Fixing a Hole Where the Reign Gets In - Pt. 2

In Part I, we looked at the law behind the school district tax levy.  In Part II, we'll explore what exactly went wrong.  The reins of this budget were shanghaied by a clever and concerted effort of a group of individuals with ties to the school district.  In theory, the school board reigns over the realm of the school district.  In practice, however, the annual meeting was literally raining with the fingerprints of Tim Culver's reign.

The Seditional Six
A number of budget initiatives were proposed by staff and up-channeled to district administration.  District administration whittled this list down to six (6) unfunded initiatives which they wished the school board to approve as additions to the budget.  Despite numerous opportunities, however, the school board declined to do so.

Note: "initiative" itself means an introductory step or action.  And if it's introductory, that means it's NEW.  Clearly these :initiatives" were proposals to EXPAND, not MAINTAIN, the school district.

Opportunities everywhere, but the board wasn't drinking this Kool-Aid
There were many opportunities for public input.  Two themes were prevalent: one faction (supported by administration) wished the board to add $600,000 to the 2012 budget expenditures for the Seditional Six initiatives.

• Public hearings on the budget were held on  June 16, 2011 and July 18, 2011.
• The 2011-12 budget was discussed at the Finance Committee meetings held on January 24th and July 25th.  Various pieces of the budget were discussed at other Finance Committee meetings.
• The school board held special working sessions on the budget on March 16th and August 25th , 2011.  These sessions were open to the public.
• The 2011-12 budget was discussed and formally adopted at full meeting of the school board held on September 12th, 2011.  This final, formal budget did not include any of the aforementioned 6 budget initiatives.  The school board had formally adopted its 2011-12 budget, and with much opportunity for community input, had opted not to fund these initiatives in light of the economy's growing strain on district taxpayers.   They did their jobs, as difficult as it might have been

---

4.03 2011-2012 Proposed Budget - September 12, 2011

Motion by Jim McCourt, second by Caren Diedrich 

TO APPROVE THE 2011-2012 PROPOSED BUDGET.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried on a vote of  6-0-1 (board member Welke absent)

---

The situation report contained two critical statements:
4. No allocation of budget dollars for any new initiatives
10. A combined (general and debt) tax levy increase of 3.48%

At NONE of these meetings did the school board ever vote to fund any of the 6 "new" budget initiatives.  There was discussion at at least one meeting that "if money became available" the board would attempt to fund as many initiatives as possible, but no formal vote to do so was made prior to the annual meeting.

That is it folks, your elected leaders repeatedly said, "These initiatives clearly show potential benefit, yet due to the economic climate we are not incorporating them into the 2011-12 budget."  The board determine that they were not "necessary to operate or maintain schools".

Then came the Annual Meeting
The Annual Electors meeting was held on October 17, 2011.  Another large turnout materialized, this one heavily populated by school district administrators, teachers, and parent groups.  Together they supported the 6 unfunded new initiatives, and overwhelmed the annual meeting.

Annual meeting slides
regarding "unfunded" budget initiatives

The school district budget presentation indicated a Projected ‐Overall Tax Levy of $47,087,483 or 3.48% increase.  But the presentation also included three slides devoted to the six top budget initiatives which the board did not include in its budget.  What was this? Some Hail Mary attempt to incite the crowd to action?  At this point, what else was the purpose?  Why not show all thirty something initiatives that had been brought forward?  Why not a slide indicating that the district would like to issue 10% raises across the board?  

But during the budget discussion was when two very interesting --and telling-- public comments were made:

 Jan Fournier, 2563 Prairie Dog Dr., Sun Prairie, supports the school district proposal to increase the tax levy. Wisconsin has quality schools and she doesn’t want to see them deteriorate. 

 Pastor Harold Rayford, 1300 School St., Sun Prairie, commended this Board in making sure we have an excellent school district. Asked what we would have to add to the motion to make sure all six initiatives are included. Phil Frei stated we would need a tax levy set at $47,354,483.
Source:  Minutes of the 2011-12 Annual Electors meeting

Funny how Ms. Fournier got the impression that the school district was presenting this as a proposal at the annual electors meeting, eh?


Funny how Pastor Rayford seemed to know precisely what to ask to circumvent the board and 9 months of public input to push forth an agenda at the 11th hour.

