asking good and pointed questions.
They are appear to be moving towards cleaning house of all old and soiled district laundry.
They are establish a new way to do business.
And it's the way a school board SHOULD operate.

There's a great article in the latest edition of ESPN the Magazine regarding the sanctions leveled against Penn State, entitled, "On Death's Door".  One of the subtexts of the article discusses the failure of the PSU board of trustees to take any action--or even ask any clarifying questions-- in the wake of an early briefing on the scandal.

"The shock wasn't just how little the board had known; it was that even knowing just a little, they still had done nothing. ...after being briefed about the Sandusky criminal investigation by then-President Graham Spanier at a May 2011 board meeting, Penn State's trustees were so incurious about the matter that none of them posed follow-up questions at meetings in July and September."--Don Van Natta, Jr, "On Death's Door"", ESPN the Magazine, August 2012

Let this be a lesson to the Caren Diedrichs and John Whalens that want to be a rubber stamp for the school district administration.  The school board has to manage.  You like to hide behind a shield emblazoned with "That's micro-managing".  It's not.  As Jill Camber-Davidson put it, what you term as micro-managing is requisite problem identification and resolution.  And sometimes, the district needs to give a pretty hard tug on the reins.

Now, certainly Sun Prairie isn't suffering from any evils even close to the magnitude of PSU, but there are darkening blemishes that the district administration has ignored for too long.

And this school board...at least the five members not named Diedrich or Whalen...seem poised to take on all comers.  Bravo to the five that seem to be taking a stand to truly mold this district into what it SHOULD be, based on a foundation of equity, character, and integrity.

Of Sense and Sensibility...and Hockey Fees

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

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

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

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

REDUCING HOCKEY FEES 

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

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

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

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

Thank them.

Seabass Smoked; Whalen Shock and Awed

This past Monday, the school board meeting opened with officer elections.

Happy Blind-Side, Mr.President
John Whalen, who has presided for the past 3 years, didn't flinch when Tom Weber's name was tossed out along with his own during nominations.  But when the voting came in 4-2 for Weber as President, Whalen couldn't help but speak in his native tongue: body language.  His face contorted as if he was waging an inner skirmish with serious gas.  This was a blindside of monumental proportions that even shocked Jeff Probst.

VP - Whalen withdraws his name
Then came Vice President and there was Whalen's name tossed out along with current Vice-President John Welke and Jill Camber-Davidson.   In a surprise move, Whalen withdrew his name from contention.   Was he taking his basketball and going home after being denied the top dog slot?  The vote came back 4-2 in favor of Welke.  Hmmmm 4-2 again.  Wonder if the same people were the 4 and the 2.

Clerk - Unanimous!
Only one nomination was provided:  Jill Camber-Davidson, and so the vote of 6-0 was not a surprise.

Treasurer - For All the Marbles
This has been Seabass McCourt's sandbox for the past two years.  In a surprise move, only two names were nominated:  newcomer Mike Krachey (who has a financial background)  and John Whalen (who does not).  Hey!  Did someone forget about Seabass?  The first vote came back deadlocked at 3 votes each for Krachey and Whalen.   Hmmmmm did one of the "4" go another way?  Clearly somebody did something unexpected.

On the second ballot, Whalen received 4 votes to Krachey's 2 and became Treasurer.   Does that seem odd only to us?

Deputy Clerk
Two names were tossed out: Caren Diedrich and Mike Krachey.   Diedrich indicated that she did not wish to be Deputy Clerk, so Krachey's position was sealed on a 6-0 vote.

Wow.  Seabass got smoked.  Skunked.  Denied.  Rejected.  Not nominated for ANY position.  Was this a referendum on Seabass's inappropriate stunt at the annual meeting?  Or did these folks know something we did not?

Mr. Naud's Wild Ride

Anti-Walker candidate?
Or  hoping to glom onto recall fervor to get elected??

Today's Journal tells us that all 7 Madison School Board members and all challengers in the spring election signed the petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker.  We wondered how things are in Sun Prairie.

