WHO Ordered the Code Red?

We have heard multiple reports from sports fans that there's some spanky new scorer's tables in use this year.  Nice tables, but apparently some part of them are being covered up.
Whatcha got hiding under that sheet?
Wouldn't happen to be a Pepsi logo, now, would it?


Enquiring minds want to know:

WHEN were these tables purchased? (how soon before/after the board decision on Pepsi contracts)
With WHAT money? (referendum funds? Fund 10?)
WHO authorized the purchase?
HOW much did they cost?
WHAT are we going to do with them if they have Pepsi logo (which we should NOT be displaying)?

Third Time to be the Charm for Pepsi Contract?

The Sun Prairie STAR's headline regarding Monday night's Beverage Bid vote appears to suggest that it will be coming back to the board yet again.

Board delays district-wide beverage bid for second time
http://www.sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=21&ArticleID=6399


Our friends at Merriam-Webster tell us that the word, "delay" means to "put off", "postpone", or "to stop [for a period of time]"


...as in "this is just a temporary setback"?


Hello!  What part of a second board NO vote didn't the STAR hear?
No means NO...doesn't it?
Or...does "No" mean that if you want something bad enough you get to press forward until you get it?


Just wondering...

Pepsi Contract Foiled Again

Remember the movie (or book), "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"?
We have our Sun Prairie school board version: The Chronicles of Egomania: The Smirk, The Flipflop, and the Abstention.
In our last episode, the board voted 4-3 AGAINST approving the 7-YEAR Pepsi contract, with Diedrich, McCourt, and Whalen the dissenting votes (i.e. IN FAVOR of the contract). In a Hail Mary attempt, a vote was passed to send the contract back to the Wellness committee for review and approval (the committee was bypassed initially).


So here we are back to square 1. The interesting development was the absence of David Stackhouse, who originally voted against the contract. This, of course, opened a door of barn-sized proportions for Terry Shimmerek (some tenderly refer to him as Turncoat Terry) to do what he does best: flipflop his vote. If Shimek held firmly to his original position [a crapshoot at best given his history] on the issue, then the likely ending would be a failed vote on a 3-03 -1 tie. (It was clear from the get go that neither Jill Camber-Davidson nor John Welke were budging from their contrary position.) It was equally clear that McCourt and Whalen were putting the pedal to the metal to make this contract happen. Would Shimek (yet again) do his best imitation of Charlie Waffles? And what zany things could we expect from Caren Diedrich???


The Smirk
Early on in the proceedings, Jill Camber-Davidson reiterated her initial concerns about responsibility to promote wellness, and the dangers of approving what amounts to mass-marketing targeting our kids. Camber-Davidson also did her homework and pointed out that Pepsi had not met the RFP bid specifications. Following up on Camber-Davidson's revelation, John Welke took the floor and proclaimed that, since Pepsi had not met the bid specs, the board had no other recourse but to reject the contract. In response to Welke's passionate plea, board member Jim McCourt was clearly chuckling. [Note to Chris Mertes of the STAR: say, Chris, was this the element of "decorum" you praised in your support for McCourt's initial school board candidacy? We're not aware that this kind of rude body language being associated with the concept of decorum. Looks more to us like boorish behavior of someone who isn't getting their way.] Of course, the cameras never show this stuff, as they zoom in on the speaker.


To his credit, Welke politely called McCourt out on his poor form, by saying, "Jim, you're over there smirking...I'd love to hear what you have to say". McCourt responded something along the lines of "I'm just enjoying the creative ways you're finding to reject this contract." Welke had a response for that which effectively squelched McCourt: "Jim...let's do this the right way". Got a comeback for that, SeaBass? While some may consider it poor form to call out a fellow board member's reprehensible behavior publicly, we'd say that sometimes, these things MUST be addressed publicly. Board members need to be held accountable for the behavior at the big table, and if they know that someone will call them on it publicly, sometimes that's the only way to nip bad behaviors in the bud.


