Showing posts with label Special school board meeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special school board meeting. Show all posts

Thursday, June 2, 2011

DeForest Special Meeting Tonite...

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

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

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

And we love DA Bales' explanation for the lack of transparency about the raises:
Though Bales says that is not uncommon for such financial issues to be approved by the board without public discussion, others are uncomfortable with what they see as a lack of transparency.
---http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/blog/article_542f4f78-8c64-11e0-9016-001cc4c002e0.html

Sunday, April 10, 2011

School Board & FTT Committee Agendas for Monday 4-11-11

FTT (FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION) 6:00 PM at the Municipal Bldg

Greenhouse Pricetag: "not to exceed" $ 230,000
Link to agenda info
A greenhouse would be nice, but we haven't seen any fundraising effort to-date, and the pricetage increased from $150,000 when everyone realized there was plenty of referendum surplus dollars.

Policy DJ (Purchasing) Pricetag: anything under $25,000
Link to agenda info
Scary monsters? The District Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to purchase any single item or a quantity of the same item costing more than $5,000 but less than $25,000 upon the solicitation of at least three written bids.  Time to tighten the leash.

$1M for Capital Projects and
no District Office remodel costs???
2011-12 Buildings & Grounds Operating Budget Pricetag: $947,200 (+1.75%)
Link to agenda info


2011-12 Capital Projects Budget Pricetag: $975,000 (+37%)
Link to agenda info
Recalling the all too recent fiasco over the district office remodel, this one is worth digging into. Hmmm...if the Capital Projects budget this year was $950,000 and about $240,000 of that was for the ONE-TIME district office remodel, then doesn't a $975K budget represent a 37% increase? How believable is that given what we have learned recently? This one pegs the Funny Money meter.

2011-12 Technology Budget Pricetag: $486,579 (- 17.5%)
Link to agenda info

Moving School Board & Committee Meetings to the District Office Pricetag: at least $4,200/yr

REALLY! You're going to try AGAIN to move meetings to the district office? Really? After we paid fro broad band at the municipal building and they improved the microphone quality and K-SUN improved the video feed? Do you people just dream up more ways to spend money? Come on! Nothing ever does die with this board, does it?
Link to agenda info
===================================================================
SCHOOL BOARD 7:30 pm at the Municipal Bldg

Equity for employees... blah, blah, blah Pricetag: $ $32,495
Link to agenda info
Oh, PUH-llleeeeze! Tug at our frick'n heart strings one time! This one screams "NO"! Please Mr. Whalen...just once try something other than "All in favor, say aye...all opposed...same sign"

Retirement Rescissions Pricetag: $25,000-$30,000 per employee
Link to agenda info

2011-12 New Course Offerings Pricetag: $10,400
Link to agenda info

2011-12 Student Services Budget Pricetag: $94,055 (+2.44%)
Link to agenda info

2011-12 Instructional Services Budget Pricetag: $839,381 (+2.56%)
Link to agenda info

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Simplified Board Agenda for March 21, 2011

5.01 Human Resources & Relations Diversity Recruitment position ($ 75,000 annually)
This one has been sputtering and stalling since December 2008.  It was voted down in September, and motion to fill the position failed last month.  No new information is offered to support rationale that this position will solve--or at least be the linchpin in solving-- the districts minority staff recruitment and retention efforts.  Many things have been tried without success.  Some believe that this year, even without the position, may be easier for us to fill the expected 71 openings with some minorities as some districts with more diverse staff will have to CUT positions.  This is a Hail Mary effort to hire the position this year.  It has already been inserted into the budget as a budget parameter...UNLESS the school board takes action to remove it. 

6.02 Open Enrollment
92 students applying to ENTER (net 72 new to Sun Prairie)
150 students applying to LEAVE (net 32 existing student loss)  
A net increase will translate to need for further costs this year; next year (hopefully) we will receive more equalized aid due to the increase.

6.03 DO Remodel Project ($240,000 one-time)
 This is the gift that keeps on giving.  It started as a (seemingly) innocent $75K capital project.  Then we were told that it would cost $150K.  When all the questions are asked, it now sounds like $240K.  We don't particularly care for the smoke and mirrors, and the need is arguable.
  
6.04 Ashley Field Request for Cash#1:  $4,500 for architectural work
$1.7M ESTIMATE for the total package.  This starts the ball rolling. 

6.05 Raze the farmhouse located on the former Grosse property at 3550 Highway 19 in Sun Prairie
The building needs up to $24K of maintenance to make it rentable.  One pundit likens it to "the Money Pit".  Does the school board really want to get into the landlord business?  We don't think so.  Other options include selling the building and an acre or so "as is".  That would puts some cash in the coffers.  