Only 2 Board Members Signed
Of the current Sun Prairies School Board, only John Whalen and Jill Camber Davidson could be found on the IVerifyTheRecall site.  Hmmm.  What exactly does that mean?  Not sure.  But them's the facts.  Madison is 7 for 7; Sun Prairie is 2 for 7.

Did Mr. Naud Just Say No to Signing the Recall Walker petition?
The enigma that is Gary Alan Naud continues to be...well...enigmatic.   Here's a guy who's loudly and publicly suctioned himself onto the Recall Walker peeps like a remora on a shark.  Funny thing is we couldn't find his name listed on the IVerifyThe Recall site.

Wouldn't it seem that someone so coattail clingy to the Recall Walker movement would have proudly signed a petition?  Or is this just someone who's hoping to ride the Recall Walker tide past his shoplifting charge (and other legal issues found on Wisconsin Circuit Court Access)?  Just how anti-Walker is Mr. Naud?

Mr. Naud has had a wild ride.  He withdrew from the race in late February after some alert citizens became aware of his shoplifting citation, which was reported by the STAR.  Or did he just "suspend" his campaign while deciding whether or not he could ride the Recall Walker movement to election?  He lost the primary for a City Council seat, and now apparently is back "in it to win it".  How will this wild ride end?

Whalen E-Mail - Crossing or Just Blurring the Lines?

Seems that there's an e-mail chain going around initiated by current school board president John Whalen in his bid for re-election to a 3rd term.  While we aren't suggesting that what Whalen's doing is a violation of statute or rule, we will say that it begs the question.  Actually, it begs a LOT of questions

---

From: John Whalen [mailto:john4schools@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:14 PM 
To: Adam Kristina Boardman; brian.campbell@kraftfoods.com ; Caroline McCourt; Cheryl Batterman; Dan McIlroy; Dan Deprey; Dave Joan Unmacht; David Glusick, P.E.; Dawn Moret; Dr. Reeder; Heather Reeder; Jan Kiecker; Jan Nelson; Jeanne Behrend; Jeff Zacher; Jeff Tubbs; John Bloemer; Karin Delaitsch; Kellen Dorner; Kim Erb; Kimberly Trent; kjkobussen@charter.net; Lorie Candelmo; Mary Swita; Matt Silbernagel; Matt Harms; Mike Gomoll; Mike Healy; Mike Nelson; Mike Larson; Monique Glusick; Pam Albi; Pam Klute; Sharlot Bogart; Todd Birkrem; Todd Sears; Tom Bernard; Toni Rossmiller; twoblondetornadoes@hotmail.com


 Subject:  Re-Elect John Whalen for Sun Prairie Area School District School Board 


 Friends,


 Attached, please find a brief flyer outlining my qualification for the Sun Prairie Area School District . I would like to ask two things of you. First, I would like your vote on April 3rd, and second, I need your help.  

Whalen didn't propose "looking into options" to address
elementary space needs.  That was John Welke.  Without Welke's
intervention (not Whalen's) the district simply proposed
building an 8th elementary school.

In order to get my message out efficiently, I would like you to forward this email to everyone you know in the Sun Prairie Area School District . In addition, if you ask these people to do the same, we can cover the District in a very green way.


 Please note April 3rd is during spring break and if you are going to be out of town, please vote absentee. You can vote by absentee right at city hall. It is quick and easy. Your vote is very important to me. Please contact me with your questions or concerns.

 Thank your for your support,

 John Whalen

 608-834-3340

  John4schools@yahoo.com

---

Election Rules & Campaign Flyers
One thing that is immediately noticed regarding his "flyer" is that it lacks the de rigeur "Authorized and Paid for by ______________" attribution, which must appear on any campaign material.  These requirements are spelled out in section 11.30, Wis. Stats., " Attribution of political contributions, disbursements and communications."


Sure, Whalen could argue that e-mail costs him nothing--and therefore he is exempt.  But it DOES cost him something to maintain an Internet connection with which to send it.  We also don't know whether or not any of these were printed for handing out.  The bottom line, is that --after 6 years/2 terms--Whalen simply knows better.  And we expect better from someone in his shoes.   He's not a "newbie" at this who has made an innocent mistake.  He needs to be doing it BETTER than the other guys.