Funny how quickly Mr. Frei came up with the new tax levy required to fund all 6 initiatives, eh?


Funny what can happen when many residents had come to grips with a 3.48% tax levy increase and therefore decided that there was no reason to attend the annual meeting, eh?  After all...the budget had been adopted. 

Actually, not very funny at all.  Disturbing, we'd say.

The Unconscionable Efforts of Mr. McCourt and Mr. Frei
The problem here was the district's "slide show" on the budget.  What SHOULD have been presented was a very concise summary of the budget composition, the proposed tax levy, and projected impact on property tax bills.  Instead, a conscious decision was made to insert slides designed to resurrect budget initiatives --not anything critical to operate an maintain schools, mind you-- which the board had decided against funding due to the economic climate.  Note that the board DID say that the district should fund these initiatives if savings could be found within the budget.  The importance piece was that the board did not feel comfortable adding permanent staff at a time when budgets were extremely tight.  There was a clear agenda here, and that was to use the Annual; Elector's Meeting to revise the budget adopted by the board on September 12th.

Board president John Whalen has graciously offered to fall on the sword and take responsibility for what happened.  Realistically, however, Mr. McCourt and Mr. Frei worked together to develop the slide show.  They KNEW that the board had not approved funding the initiatives.  McCourt personally voted to fund the initiatives.

While we can't prove it, we also strongly suspect that certain comments were seeded from district administration to key residents to "start the ball rolling" at the annual meeting.  This budget and the tax levy were hijacked, pure and simple.

Someone or someones created a few gaping holes in the roof of this school board.  At the annual meeting, the roof was clearly leaking, and Culver's reign came through in buckets.

You gotta give' em credit for ingenuity.  But this is the poorest of form.  Tossing out 9 months of public comment and a school board adopted budget to operate and maintain schools, only to be hijacked by a special interest group --one with a conflict of interest-- at the Annual Meeting.

Later on at the board's October 24th meeting at which the final tax levy was approved and the original adopted budget had to be subsequently modified, board member Terry Shimek showed his stripes.  He insisted that he could not go against the will of the electors.  Mr. Shimek needs to re-read ch. 120, Wis. Stat.s, and pay attention to the Atty. General;'s opinion this time.

This School Board Member Is Engaged...NOT!

School Board Member hard at work...sawing logs.
Shimek Elected Chairman of the Bored.
Is that a bee we hear...of wait...never mind...it's Terry Shimek snoring...again.
We could do this all day, folks.

School board member Terry Shimek...who is up for re-election this spring... has been caught dozing pretty frequently.  If you watch closely, on lengthy discussions, his eyelids start drooping, and then he eventually nods off.  Lately it's been worse.  He's had to be nearly nudged awake.  At last week's board work session, he actually just started snoring.  Some board members leave water rings at the board table from their bottles of water (Koolaid?).  With Mr. Shimek, we're starting to fear that he might be leaving sleep drool rings.  Word for the day, folks, there's actually a term for it: sialorrhea.

Either Mr. Shimek's heart is no longer in the game, or he has some health issues that need to be addressed.  Regardless, this is not the level of board member that the taxpayers deserve.
Either stay awake for the meetings, or step down.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Terry!  Better yet...wake up and DRINK some coffee.

Seriously, Mr. Shimek...perhaps you should file that notice of non-candidacy.  Something's not right.
Either that or maybe you should start downing some Venom energy drink before meetings.

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

On Monday's Menu: Mandarin

Not the food.  That would be just fine.  The course is the problem.
It passed the committee level this past Monday and on the 14th it goes to the full board.

Problem #1
Here's our first problem.  This is a major shift; an introduction of a whole new language.  One with a plan to offer II,III, and IV plus AP all in the next several years.  Yet, it's lumped in with 7 other courses within the agenda heading, where you vote Yes/No on the entire suite: 2012-2013 New Courses: AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination); Chinese I; Arts of Industry; African Literature; Native American/Latin American Literature; Science of Motion; Weather and Climate

Solution: It takes a board member motion to pull out the Chinese I for a separate discussion/vote.

Problem #2: It's further lumped within  the class "Consent Items", which itself is a lumping of 12 OTHER agenda items.  Yup...the board is all revved up to rubber stamp all 12, which includes the introduction of Chinese language.