6.07 Tim Culver's now infamous contract changes (6 wishes whittled to 5)
§ Please see Attachment 1 for analysis and discussion of the specific changes,
§ Please see Attachment 2 for the addendum of changes proposed to the employment contract.  Note: this addendum has slight language changes differing from the analysis in Attachment 1 due to final recommendations of the district’s legal counsel.
§ Please see Attachment 3 for a copy of the current employment contract

7.03 Replacement of Diving Boards (up to $6,800 one-time)
 Why is this under the "Consent Items" portion of the agenda---usually reserved for items the board is expected to unilaterally--and quickly---approve.  Heck, the freakin' Pool Manager even said we don't need new diving boards.  Exactly TWO SP kids even dive!  And the boards we purchased, while not tippity top shelf, are WIAA acceptable and more than "good enough".

8.05 Tim Culver's plea for Equity (we LOSE $32,500 by doing what Culver proposes)
Interesting from several angles, notably that NOW Culver is preaching equity when it affects the big dogs' collective take home pay.  No one seems concerned that his proposal would still leave the Local 60 folks paying more than their fair share.

And why is this under "Informational Items"?  Shouldn't the board be proposing some ACTION?
Culver: "We aren't strapped for this $32,000 in this year’s budget".  SP-EYE: "$32K would buy an awful lot of school supplies."



Sunday, August 22, 2010

Budget Session: Which School Board Members Tried to Lower Your Taxes

Referendum Surplus:  (~ $80,000)
John Welke: Other than the money reserved for the greenhouse, we have about $80,000...couldn't that be applied against the debt levy?
Jim "Seabass" McCourt:  I say none [be applied to the debt levy].
John Whalen:  The feedback I got was, "we approved it so spend it all".
John Welke: I wouldn't restrict yourself to a figure of $80,000.  I'd say whatever the surplus is we apply it against the debt levy.  Suggested the board needed to decide whether or not to commit to the greenhouse.

School Board Salaries (Budget calls to re-instate the 5% cut made at the annual meeting last October)
John Welke:  We need to do some more whittling.  I think restoring board stipends would be a mistake; the community was clear.  We should freeze board salaries at 2008-09 levels.

Contracts vs. Budget (Board recently settled with Administrators for a 1% increase; 1% increase in health insurance premium co-pay; 2% increase in dental premium co-pay.  Amount budgeted has not been shared, but word is that the budget planned for a 2.5% increase and NO increases to health/dental premium co-pay.
John Welke: Some contracts have been settled at a savings over what was budgeted; where is that savings?
[Phil Frei:  We haven't made that adjustment yet]

Enrollment (Budget called for 133 new students).  We get about $6,000 in state aid for each new student.  But the accounting is based on a 3-year average, so "new" students count only 1/3.    
John Welke:  asked where we are at with enrollments and how that factors into the budget.
Phil Frei:  As of today the count is at +291 students, but we don't know yet how many won't show up.
Welke: Are there any proactive efforts we can take to identify those that might be leaving the district?

SP-EYE note:  if the number stands at 291, that means the state aid revenue increases by approximately $300-$325,000.  IF the new students do not require hiring any additional positions, the tax levy COULD be reduced by that amount.

$1.3M Surplus from 2009-10
John Welke:  When are we going to see where we saved the money?  Can we apply some of the surplus against the tax levy?
Jim McCourt:  Proposed using $500K of the surplus to apply against the tax levy and $200K for property tax chargebacks.
John Whalen:  "My thought as well...the message was loud and clear that people want something from fund balance".

Attendance at State School Board Conference (Budgeted amount ~ $4500)
Jim McCourt:  I would suggest we not attend the conference; cut $4500.
David Stackhouse: I disagree with taking the school board budget for the state conference out.
John Whalen:  I agree [with Stackhouse]

SP-EYE note:  Hmmm...maybe Stackhouse just liked the looks of those sea bass dinners that McCourt had.

Chamber of Commerce Membership (~$1300)
John Welke:  Any thoughts on that Tim [Culver]?
Culver:  The chamber is a little disappointed.  It's an opportunity to work with the business community.
Welke:  We can still work with them...we don't have to be a member...right?
Decision: Postpone for input from Terry Shimek, the Chamber liaison.

SP-EYE note:  What's the point?  Shimek will probably find a reason to abstain from any vote.

Early estimate of the 2011-12 budget picture
Caren Diedrich:  Phil, do you have an inkling of what the tax levy for 2011-12 might be?
Phil Frei: "It can't be good given the state budget picture".

Legal Representation at Expulsion Hearings
Caren Diedrich:  If we're still looking at reductions, we've had about 30 expulsion hearings in the past 2 years.  Do we really need to involve an attorney at those hearings?

