Hell's Kitchen, 53590

We've got our own quasi-Olympic logo going, complete with flames.
The school board is going to have their hands full juggling all these frying pans.
Someone(s) may wind up grilled and charred before the smoke clears on these issues.
Memo to board members Whalen and Diedrich:  THIS is what happens when you're asleep at the switch armed only with a rubber stamp.

Who's in charge of this zoo?  Tim Culver likes to say that he's accountable.  But all this has either happened or festered under his watch.  Perhaps instead of spending so much time pushing for trips to China and full-immersion language (sssh...Mandarin Chinese) programs, he needs to do a little housework.  There are a couple of closets beginning to smell ripe.  Should it be the school board's job to police this stuff?  NO!  But sadly, Mr. Whalen, you never took any action regarding the inaction, so now it's a whole lot messier.

So that we're all on the same page, let's re-cap what we've learned over the summer so that you can see why we believe it's hotter than Hell's Kitchen here at SPASD:

2 fields x 13 hrs/day x 67 days is TOO MUCH!

Policy KG (Field Use Rental)
Thanks to school board Veep John Welke's attention to detail and investigative prowess, the public learned that the high school softball fields had been reserved ALL SUMMER LONG from 7:30 am to 8:00 PM.  Talk about a monopoly.

Um...who's paying for the exclusive use of those fields?  Sure the SP Little League ponied up $75,000 initially, but how far does that go?
The cost of reserving the varsity softball field for 67 days at $300/day (12 hrs/day x $25/hr)= $20,100.
Add in the JV field and that comes to $40,200 JUST for the summer of 2012.

Shouldn't SOMEONE be
saying "Nay, Nay"?

We didn't receive a dime. Who's watching this?  Who would have allowed one "renter" to reserve two complete fields for 12 hours or more EVERY day for 67 days this summer????  We're think that SOMEONE with some common sense should have said, "Nay, Nay".

 AD McClowry
The whole hockey fee fiasco hasn't settled completely yet.  Add to that the fact that Mr. McClowry not only personally reserves fields for his own use (for which we could not locate a record of payment), but he's theoretically in charge (to some extent) of all these athletics/activities listed here AND Title IX compliance.  So we think he's got s spot reserved in the center frying pan.

 Athletic “camps”
We also heard publicly this week that a large volume of athletic camps use SPASD fields and facilities, yet we haven't found the deposits we should see for the cost of using these facilities.

Another doubled edged sword here.  We appreciate the value of these camps and the dedication of the coaches.  But at the same time, all evidence points to the fact that fees charged for these camps are paid directly to the coaches.  It's great extra income for the coaches, but where is the taxpayers' share?  We ALL paid for these fields and facilities, and we look forward to revenue generated to help defray the cost of upkeep.  Oh yeah....and according to district policy KG, Procedure KG-R, and exhibit KG-E, they should be paying for the use of these fields.

Sure, it lightens the wad of bills in their pockets, but at the end of the day, those fields and facilities were not built for the purpose of generating personal income for anyone.

 Title IX
We haven't even begun to explore this one, but it is a major issue.  Again, kudos to Veep John Welke for taking the time to ask the question (although many may have missed it). There are a lot of aspects to Title IX compliance.  Are we confident that our school district administration (gulp) has been paying attention to the information below?  Based on the quality of information and level of detail we've seen to date, we're at little concerned that this may be another weakness.

Compliance is determined as follows:
The Policy Interpretation sets forth a three-part test: 1) whether the number of male and female students participating in athletics is “substantially proportionate” to their respective enrollments, or 2) if not, whether the school district can demonstrate a history and continuing expansion of the athletic program in response to the interest and abilities of the “underrepresented” gender; or 3) if the district cannot establish either of the first two circumstances, whether it can demonstrate that the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender have been “fully and effectively accommodated.”

Title IX: Athletic financing

It is also important to remember that contributions from private entities such as booster clubs are considered public money once they are accepted. Therefore, if a booster club provides benefits or services that assist only a team or teams of one gender, the district is obliged to ensure that teams of the other gender receive equivalent benefits and services, even if that means a reallocation of the district’s budget.

--http://www.asbj.com/MainMenuCategory/Archive/2012/August/Complying-with-Title-IX.html

The Sound of Sun Prairie (SOSP)
 This one we posted....but we don't want to lose sight of the issue.  Love that Sound....but loving it would be  a little easier if we were certain that all the i's have been properly dotted and t's properly crossed.