Conflict of Interest?
The list of recipients on this e-mail (and perhaps there were other "lists") is a veritable list of "Who's Who In Sun Prairie".  More to the point, many of these folks do business with the school district, and therefore Whalen puts himself in a very sticky wicket.  Kip Kobussen--of Kobussen Busing-- has a contract with the district worth about $10M.  Should Whalen now recuse himself from voting on any future contracts or checks written to Kobussen?   What about the others:


Correction: we've since learned that Kip Kobussen is not a part of Kobussen Buses, as we've been told.
Our apologies to Mr. Kobussen and Kobussen Buses for the error.

• Jeff Tubbs (Findorff, who built the last $100M+ of district projects)
• Sharlot Bogart (owner of Teddy's Place, one of the district 4K sites)
• Caroline McCourt (co-owner of Beans & Cream, from whom the district frequently purchases things)
• Matt Silbernagel (with whom the district has done some multi-media business)
• Pam Albi and Matt Harms (Board of Trustees for the Sun Prairie Education Foundation, which has received over $500,000 in money from school district naming rights.

That's a lot of big names and local business owners/big wigs. Doesn't this put Whalen in a very awkward position on the board?  We've never heard Whalen abstaining from ANY check in the past.  Should he now if re-elected?  Furthermore, if the intent is for these folks to pass the e-mail on to their employees, there are statutory cautions involved with doing that as well.


Look...we understand. Whalen mingles with the "beautiful people"-- the "haves".  And in doing so, he cultivates new relationships.  But when these relationships could potentially result in business opportunities with the school district, the lines get blurred and the community starts whispering things like "influence peddling".  It just looks bad, and smells a little funny.  When one hears a community member suggest that the school board is in bed with So-and-So business--right or wrongfully so--, now you see how such statements or beliefs are born.


Over-Stating His Position?
Whalen's flyer states, "It is projected that we will run out of space in our elementary schools in the next few years. Instead of rushing ahead to build a new elementary school, I support looking for options for addressing the space needs. "  


Funny...but we don't recall Mr. Whalen coming up with that idea.  In fact, had it not been for board member John Welke motioning to create an Ad Hoc committee to explore space options, it sure looked like the board was moving directly to building an 8th elementary school.   Whalen never expressed such an idea before, when the board agenda item was the timeline for an 8th elementary school.   Sensing the community is not so hot about building yet ANOTHER school right now, is Whalen now simply stealing Welke's thunder?  


In fact , 3 years ago, when Whalen was re-elected, Welke was running as a Write-In candidate.  Many in the community believed then that a significant number of votes that Whalen received were due to confusion over the two names.  If that was the case, it looks like Whalen is once again hitching a ride on Welke's star.


But "Green" Sounds So Chic
"...we can cover the district in a green way" is like spraying Febreze on a soiled carpet. It may mask the odor temporarily, but the soil still remains.  Other candidates are printing buttons and flyers.  Is Whalen really so "green" thinking?  Or is the "green" tagline tossed in there to avoid people from thinking he's just lazy or cheap?


What We Really Are Dying To Know
Who exactly are the "two blond tornadoes"?  John?  Ferris Bueller?  Anyone!  Do Tell.

We Got Us a Horse Race!

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!

December 1 means School Board Nomination Paper Time!

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

School Board President Whalen Channels His Inner Edgar

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.

Letters - Monte Couch: "Sue the School Board!"

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...

Whalen Going Rogue?

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!

That's Their Story And They're Stickin' To It

The school board met with key administrators on August 25th to review the budget and possibly take action.
The good news?  They actually reduced many of the line items we identified as being "pork infused".
The bad news?  They didn't lower the projected tax levy...not one thin dime!

While they didn't come right out and say it, the non-verbals were abundantly clear: Culver and Frei have no intention of reducing the levy --or the budget--one red cent.  And they also refuse to include any of the budget initiatives unless the school board allows them to spend more.  It's the Human Resources Specialist Part 2.  It's that whiny kid that crosses his arms and says "If I can't have it my way, I'm taking my basketball and going home."