Solution: So now a board member must motion to pull agenda item 6.07 (2012-2013 new course proposals) from "Consent" and further pull Chinese I out separately from that!!!! 

See the concern?  Administration is burying what amounts a potentially very expensive major curriculum move two tiers deep.  Hide much?  And why are we hiding it?  Is it because it's Tim Culver's legacy to be and everyone is bowing to King Culver's wishes?

At issue
Course Title: CHINESE I
Sounds like any other language class, right?  French I.  Spanish I.

E. Course Description: Provide a short but complete descriptive paragraph about this course to be
used in the course catalog. Include a brief outline of learning expectancies, intended content, and plans for assessment, i.e. brief form of a syllabus.
Chinese I is an introductory course in Mandarin Chinese. Students will learn fundamental skills in
listening, speaking, reading and writing. They will also learn about many aspects of Chinese culture from
pop culture to calligraphy, from festivals to how culture is embedded in everyday interactions. Class
activities will include role playing, stories, poetry, songs, recipes for culturally authentic food, student
presentations and more. Resources will include materials from a standards-based textbook and authentic
materials such as music and stories. Students should expect homework every day outside of class.
Does THAT sound like a language course?

List the major learning targets (what you want the students to know and be able to do).
Chinese I is an introductory course in Mandarin Chinese, incorporating listening, speaking, reading and writing skills into a standards-based approach. Students will be able to engage in conversations on topics of everyday interest, successfully engage in targeted listening activities based on textbook and authentic materials, recognize and be able to read and compose texts using at least 100 of the most commonly used Chinese characters. They will be able to identify and discuss various patterns of behavior and interactions typical of Chinese culture and understand underlying cultural perspectives.

Time hit the brakes on this one
The expense for just Level I is over $5000, not including the costs of sending Culver and Heipp to China.  Not only is developing a Mandarin Chinese program Culver's last stand, but this is something driven by the Chinese government.  We didn't want the big corporate spectre of Pepsi of Coke...why do we ant to do something which is the brainchild of the Chinese government?

The studies abound that will tell you that Chinese is THE most difficult language to learn, and has virtually zero value unless one is planning on moving to China or working for a Chinese corporation.  If you want to teach a language that will directly and immediately help kids with their learning TODAY, it's LATIN (yes, Mr. Shimek...Latin.  We heard all about your lack of decorum when Latin was suggested at the committee level.  Seems like you are back to your old unprofessional skills you used to show at Finance Committee meetings, remember Terry?).  Laugh all you want, the number of studies that support learning Latin far outweigh those supporting Mandarin Chinese.

Bad Form (again),
Mr. Shimek!
Board member Terry Shimek got busted
once again for  chuckling when another
'committee member suggested Latin might
be of more value to kids than Mandarin Chinese.

Common Latin phrases used in every day america

Didn't we just cancel the German language program only now to be quietly re-starting it behind the scenes?  Is Chinese going to go away after we've invested precious tax dollars into it?  Heck we don't even have a commitment that students are interested in taking it!

Do we really need to be part of the "cool kids"...you know the 31 WI school districts (out of 424) that offer Mandarin Chinese?  Isn't that small a set kind of like being in a clique?  And aren't "cliques" a big part of bullyism?

A move like this should not be buried two tiers deep within a Consent Agenda.  At the bare minimum it should be its own agenda item.  The school board should take it's time on this one.  This isn't adding "a" course.  It's launching a major initiative.

And what's the real end game here?

Some good (quick read) links

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6669953/forget-mandarin-latin-is-the-key-to-success.thtml

Unlike other languages, Latin isn’t just about conjugating verbs. It includes a crash course in ancient history and cosmology. “Latin is the maths of the Humanities,” says Llewelyn Morgan, “But Latin also has something that mathematics does not and that is the history and mythology of the ancient world. Latin is maths with goddesses, gladiators and flying horses, or flying children.”  