Sacred Cow Tipping

Oh we defy the very gods on this one... but here goes...

First, and foremost, let us be perfectly clear:  we believe that the Sound of Sun Prairie (SOSP) provides an incredible experience for kids in terms of self discovery, discipline, teamwork, and musical performance.

The purpose of this post is not to point fingers or knee cap The Sound.  Rather, some disconcerting information has come to light following recent school board discussions regarding athletics and activities.  These discussions provide us with a rare window of opportunity in which we can publicly discuss how the Sound meshes with the school district in terms of an educational component and an extra or co-curricular activity.

Is it a candy mint?  A breath mint? Or is it two...two mints in one?

The Certs twins.  Two...two mints in one

Those graying at the temples likely recall the old Certs jingle.  But it's all too fitting here.  Those at the School Board work-study session on July 30 heard that SOSP is a summer school course, and subsequently, we receive state aid because the kids in SOSP "count" towards the summer school enrollment.

What we find interesting, however, is that it seems to be an activity in two parts. It sounds as if the MORNING sessions (8-12) are the "summer school" segment.  After lunch, those kids that return are part of the "extra-curricular activity component".  BUT there is a "pay to play" clause.   In order to participate in the afternoon session, kids must pay a membership fee to the SOSP...a "sliding scale", as told by John Whalen, ranging from $650 to $1,000 or even more.  Ninth graders pay the low part of the sliding scale.  Kinda like marketing a new street high at a discount to hook newcomers.  Once they're hooked, the price goes up.

But...fees are not allowed for summer school classes!

Can a school district charge students for summer school?There shall be no cost to the resident student or parent beyond incidental supplies, textbook or similar items (workbooks) if the district claims state aid under s. 121.14 [State Aid for Summer Classes]. Additionally, if the student is a resident of the district and the class is necessary for a grade promotion, high school graduation, or is given credit toward graduation, the district may not charge for the instruction, building costs or apparatus. If the class is not required, credited or aided, the fees must be based upon the actual cost of the class. 

Ahhhh...see the problem...and the way around it?  The district does not charge a fee for ITS portion, but SOSP does for the OTHER portion.

Is it summer school?
Or is it something masked to LOOK like summer school?  The kids don't get grades or credits.  On its website, SOSP is billed as, "The Sound of Sun Prairie is a voluntary, extra-curricular marching band. "  So does SOSP know its a summer school "course".

So...it's an extracurricular activity?
That's what Jim McClowry labeled it...as a school sponsored "club or activity".  That's what SOSP calls itself.  And fees CAN be charged for activities.  But do we? Consistently?  For all activities?  And if it's an activity--not a summer school course--we shouldn't be receiving any state aid as a result of it (yet we do).  Confused yet?

How come they say the "fee" covers transportation
when the district pays for that???  And what's this about the fee
"covering" the SPASD activity fee?  We looked and couldn't find
ANY deposits to cover this. Hmmmm.

Why so secretive about the "membership fees"?
We searched mightily and could only find an outdated "estimate" of membership fees for 2011.

Well...it's kind of understandable, when they charge that much.  Yes...it's an awesome experience...but isn't it a bit north of the Have/Have Not line?   You know...in the Entitlements subdivision?

Oh...and it covers their "activity" fee too? Can anyone show us where the SPASD summer activity fee has been credited to SPASD?  We could find no such evidence looking at monthly deposits.

And if the school district pays at least $23,000 annually to cover SOSP costs that SOSP says are PART of the membership fee paid by kids, shouldn't those costs be subtracted from the membership fee?  There's roughly 100 SOSP kids.That means their membership fee should be reduced by $230 each (and we haven't even talked about an activity fee yet).  OR...the school district should be receiving a check for $23,000 PLUS an activity fee.  Hello!  Jim McClowry went to great lengths to explain why hockey kids should be gouged to the tune of $550 each because of less than $20,000 in ice time costs.  Here's a group that costs that much AND uses our facilities without paying a rental fee (hey...we charge the Special Olympics for Pete's sake!).....and the district gets NOTHING in return.

We just hope this doesn't jeopardize our state aid funding.  Does DPI REALLY know how this all works?  How could they...when WE don't even know how it works?

If SOSP is charging a whopper membership and the district does not receive a penny, why are taxpayers footing the bill for SOSP costs ?