Board member John Welke was pretty vocal that he believed there was absolutely enough money available, without adding more, to at the very least provide for district priority initiative #1: providing tutoring for kids struggling in reading and math.  Board members Weber and Camber-Davidson agreed.

As usual, McSeabass agreed that the district needs to do both initiatives 1 and 2, BUT he wanted to take the tax levy up to 3.95% (can we just call it 4%???) to do so.  Whalen jumped on that bandwagon as well.  Side note:  at one point when the figure 3.4*% was questioned regarding the currently proposed levy increase, Tim Culver smiled and indicated that administration wanted to "exceed the board's expectations [of a maximum 3.5% levy increase]".

Caren Diedrich was surprisingly quiet, as was Terry "Waffles" Shimek.  Shimek, however, suddenly came alive and engaged in a minor verbal skirmish with McSeabass, who had been trying to undermine what John Welke was saying.  Shimek supported Welke and told McCourt so.  

McCourt and Whalen UnHappy Campers?
What was also abundantly clear was that Whalen and McCourt are increasingly finding themselves on the minority side of things...and they don't like it.  Both were quite snippy.  Whalen even called out Welke on his "tone", suggesting that Welke's words could be interpreted that the board is not very supportive of staff.  Nice try, Mr. Whalen.  Go through the records.  Welke has been nothing BUT supportive of teachers and staff.  He just doesn't care for the money squandering [our words] and lack of solid information coming out of the district.

The Bottom line:
Folks...if you are not happy with a 3.5% tax levy increase, then don't be looking to the school board to do it.  There just don't appear to be 4 votes to do so.  Your only recourse, if you believe the district can do better, is to attend the October 17th annual electors meeting in force--and vote for a lower tax levy.  Reducing the levy by $450,000 will reduce the tax levy increase by 1%.  There are many that believe we can live quite well on a 2.5% increase...IF those members of administration that just like to spend money can break the habit and focus on spending that directly affects kids.  You know...instead of taking trips to China and working on  Mandarin Chinese program?

Remember...2 short years ago, the electors voted to reduce the tax levy by TWO MILLION DOLLARS over what the district proposed.  Oh there was whining and moaning, and some talk from school board members to vote to dismiss what the electors voted.  In the end?  the district came in $1.3M UNDER [the reduced] budget!!!  The question is...what would they have down with the $2M that was cut if it wasn't cut??  Imagine the taxes we'd be paying now.

---

 Kindergarten King of excuses 
Sister Mary Mojo, so hard to trick 
What can I say 
The dog ate my homework 


 That's my story and I'm sticking to it 
That's my life and all that I got 
Call me a liar, call me a writer 
Believe me or not 
 ----Jimmy Buffett & Jay Olliver, "That's My Story and I'm Stickin' To It"

What a Difference a Day Makes

At Monday's Finance Committee meeting, Treasurer and Finance Chair Jim McCourt was all "Man the torpedoes and we can cut this budget". That sentiment didn't last long as at Tuesday's Board Work-Study meeting, his tone changed from cutting to increasing spending. Maybe he was on a sugar high Monday night??

While preventing a levy increase might not be in the cards, McCourt was optimistic that school board members would be able to decrease the levy increase. “One of our board goals was a 10 percent or above fund balance. Even with that, we are going to be 11.5 percent at the end of next year, so obviously one of the options that is out there is we’ve got some extra fund balance that potentially we could use, and if we made an adjustment of another $450,000 to the fund balance, it would get us down to a levy increase of 2.5 percent. It would still keep us at 10.5 percent of the fund balance. I think we have some room there to potentially do something.”
---Jim McCourt

McCourt also said that even though the board added $255,000 back into the building and grounds department budget, he has not heard anyone asking for the budget restoration. If the reinstated dollars were removed again, it would decrease the levy by another 0.6 percent, bringing the levy increase down to 1.9 percent.
---excerpted from the Sun Prairie Star

Whalen offers a different perspective
During the work-study meeting, the board reviewed the district's request to add the following to the 2011-12 budget:
$75,000 originally planned for the HR Specialist; District still thinks they can use this cash
$165,000 (7000 hrs @ $24/hr) for Response to Intervention Math/Reading tutors
$110,000 for 2FTE English as Second Language Teachers
$ 176,000 for 3 total FTE Social Workers
$65,000 for 1 FTE Technology programmer
-----------------------------------------------
$591,000 (raises the tax levy about 1.3%)

Whalen's response:

"I like these ideas. I'm toying with the idea of going back to 4.5% [tax levy increase] and putting all these in [the budget]."