National Travel Budget ($15,000)
John Welke:  $15K for national travel...what would that be for?
Phil Frei: 2 board members used to go to the national school board conference; the national Math conference.
Welke:  If we don't attend the state school board conference, is there really value in attending at the national level?  I'd be in favor of at least reducing the budget by the amount for board members.
John Whalen:  I'd rather set some $$ than no $$.
Jim McCourt: I don't want to see us fall beyond by not attending [and catching on to the latest information].

Substitute Teachers
Caren Diedrich:  Administration should give a little more scrutiny to when we need substitute teachers.  At the high school level...send them to study hall.

Staff Development [Budgeted $20,000]  Curriculum Development [Budgeted $10,000]
John Welke:  Is there any opportunity there [to reduce those budget items] without directly impacting students?

Building and Department budgets [restored 5% budget cut, costing ~ $200K]
John Welke:  How much of that $200K would go directly to teachers and their classrooms? [about 50%]
Welke:  Instead of restoring the full 5%, could we restore 2-3% [of non-school budgets]
Welke:  I'm nervous about restoring too much too fast.  What if property values [equalized value] drops by 1% instead of being flat as budgeted?

Purchasing
Jill Camber-Davidson:  Is there anything we can do with purchasing, for example buying at Office Depot [where we have a purchase contract discount] rather than Walmart?
....................................................
So...when push comes to shove...how did your duly elected representatives try to help you out? The tally:
John Welke: Identified 9 budget line items ripe for reduction (didn't get much support).
Caren Diedrich: Raised 3 budget areas that could be targeted for cuts...but most were pretty out there.
Jill Camber-Davidson: Not very vocal.  Only spoke about one area to make reductions.
Jim McCourt: Net Zero.  Wanted to make 2 cuts, but voiced opposition to 2 others.
Terry Shimek:  Net Zero...because he wasn't there.
David Stackhouse:  Minus 1. Not very vocal.  Did not support cutting school board budget to attend state conference....which we find intersting since, based on "policy", he wouldn't be eligible to attend.
John Whalen:  Net Minus 1.5.  Supported 1 reduction, opposed 2 others.  On a 3rd we gave him only half (negative credit) for wanting to spend "some".

All in all, not much was accomplished because no votes were taken.  It's really not clear what impact this session had on the budget.  The two things that were clear: (1) the tax levy will be reduced by $500K out of the $1.3M surplus, and (2) John Welke was the only board member targeting areas for budget reductions.  And all he spoke about were administrative areas that do not affect the education of our kids.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Board Switches From "What Can We Cut?" to "How Can We Sell This Budget?"

The special school board working session to review the budget last night began with another 30 minute slide show. Just in case the school board doesn't recall what the mission is, or how the budget has progressed.

Then, for about 30 minutes, board members kicked around possible areas where the budget could be trimmed.

That done, the tone suddenly changed. All five school board followers in attendance felt the change very clearly in the air. The discussion at the table changed. Only newest board member John Welke (showing clearly that he hasn't sipped from the KoolAid ) wanted to discuss budget reductions. For the rest of the board, the discussion for the last 90 minutes focused intently on "How Can We Sell This Budget to the Community?".

We should mention of course, to be fair, that Caren Diedrich did propose one cost cutting measure: not having an attorney present during expulsion hearings. Shee...YAH! McFly!!! Isn't that like the ONE venue in which you absolutely positively WANT legal representation? We may not LIKE paying those expensive legal beagles...but...we're talking about going off the road at a serious mile marker on a student's life highway. Just maybe we want an attorney present to make sure we don't...you know...fail to follow policy or something. Ya know?

The undertone of the evening was essentially, "Bring it on, community. This is the best it's going to get...and it's better than what we told you it would be during the referendum planning (more on that to come)!". We wonder if these board members are poker players. Not big gamblers, here, but that would be a game we'd want in on.

Oh...the evening wasn't without SOME reductions. There WAS consensus to use $500K of fund balance (interesting figure, about exactly equal to the projected increase from where it started last year) to lower the tax levy.  Gee...the prodigal saviors of fund balance might finally be getting it.  But $500 K?  When you had a $1.3 MILLION surplus?  Good luck with that.  Beware the Ides of October.

The bottom line is that with some minuscule snipping, it is expected that the proposed tax levy will be just about 5% over last year.

The good news....that's less than the 8% we heard back in March.
The not-so-good news...it's still 5%.  Anyone ...wait...anyone who does NOT work for the school district get a 5% raise this year?  Anyone get a raise, period?

Stay tuned for more info from last night's meeting....

Saturday, August 14, 2010

A Concerned School Board? Special Budget Work Session on Monday

Where's that smoke coming from? Oh...wait...its from the seat of the school board's pants! Someone must have lit a fire under their collective buttocks, because...surprise, surprise...they're holding a special working session to roll up their sleeves and see if the budget can be pared down.