“In 1971, more than 4,000 fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade pupils of all backgrounds and abilities received 15 to 20 minutes of daily Latin instruction. The performance of the fifth-grade Latin pupils on the vocabulary test of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills was one full year higher than the performance of control pupils who had not studied Latin. Both the Latin group and the control group had been matched for similar backgrounds and abilities

Llewelyn Morgan, an Oxford Classicist and co-author of a recent Politeia pamphlet on why Latin should be taught in primary schools. “Those kids are learning through Latin what I did: what verbs and nouns are, how to coordinate ideas in speech and writing, all the varieties of ways of saying the same thing,” he says. “I did not and could not have learned that through English, because English was too familiar to me. It was through Latin that I learned how to express myself fluently in my native language.”

Mark Zuckerberg. The 26-year-old founder of Facebook studied Classics at Phillips Exeter Academy and listed Latin as one of the languages he spoke on his Harvard application. So keen is he on the subject, he once quoted lines from the Aeneid during a Facebook product conference and now regards Latin as one of the keys to his success.

http://lissie.hubpages.com/hub/Which-Language-is-Easiest-for-an-English-Speaker-to-Learn

However economically important Chinese may be this ignores the fact that it is incredibly difficult to learn languages which have no vocabulary in common with English, are written in a different script and are tonal to boot - the same word can have completely different meaning depending on whether you use a rising, falling or flat inflection! Its a bit like expecting a student to study calculus without having to learn basic arithmetic!

Spanish will take you as a first or second language from Texas south to Argentina. The only exceptions are 

Portuguese  speaking Brazil, English speaking Belize and Dutch and French speaking Guyanas. In addition Spanish is spoken in Spain. It gets better Spanish and Italian are so close that they are mutually comprehensible. Portuguese, French, Romanian are also closely related languages. Spanish will take you a long way around the world.

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/robert-lane-greene/should-you-teach-your-kids-chinese

So should you teach your kids Chinese? Well, foreign languages are always a good thing to know, and if you really want them to live and work intensively in China, sure. But despite China’s rise, Chinese isn’t the world language of the future; the writing system simply makes it far too hard for the vast majority of the world’s people to use if they care to reach for the widest possible audience. I simply can’t imagine a Dutch physicist in 2110 learning Chinese in order to write up his research, or Finnish musicians recording in Chinese, the language “everybody” knows.

If China switches to an alphabet? That’s a different story

http://www.thechinaexpat.com/5-reasons-why-learning-chinese-could-be-a-waste-of-your-time/

Why Learning Chinese Could Be a Waste of Your Time

1. Many Well Educated Chinese People Would Prefer to Speak to You in English

2. Little Applicable Value Outside of China

3. Possible Negative Market Value 

4. Huge Opportunity Cost 

5.  Non-Negligible Maintenance Costs 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Which-is-the-Easiest-Language-to-Learn?-Rating-the-14-Most-Popular-Course-Offerings&id=656519

Difficulty, according to Uncle Sam

First, consider some cold facts. The U.S. State Department groups languages for the diplomatic service according to learning difficulty:

Category 1.

 The "easiest" languages for speakers of English, requiring 600 hours of classwork for minimal proficiency: the Latin and Germanic languages. However, German itself requires a bit more time, 750 hours, because of its complex grammar.

Category 2

 Medium, requiring 1100 hours of classwork: Slavic languages, Turkic languages, other Indo-Europeans such as Persian and Hindi, and some non-Indo-Europeans such as Georgian, Hebrew and many African languages. Swahili is ranked easier than the rest, at 900 hours.

Category 3.

 Difficult, requiring 2200 hours of study: Arabic, Japanese, Korean and the Chinese languages.

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...

The Other Side of the Fence - Climate Change Hitting Sun Prairie?

Has anyone else noticed that over the past year or so, our school board is slowly showing signs of reality? There has been a subtle shift, starting with the spring 2010 election. We've gone from a 7-0 board of rubber stampers, who simply smile for the camera, speak in superlatives, and bow to each and every desire of Dr. Culver and his Administration.

Over time, however, we've seen more and more split votes. Recently, we've seen a spate of 4-3 votes coming down on the side that the majority of the community supports. Is this the new norm? Unfortunately, when the vote is 4-3, SOMEONE needs to be the swing vote. That individual rides the fence until forced to commit to one side or the other. Our fence sitter is none other than Terry Shimek. The swing vote holder becomes the most powerful individual on a split board. One side or another may try to sway them outside of the public eye. Anyone wonder how many calls on Shimek's cellphone have come from Whalen or McCourt recently?