Take a Lesson from the Pros...or Not

We just can't get past the folly of school board President's inherited means of calling for a vote:

"All in favor...say aye
All opposed...same sign"

Had the opportunity to catch a bit of the DNR's Natural Resources Board meeting this week. Really liked the way they handled votes:

"All in favor...
Any opposition...
Any abstentions..."

We suppose it would be silly to think it possible that Whalen would consider upping his game.  After all...the board cannot enact something suggested by the infamous SPEYE blog, now can it?


Who knows?  In  few weeks maybe we'll get a new board president!

Why Apologize?

At its February 28th meeting, the Sun Prairie School Board voted to approve 1-year contract extensions with both the teachers union (SPEA) and school support staff union (AFSCME Local 60).
On the one hand, this was a magnanimous gesture from the employer to its employees.  On the other, it was a slap in the face to both the community at large, and the full intent behind Wisconsin's Open Meetings Laws. How could one move have such dichotomous implications?  Why did one community resident demand that the school board apologize to the community? Let us explain.
On the plus side
Unless you've been in a coma, it is abundantly clear that KingGovernor Scott Walker is hellbent on disintegrating Democrat-supporting unions. The contract approved by the school board actually incorporates more of the Governor's fiscal mandates than would have been required.  Yet it retains the actual contract language and ability to collectively bargain for another year (through June 20, 2012).  Yes, the district could have squished the life-force from the unions and forced a slightly larger concession on health insurance premiums.  
And yes, the board could have gone for the jugular and (without the contract) torched the salary grid matrix with it's automatic step and lane increases. But unlike Scott Walker, the board chose discretion as the better part of valor.  The board and the district and their employees chose to work collaboratively through tight financial times.  Gee...what a novel concept.  [Can you say "collaborative", Scott?  We didn't think so.]  And the board chose to be human.  And these are good things.  Those are the reasons why rushing this contract through served "the greater good".
Whoa!  Where's the fire?
Why the rush to push the contracts through in the span of less than 4 days?  Because the possibility existed that at any moment, the Senate Democrats who left the building to allow time for the public--and the Legislature-- to ponder things could have returned.  If the Budget Repair Bill gets signed in its current form, then --at that moment-- the district's hands would be tied, and there would be no such ability to contract as they did.  That would mean loss of control at the local level.  And it would destroy the unions once and for all.   And people--because the teachers and other district employees ARE people--- deserve better treatment.  So, in the end, pushing these contracts through was the right thing to do.


Not so fast...the other perspective
What's the hub, bub?  Why did citizen Mealy demand an apology to the community?  Why? Because despite Walker tossing out everything including the kitchen sink in his budget bills, there are still these teensy little annoyances called Open Meetings Laws.


Yes, the school board satisfied the Open Meetings Laws with respect to public noticing.  The problem is that they didn't give the public a chance to even SEE what they were approving until 2:45 pm on Monday 2-28-2011.  That's less than FIVE HOURS before the school board meeting.  And then what they posted was over 100 pages of contract documents.  And they weren't even complete!  Why on earth should the public support a huge, incomplete contract with less than 5 hours to review it???
Not that we're advocating for it, but the district COULD have just let the chips fall, and we ultimately we would have made the same or a better deal.
You can't have it both ways.   
Those affected by Walker's Budget Repair Bill were up in arms when it was made available on Friday 2-11-2011.  The protests started, not only because it effectively neutered the unions, but the public would have less than 5 days to review it before it was voted (in theory) into law.  The plan was to vote on it on Tuesday 2-15-2011.  But then those 14 Democrats left the building to allow the public court of opinion more time to ponder the severity of Walkers action. In Sun Prairie, the public didn't have any such fortune.  They also got even less time to decide.  And they didn't even know what was being agreed upon.  The board ramrodded the contracts through without pausing to consider the public.  And that was wrong. It was bad form to the n^th power.  
You can't protest the timing of the Governor's Budget Repair Bill and then argue in support of the exact same thing here. Life doesn't work that way.  Not to induce nausea here, but...what does that "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality teach our children?