Just looking at school district check registers over the past year (and we may have missed some) we came up with just under $23,000 in SOSP costs that the taxpayers/school district funded.  Why are we paying for these things when SOSP collects between $70,000 and $100,000 in membership fees annually?

Wait...isn't that MORE than we pay in ice time for hockey?  You know...hockey...as in the ones we were trying to gouge with a 275% fee increase to re-coup our costs?  Oh...that's right, there is no activity for for SOSP.

Perhaps there's an explanation, but without transparency in accounting, we won't have it.

Check run  Check#  Vendor              Inv. Date   Amount       Purpose

8/8/2011  109652  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL  07/08/2011  $55.00    SOSP SKYJACK PICK UP

8/8/2011  109652  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL  07/14/2011  $400.00   SOSP SKYJACK RENTAL

9/12/2011  110111  KOBUSSEN BUSES     07/31/2011  $4,669.59 PUPIL TRANS SOSP JULY

10/10/2011  110634  COLTS DRUM & BUGLE  08/31/2011  $12,655.00 SOSP EQUIP REPLACE

1/23/2012  112790  WARD BRODT MUSIC CO  12/31/2011  $330.00   SOSP EQUIP REPLACE 

6/11/2012  115768  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL   05/15/2012  $455.00   SOSP SKYJACK RENTAL

6/25/2012  115981  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL   05/21/2012  $55.00    SOSP SKYJACK PICKUP

6/25/2012  115981  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL   05/31/2012  $120.00   SOPS SKYJACK RENTAL

7/23/2012  116256  KOBUSSEN BUSES     06/30/2012  $3,926.35 PUPIL TRANS SOSP JUNE

7/23/2012  116327  FRED RENTS LLC     06/29/2012  $300.00     BG SOSP LIFT RENTAL

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

                                                 $22,965.94

And then there are the "stipends" we pay the SOSP leaders
Are you kidding us?  We pay the SOSP director (assuming 10 yrs experience) $8,700 but building leadership council members only a flat $500?  Or how about Curriculum Leadership Council members?  These are the teachers building the curriculum for...oh...you know...the actual education of our students?
And the most they get is $2,030...or less than what the SOSP "Assistant" receives?

And we also here that the band boosters or SOSP actually pay and additional stipend to the SOSP leaders.

Anything wrong with this picture?

What about kids that want the experience but cannot afford the membership fee?
It is Sun Prairie policy (and DPI rule) that economically disadvantaged kids shall not be charged extracurricular fees.  Since SOSP seems to operate outside of SPASD policies, we need to ask: are these same opportunities afforded for kids wishing to partake of the SOSP experience?  In his inimitable style, John Whalen attempted to put this to rest.  He stammered something like, "um...The Sound can offer scholarships...".  Great!  But having the ability to do something and actually doing something are horses of very different colors, Mr. Whalen?  Do you happen to know if any scholarships have actually been awarded?  Are they full scholarships (like SPASD) or do they just subsidize a few bucks?  What IS the policy?

What's all that spell?
We think it spells something like "needs further review".  Here's hoping the school board looks at this with as keen an eye as they did hockey fees.  And we better make DARN sure that DPI (A) knows the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and (B) there is no monkey business  that jeopardizes our receiving state aid for summer school.

Jimmy McClowry and the VERY Bummer Summer

Poor athletic director McClowry...
Monday July 30th should have been the last of his 30 day vacation.
But no vacation for him!
Instead he was the guest of honor at a school board work-study session looking into athletic fees and athletics and activities budget.

McClowry came out of the chute smoking, even presenting what some considered a thinly veiled "threat" when he noted the extreme turnover of athletic directors statewide and particularly in the Big 8 conference.  He concluded with, "Ladies and gentlemen, you are looking at the most tenured AD in the Big 8 conference with 6 years."

Over the course of the 2.5 hour meeting, McClowry...