According to the prep documents, the tax levy increase has been reduced from bout 8.6% as of March to about 6.3% at present. Of course administration will preen and suggest that this is all their handiwork, but we know better...don't we. The SAGE reduction is a gift from the state....not our doing. Similarly a reduction in the Tier 3 "negative aid"---which isn't being discussed" is actually a result of the community tightening the screws at last year's annual electors meeting.

YES, the meeting is open to the public.
While the board CAN allow for public input, they usually do not. Of course, if enough concerned taxpayers show up and put their best, "I've got something to say, you need to hear us, and I will be brief" faces on...who knows what will happen? This would not be the venue for a 20 minute filibuster (ahem...you know who you are!)...but brief pointed comments.

Aug 16, 2010 - SCHOOL BOARD WORK-STUDY ON 2010-2011 ANNUAL BUDGET

6:00 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.


Subject: Review, discussion and possible action on 2010-2011 annual budget

Type: Action, Discussion


See the preparatory information

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Finally! School Board Talks Turkey (and Budget)

This past Wednesday night, the school board, possibly bowing to public [cough, cough] pressure, held a "work/study" meeting to discuss the status of the 2010-11 budget.

School District Budget Projections

General Budget: $72,000,000 [ 4.8% increase over 2009-10- $68.65M]
• Enrollment Growth: 133 students [based on UW-APL estimate]
• State aid: 11% increase
• Property value growth: 1% [last year was 0.92%]
Levy Increase: 8.6% = $48.05M [last year= $44.25M]
Mill Rate Increase: 7.6% = $12.10/ $1,000 [last year was $11.24]
(That's an additional $0.86 per $1,000, or $215 on a $250K home)
• Below state revenue limits by at least $600,000

The budget is based on 9 Parameters:
1. Adherence to the "Mission Statement"
yada yada

2. Dedication to the district "Priorities"
more yada yada

3. Compliance with statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
yada yada continues

4. Maintain existing district class size guidelines, including SAGE criteria for Bird and Westside; no "+/- 2" used for Creekside.
(Note: 9th grade will be moving from a 7 to 8 period day. This will require a 15% increase in staffing due to contract requirements.
We know. The day isn't any longer, but there are 15% (8÷7) more classes to teach. WTF!

5. Open the new high school and upper middle school safely, effectively, and efficiently
Secondary staffing plan Grades 6-12. Calls for hiring 22.2 new staff:
•Teachers: 11.1 FTE
•Support Staff: 9.3 FTE
•Admin. Support: 0.8 FTE
•Ass’t Principal: 1.0 FTE

Culver seemed to indicate that this was less than originally planned, but we were told $1.1M in new costs to open the new high school, and the district uses a figure of about $50K per FTE for budgeting. Funny thing: 22.2 X $50,000 equals $1.1M

6. Fulfill SPEA contract
Sheee-ah! like there was a choice!

7. Do NOT ask voters to exceed revenue limits.
This is big. That being said...sheee-ah!

8. Balanced budget; use fund balance to pay any tax charge-backs
Notified to date of about $110,000 in property tax charge-backs.
This from the folks that were screaming to never touch fund balance 6 months ago.

9. As small an increase in the local levy & mill rate as possible

The Budget Projections are based on 7 key assumptions
1. Budget was developed using the RW Baird forecast model

2. Use UWAPL data to predict enrollment of 133 more students


3. No changes in state law, DPI regulations, or district policies

4. No cuts in state equalized aid in the 2nd year of this biennium

5. 4K Grant is received (budget assumes $575,000 received)

6. Property Values Grow 1 %

7. The 2010-11 budget includes all the borrowing needed for the new HS, 8/9 school and the pool.
The borrowings were done at much lower interest rates than were used during the referendum saving $39.9 M in interest costs compared to what was originally projected


The district propaganda, meeting notes, and questions from the board to the district can be found here:
District Powerpoint overview of the budget

Meeting Notes

Follow-up questions from the school board

Monday, February 15, 2010

Board to actually discuss the 2010-11 budget!

No...it's not an April Fools joke...too early for that.

There is a trick, though...

Since it's a "work-study" meeting, the board does not have to take any public comments.
Of course, if the board truly wanted to support community engagement (Hint!, Hint!!) they might do so. At times, ex-board president Stackhouse would ask the public for its thoughts, even during "working" sessions.

We'll see what President John E has in store.


02/17/2010 (Wednesday)
SCHOOL BOARD WORK-STUDY ON 2010-2011 ANNUAL BUDGET,
6:00 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100),
501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.
President: John Whalen

Agenda Type: Discussion
You don't suppose the board actually read this blog and decided to get some movement on the budget, do you? Naaaaaahhhhhh.