What SHOULD have been done
What the board SHOULD have done to mitigate the situation was to IMMEDIATELY post SOMETHING on Friday.  Even just a simple bulleted list of what the board agreed to would have been enough. SOMEONE should have hammered out the key points of these contracts, posted them liberally on the District website, and e-mailed them to Dr. Tim's "Key Communicators".  It would not have taken even 30 minutes.  And it could have been written such that it was not only logical, but fiscally responsible.  
In the end, these contracts were right for the district, the employees, and the community.  But the community deserves an opportunity to make that judgement for them selves.  Unfortunately, they were left to trust the school board to make good judgement.  And in recent history, the community is more likely to trust Bernie Madoff with their nest egg than to trust the school board's ability to make good, sound decisions.


Why Whalen Gets it...and McCourt does not
To his credit, board president John Whalen took it on the chin and opted to offer a public apology.  Thanks for no letting pride get in the way, Mr. Whalen!  Yeah...pride doesn't taste so good going down the hatch, but you win points for taking a few moments to recognize that you--and the board-- owed the public better.  The community appreciated your willingness to do that.
McCourt on the other hand is...well...McCourt.  He boldly declared that he would NOT apologize.  He missed the point, but that's kinda par for the course for ole' Jimbo.  He applies his warped form of logic to rationalize his every move.  But, then,  this is a guy that still doesn't get the whole sea bass thing.  Just remember, Jimmy...pride goeth before the fall.  Frankly, we wouldn't have it any other way.  You just continue to stay the course.  Doing so provides an endless source of immensely entertaining amusement.  Carry on!
No apologies, nah suckers I'm not sorry
You can all sue me; y'all could be the cause of me
No apologies, y'all feeling the force of me
No remorse for me, like there was no recourse for me

No apologies, not even acknowledging you at all
Till I get a call that God's coming
No apologies, laugh f*ckers, its all funny
I can spit in your face while you're standing across from me
No apologies
---Eminem "No Apologies"

Fish and bear paws-one can't have both.
--ancient Chinese proverb

Whatever Happened To....

Dr. Culver's 6 Contract Proposals?
It's been several weeks.  No new "negotiation" meetings have been held.  It hasn't appeared as an agenda item. Whalen and Culver are still hiding behind a non-existent exclusion from Open Records laws and refuse to release the contract proposals.   We wonder why.  Two days ago, the SPEA and Local 60 contract proposals were openly shared with the public--as well as the board's counter offer.  So...why do they refuse to release the proposals?  No one ever wants to air their dirty laundry...right?  So something must be soiled.  Time to do a little investigating.
Let's take a look at the provisions of Culver's contract and see if we can ferret out what he might be up to...shall we?

[from Culver's contract] 3. Compensation

• (a) salary & deferred compensation.  He's not so crazy as to suggest a raise, given the state fiscal landscape
• (c) Salary adjustment - he already has a clause that doesn't allow REDUCING his salary.  So that isn't a concern

 Conclusion:  This can't be about a raise.