The Flipflop
Terry Shimek pulled off the equivalent of a double gainer in dive competition last night. When the contract first came up, he voted against it. In his initial comments at the board meeting last night, it was clear he was flip-flopping his vote once again. Before public comments were taken, Shimek said, despite acknowledging receipt of about 18 e-mails from SCO and booster parents opposed to the contract, "I'm leaning towards this contract...it provides revenue the schools could use and doesn't really change the status quo". He followed that up by seconding McCourt's motion to approve the contract.


During the public comment period, community resident Rick Mealy made mention of Shimek's clear indication of intent to reverse yet another vote on an issue. That's when the double gainer set in. As he cast his vote rejecting the contract, Shimek admitted that he was indeed, "flipflopping here". Suddenly he made reference to the 18 e-mails and the 3 community members that spoke against the contract (only Athletic/Activities Director --and the person behind the contract--Jim McClowry spoke in favor of it) and suggested these as rationale for changing his mind about changing his mind form the initial vote. Interesting. He knew about the 18 e-mails initially yet still voiced support. So...what moved Shimmerek to stop in mid-waffle?


The Abstention
A needed bit of levity during a tense meeting was provided by board member Caren Diedrich [can someone PLEASE explain to us how she got re-elected last spring?]   She's a nice lady, but her board table antics are getting old if not sad]. In the midst of some heated discussion, Diedrich shouted, "I call the question!" -- a Roberts' Rule mechanism to cease discussion and proceed to voting on a motion before a group. Unfortunately, no motion had been made!


Then....during the roll call vote, when her number was called, Diedrich responded by asking how many votes were needed to pass. Um...hello! You've been on the board for over 15 years and you don't know that a majority with a 7-member board is 4 votes? Stackhouse's absence didn't change that! Then....drum roll...Diedrich ABSTAINED! Audible chuckling was heard throughout the audience. Admittedly, poor form. But...sometimes it's hard to stifle that stuff. What was the point of abstaining? With McCourt and Whalen voting YES and Camber-Davidson, Welke, and Shimek voting "NO", if Diedrich cast a YES vote--as she did in September-- the motion would still have failed on a 3-3-1 tie. If she had cast her vote with the 3, the motion would still have failed 4-2-1. With her abstention, the motion to approve the 7-year Pepsi contract also failed 3-2-2. Her abstention was meaningless.   You know what an abstention means


The Aftermath
So that was it, folks. The Pepsi contract was rejected on a 2-3-2 (For-Against-Abstain) vote.


Our take: We agree completely with 4 very solid arguments against the proposal: (1) nutrition/health concerns, (2) the contract promoted mass-advertising to our kids, (3) the contract would mean less revenues and less flexibility for booster clubs and no money for elementary schools, and (4) 7 years is too long. But in the end we point to one concern that trumped all of these. The simple fact is that Pepsi did not meet the bid specifications. We appreciate McCourt's comment that none of the bidders met every tenet in the RFP, but his point doesn't move us. In fact, it underscores what John Welke said. The board had no other recourse but to reject the contract on the grounds of INTEGRITY. Sun Prairie does not do business as Mr. McCourt apparently would like us to. The foundation of the Sun Prairie School District MUST be integrity. And in the spirit of integrity, even an arguably lucrative contract proposal must be cast aside if the proposal does not meet specified criteria. In fact...shame on whoever brought this forward KNOWING that bid specification had not been met.

Selling Our Kids' Health for $130/day???

After being voted down 4-3 (Diedrich, McCourt, & Whalen in favor) on September 13, district administration is bringing back the idea of entering into a 7-year commitment with Pepsi for advertising rights as well as being the sole source vendor in the school district.  Are they sniffing the ability to sway Turncoat Terry Shimek onto their side?   