• ...saw his proposed (and originally approved) hockey fees reduced from $375 down past the $200 last year fee down to the "Tier 3" level of $85.
• ...faced a number of questions regarding the inequities in his fee setting logic,
• ...referred multiple times to the need to "gradually change" fees to keep pace with other districts only to have board member Steve Schroeder (correctly we might add) that going from collecting $53K in fee revenue to $89K (a 68% increase) in fee revenue does not constitute "gradual"
• ...suffered the public unveiling of the "true" cost of Ashley Field maintenance (which the district has had for nearly 2 years) --in great detail--as $16K, far lower than the $60K the public had been told previously.
• ...also suffered from another revelation--another closely-held-to-the-vest estimate of $350K to build ANOTHER baseball field.  What we didn't learn was ....WHY.  Hmmm...and Dr. Culver wonders why at the public budget hearing people were concerned about "secret" budget initiatives.
• ...was forced to reveal a little know fact: that the FFA (Future Farmers of America) club has been (for 50 yrs?) the SOLE benefactor of concessions revenue from football games...to the tune of $33K per year!
• ...had to reveal that the DECA club is the sole benefactor of almost $30K in revenue generated from the SPHS student "store"...note that it is not the "DECA" store.
• ...had to reveal that the hockey program is "charged" for ice time and the golf program "charged" for greens fees, while none of the other sports are "charged" for the capital or maintenance cost of THEIR fields//facilities
• ...came under scrutiny by astute board member Mike Krachey for discrepancies in his data for coach stipends
• ...also came under scrutiny of board member Steve Schroeder who also astutely observed that we spend more money on both athletic coach stipends and activities advisors than we do on stipends for staff members writing K-12 curriculum.
• ...had to let it slip that while the district spends a fair amount of money on the Sound of Sun Prairie (SOSP), the district receives NO fee from any of the nearly 100 student participants.  Adding insult to injury, we learned from John Whalen that the SOSP itself charges students a "sliding scale" (increasing from grade 9 to grade 12) of anywhere from $650 to $1000 or more.  Hmmm...isn't that a little like a street dealer giving new customers a little break on the price of the goods to "hook them"?

Yes, folks, it seems that, unlike Judy Moody, Mr. McClowry had a VERY bummer summer.

But lest one think that the hammer came down on Mr. McClowry, the board was quite professional and made it clear that they did not want Mr. McClowry's budget to suffer as a result of their action.

TTYF

Meanwhile....Back In Sun Prairie....Can You Hear The Music?

...as in the Sound of Sun Prairie?

We keep hearing that that issue continues to heat up and is in danger of boiling over.  We hear more resignations are coming down the pipe.  We also hear that this issue of program unity and being delegated the authority to manage a program are the root issue...not passports.  There seems to be talk that the whole program could collapse like a house of cards.  That's pretty serious, folks.  We all know how valuable--and renowned-- the Sound is.  And next year will be the program's 40th anniversary.  Gutting or killing the program would be an unwise move.

The word on the street from multiple sources seems to indicate that the problem is most definitely not within the Sound.  The problem appears to be at the top of the pecking order, as in District Administrator Culver and Deputy DA Phil Frei.

In a shades of the boys basketball fiasco several years back (and who wouldn't have thought Administration would have learned there lesson there?), we're hearing multiple corroborations that 1, possible 2 parents (out of 99-100), took issue with having to obtain a passport to travel into Canada.

Get past for a moment that all kids sign a Commitment form that they will be one as a team and do what the team decides.  Because signing that form basically committed every kid to getting  a passport--because THAT is what "the Sound" said was the the way things would work.

Get past for a moment that the Sound has worked like this for many years.  It's not like they haven't gone to Canada before.  It's not like this getting passports was a new thing.

And then think about the fact that not one, but TWO administrators are purported to have told the disgruntled parents that, while they understand their position that passports are not absolutely required (and they are not), the program is requiring passports.  For the safety of the kids and for program unity, the program made a decision that passports would be required.  And 98 or 99% of parents were OK with that.  The other 1 or 2 went to the big dog with their complaint.

So...what's the problem?

Again...these are allegations until the wash cycle is complete, but we hear that the top level administration backed the disgruntled parents and indicated that passports would not be required. Geee...way to cut the program manager off at the knees.  Can you blame them for turning in their resignation?

Stay tuned, folks..and grab your hard hats.

TravelGate Hits Sun Prairie?

We recently learned that the director for the Sound of Sun Prairie has resigned amidst concerns regarding students needing passports to travel to Canada this summer.

We're in the process of sorting this one out and obtaining the FACTs--there's a lot of he said/she said going on at the moment.  Stay tuned as this will surely bring some more administrative faux pas to light.

from the 5-23-2011 School Board Personnel activity table
Extracurricular Resignations
Joe Mesner – Sound of Sun Prairie Director
Ian Melrose – Sound of Sun Prairie Assistant (during interim assignment)