4. Benefits

• (a) Payment for health and dental "as provided for other Administrators"...maybe hes looking to pay nothing?  Again, given Governor Walker's stance, not gonna happen 
• (c) The board may require a physical exam and medical ability to work  if health is an issue"...maybe?
• (d) Full payment of term life insurance at 4 times salary ($142,193 ) to the nearest $10,000 ($570,000).  According to the contract, we already provide Culver with over $500,000 of life insurance...surely he couldn't want more than that???  Who has that kind of term life insurance?  But....that would move us back to wondering about his health.
• (e) The Board will pay the Administrators required contribution to the WRS?  Our stench-o-meter just went crazy. Did Culver have an early whiff of the Governor's plan?  Is he trying to solidify what already appears to be solid language?  
• (f) Board already pays his share of Social Security
• (15) days of non-designated leave (sick and emergency)...does he want more???
• (28) vacation days....and can cash out 5 days per year.  He already doesn't lose unused leave days.  Maybe he wants to cash out more???
• (j) Board pays required dues for 1 state and 1 national professional association...does he want a 3rd?  It would seem unlikely at this stage of the game.  Besides the board has already added payment for his membership in the Rotary Club.
• (k) Flat monthly payment of $325 for use of personal car with Dane Co.  Gas prices are up...is he looking for more?
• (l) $125/month for "miscellaneous costs incurred in "carrying out his official duties".  Please!  He wouldn't even dare go here...would he?
• (m)  District Administrator pays for Long Term Disability insurance at his own expense.  Maybe he wants it paid by the taxpayers?  Another health bell is ringing.
• (o) Longevity separation pay : unused leave (section g)  up to 205 days at separation at year 12 is already 100% of per diem pay.  Paid in 2 installments... (1) Half w/in 30 days of leaving and (2) Half on 1st anniversary of leaving.  This one has the shenanigans meter twitching.   He could have as much as nearly a full year of pay banked.  That could cost a big tax hit.   Perhaps he's trying to spread this out longer?  It's noteworthy that the district pays interest on any amount not yet paid out.  Hmmm.

Conclusion:  This HAS to be about Culver finding a way to increase his pay during retirement...or...more to the point, reduce his taxes.  Remember, sports fans,  there's also the matter of the $109,962 we're already squirreling away from him in the Reserved/Designated Fund Balance.

Google Saves the Day
A few creative Google searches led us to the concept of pension boosting.  Since Culver is clearly zeroing in on retirement, and the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) bases retirement benefits on the 3 highest salary years, it's clear Culver is looking for ways  to increase his retirement benefit.  
How do you increase your salary without really increasing your salary?  Hmm.  We'll get back to that in just a minute.  Now it's time to recall how quickly the issue of Culver's proposals appeared relative to Scott Walker taking office.  The issue of the contract proposals and the timing MUST be linked to the Budget Repair Bill.  It seems clear that Culver needed to get something done quickly because of moves being made by Governor Walker.

"...pumping up pension payouts is among the newest -- and most lucrative -- benefits for administrators. Much of the added money comes when districts offer money in lieu of benefits such as health or dental insurance."

---IndyStar: School chiefs quietly pad pensions, collect perks  


BINGO! That one little sentence seems to put all the dominoes neatly in line.  It's brilliant.  All Culver has to do is offer to pay for things for which the school district already pays 100% of his contribution...like Social Security, Medicare, WRS, and even health insurance.  In exchange, they could increase his salary so Culver recoups his costs.  It's beautiful.... it effectively increases his monthly retirement benefits, yet it's cost neutral for the school district.  And it has to happen before Walker rains on his parade.  This has got to be the angle Culver is shooting for.

There's only one teensy weensy problem with it.  Should the school board be working to pad the retirement of any one individual?  Are we offering the same deal for all employees?  And now we see the root problem.  Scott Walker is going to force people like Culver to pay their own way for the WRS and at least 12% of health insurance.  This neatly explains the rush to push this through.  Once Walker's Budget Bill goes through, Culver wouldn't be able to finagle this deal.  This is a singular opportunity to bump his salary by $8,0000-10,000...which would put more than a few dollars in his pocket every month for the rest of his life.
We won't know for sure until Culver/Whalen release those 6 proposals.  But our gut feel is that we're at least barking in the rights stand of trees.

Whalen Shoots.....He BORES!