204 beverages sold per school day!
The contract is based on assumptions, one of which is that, over 7 years, nearly 260 THOUSAND beverages will be sold from the district.  Wow!  That's an average of 204 per school day.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby
The driving force behind the proposal is money.  Pepsi is offering as much as $165,000 over 7 years.  That comes to about $23,000 per year, or $131 per school day.  The guaranteed money, however, is only $94,000...only $4,000 more than Coke offered.    Only $18,000 is guaranteed in each of the first 3 years.  The rest is made up through sales.  In years 4-7, the district only gets $10,000 upfront money.

But...but...look at all the cool stuff we get!
The contract calls for us to receive the following each year. Care to guess what is driving this bus?

Promotional Items. On or before September 1st of each school year during the term of this Agreement, Pepsi-Cola shall furnish Gatorade equipment to the District (estimated value $500.00) including: six (6) five-gallon sports drink coolers, twelve (12) sports drink bottle carriers with bottles, 250 towels and 1,000 eight (8) ounce cups for use by the District annually for seven (7) years. Upon delivery by Pepsi-Cola, such Gatorade equipment shall become the property of the District. Pepsi-Cola shall also provide twenty-four (24) Pepsi-Cola recycle barrels to the District to replace current competitor barrels. 

31 Vending Machines!

1	at each Elementary School	(7)
2	at each Middle School	(4)
4	at CHUMS	(4)
2	at Prairie Phoenix Academy	(2)
14	at the TajMah High School	(14)

We didn't see mention of the district office.  Are those folks outside this contract???

No More Root Beer Float Days!
One of the silliest aspects of this contract is that the district is barred from bringing in ANY non-Pepsi products for sale or events for the life of the contract.  We understand that a number of elementary schools hold "Root Beer Float" days.  Not any more they won't.  Pepsi apparently doesn't offer a root beer product, so there will be no more root beer floats.

Arguments FOR the contract
Those pushing for the contract will tell you that vending machines with student access will only dispense sports drinks, flavored water, or bottled water.  So...what's the big hairy deal?  The district is simply maximizing the kickbacks they can earn in providing what the kids are going to get anyway.

Arguments Against
Clearer heads will see this as a mass marketing campaign aimed at our kids.  If we bombard them with Pepsi signs and machines for 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, it WILL have a subliminal effect on their purchasing for years to come.  And we are providing the vehicle for that subliminal advertising.  Of course, Caren Diedrich will tell you that healthy choices and decisions on whether to buy bottled water or sports drinks, or flavored water is the parents' responsibility.  Of course it is.  The school district shouldn't have any involvement...right?  In fact, let's do away with offering breakfast...isn't THAT the parents' responsibility?  What's next?  Cutting physical education?  Maybe THAT is the responsibility of parents as well.   And given the new dangers of chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic bottles and simple fiscal responsibility, shouldn't we be advocating drinking good old tap water in environmentally friendly reusable containers? The bottom line is: should we REALLY be sliding into be with ANY vendor?  What exactly does this teach our kids?

Who Gets the Money?
Download the Incentives summary
The “Fee” income will be utilized to supplement funding of new building initiatives, programs, and workshops for students and teachers.  This money will also be used to support extra-curricular programs.

The “Booster” income will go to the club or group that is running the concession for that event.  Pepsi will send the check directly to the Booster Club.
The “Commissions” will go to the school where the vending machine is located.  Pepsi will send the check directly to the club or activity.
Will the original vote be sustained?  Or will there be a vote switch?  We all know Terry Shimmerek is a frequent vote switcher.  Come out Monday night and voice your opinion.

Where's the Pepsi?

Certain school board members and district admins are back once again trying to push their Pepsi agenda.

We expect some fireworks Monday night, but the big question is:  how come the Coke and Dr. Pepper RFPs are posted but not Pepsi's.( to whom they wish to award the contract!)

Let's make sure our kids have plenty of caffeinated beverages (as long as they're Pepsi products) and bottled water (can you say BPA?)...eh?  Oh...and no more Root Beer Float days...because they aren't a Pepsi product!

What we won't do for money...right?

After all...it's not the school district's job to have kids eat and drink right.  That's the parents' job!

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/public