School Board president John Whalen has responded to community resident Roger Fetterly's Open Records request.  For the second time, Fetterly's request has been denied.  What exactly is Whalen hiding?  Clearly he fears the public being informed.  Whalen's response is a beaten road. It's tired. It lacks imagination.  Frankly, it's boring.
_____________________________________

TO:    Roger Fetterly

FROM:  John Whalen, School Board President

DATE:  February 8, 2011

RE:    Open Records Request

Roger:

Thank you for your email of February 7, 2011, to me.  In your email, you renew your previous open records request from January 23,2011. That request was to inspect a document you referred to as “6 Employment Contract Proposals” that Dr. Culver submitted to the School Board for its consideration. When I responded to your earlier request on January 24, 2011, I confirmed the existence of the document, but I declined your request to inspect the document at that time. We have consulted with legal counsel in regard to your request.  Our response to your renewed request is the same as when we previously responded. We decline to release the requested record for inspection at this time.

The process of negotiations between Dr. Culver and the School Board has not concluded. The Board continues to work with Dr. Culver to address possible changes to his employment contract with the School District under Section 118.24, Wis. Stats. This matter differs significantly from the release of labor union initial proposals referenced in your most recent email as those proposals, from each party, are required to be presented in an open session under Wisconsin law. See Section 111.70 (4) (cm) 2. Wis. Stats. No such requirement exists for administrative contract negotiations. 

As stated in my earlier email to you, we do not believe that it is appropriate, at this time, to release the requested material while these negotiations are in process. Contrary to your assertion I have considered the public interest in allowing the inspection of the requested material versus the public interest in allowing the school board to complete its statutory responsibility under Section 118.24 Wis. Stats. to contract with a school district administrator.

To release the requested material at this time, would unduly interfere with the negotiation process. In particular:

1.      The release of this information at this time would discourage the free and open exchange of contract ideas between the Board and it primary administrative officer, said exchange being essential to the success of the negotiation process.

2.      The release of the information at this time would negatively affect the negotiation environment by subjecting the process to outside influence by persons and or groups who are not a party to the contract, and this in turn may negatively impact discussions that are essential to completion of the process..

Withholding this information, at this time, is supported by Section 19.85(1)(c) and (e), which are indicative of public policy where I have, as here, made a specific demonstration that there is a need to restrict public access at the time the request to inspect the record is made.  See Section 19.35(1)(a), Wis. Stats.

The record information that you have requested will be available once the negotiation process described above is concluded.  The records are not, however, available at this time, given the ongoing process of negotiation.

The law requires that I inform you that, because your request for a record was made in writing, our determination to not release the record at this time is subject to review by mandamus under Section 19.37(1), Wis. Stats., or upon application to the Attorney General or a district attorney.  See Section 19.35(4), Wis. Stats.

Thank you for your continuing interest in the Sun Prairie Area School District.

5903749_1

_____________________________

Whalen's playing a dangerous game here...virtually daring someone to challenge his decision.  It certainly appears that this is WHALEN'S decision...not that of the board.  As usual...we have so very many questions...


1. If the "negotiations" are not complete...and since there are no closed sessions scheduled between now and the board meeting on Monday Feb 14th...then Culver's contract cannot be part of the agenda...right?


2. So...let us get this straight...Whalen can't share Culver's proposals because it would subject them to "outside influence".  EXCUSE US!  But aren't WE the ones that the board represents?  Don't WE have a right to know what exactly the board is negotiating FOR US?


3.  Does anybody else feel like this is just a little too cozy?  After a closed door session 2 weeks ago, NOTHING has transpired.  That doesn't exactly sound like "active negotiations".  Anyone else smell what we smell?  That maybe Whalen has contracted the same disease as Terry Shimecchio?   Do we now have John Whalenocchio?  


4. Releasing the proposals would discourage "free and open exchange of contract ideas"?  A sphincter says "WHAT"?  Is what Whalen saying that if the public knew the proposals being considered by the board then board members' ears would be ringing from all the negative calls they'd receive?


5. Is this a board decision?  Or a unilateral Whalen decision.  Are there any board members out there who feel that Whalen is on shaky ground (to say the least) and will cough up the requested documents?  You have our e-mail address.   Paging AG Van Hollen...your involvement is requested! 


We think that this laundry is a tad malodorous.