Shimek represents the swing vote because he has had such a fascination for waffles over the past year. Listen to him during board discussion and he leans one direction, only to inevitably vote the opposite. He could play Harvey Dent in the next Batman film. Shimek claims to be a fiscal conservative and for the most part poses logical questions in response to budget initiatives. What we need to figure out is how to keep him on that track.

Case in Point: The Human Resources Specialist position
Shimek waffled quite a bit during the lengthy discussion phase(s) of this issue. When pressed, he voted in favor of staying a vote. Ultimately, however, when John Welke made the motion heard round the district, Shimek was all in.

This past week, however, we learned that the district believed that even though they have decided not to fill the Human Resources position, they still get to keep--and spend-- the $75,000 earmarked for the position ion the 2011-12 budget. Excuse us! But what part of "NO NEW MONEY" did Culver, Frei, and McCourt not understand?

Motion & Voting

Hire up to 1.0 FTE, 260 days per year, Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist as soon as practical using the approved job description. This position would be a "project position" expiring at the end of FY 2012-13 unless specifically reauthorized by the School Board after January 1, 2013. This position would be in the Administrative Support Staff group with a salary not to exceed $55,016 ($26.45 per hour) per school year with funding coming only from grants and/or existing or reallocated administrative or administrative support staff FTE.

Motion by John M Welke, second by Terry Shimek.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried 3-2
Yea: David Stackhouse, John M Welke, Terry Shimek
Nay: Caren Diedrich, John Whalen

Now it sounds as if McCourt and Culver have been plotting to re-consider the position again. Do these people EVER lose graciously? The community heard discussion, and the district made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to sacrifice anything to have this position that is as the top of their want list. Could it be that even THEY don't think that one position is going to solve the cultural disparity in this district? And if they decide they don't want the position, they still want to spend the $75,000!!!! Terry Shimek seemed to be waffling again, as his comments seemed to be moving to support either re-considering the position or allowing the district to spend the $75,000 elsewhere. That's not being fiscally responsible. We've seen over $1M in surplus in each of the past 2 years despite "tight" economic times. No bloodflow has been staunched by belts being overly tightened.

The Rubber Stamp Gang
The "old guard", who've never heard a Culver recommendation they didn't love, consists of Caren Diedrich, John Whalen, and Jim McCourt. These folks so live in fear of being labeled "micro-managers", that they leave everything up to Culver. If he says the district needs it, they're conductors on his train. They seem to believe that if they do not vote "YES" in support of every district desire, that quality of education in Sun Prairie will shrivel like....like...a raisin.

The Voices of Reason
Then we have the "new blood", consisting of Jill Camber Davidson, John Welke, and now Tom Weber. These people LISTEN to the community, carefully WEIGHT the benefits of any district request against the costs of such a move, without compromising the quality of education provided.

The Man in the Middle
That leaves Mr. Shimek. It's gotta be painful straddling the fence like that. Where will he come down?

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.

What'll it be for TV? The Pack? Or the Shimek Shuffle

Tomorrow night is gonna be a tough one, folks.
Of course, there's the Packer game to watch.
But...like all those enticing new fall shows, you also have the option of seeing if Terry Shimek will once again do the Shimek Shimmy & Shuffle and change his original vote, this time voting to spend $69,000 to hire a NEW administrative position.  Just what we need...right?  For a guy that wants to be pegged a fiscal conservative, he sure changes his votes and supports a lot of administrative fluff.

And of course they say $69,000...but that's ONLY salary.  Tack on another $30,000 or so to cover benefits.
Yes...we DO need to increase the diversity of our district staff.
But...and without going into detail...this district KNOWS that there's some....shall we call it "housekeeping" to be done before we're really ready to do that.

The community is hurting, the district is in need of serious climate changing...so we think this position needs to be put on hold...as the board voted 2 weeks ago.

Minutes of the September 13, 2010 school board meeting.
5.04 Approval of a 2010-2011 Proposed Budget
Motion by John Whalen, second by Jim McCourt
 TO APPROVE THE2010-11 PROPOSED BUDGET WITH A REDUCTION OF $670,000, AND ADD
HUMAN RELATIONS AND RECRUITMENT SPECIALIST FOR $69,000.
Motion Failed
Board members who WANTED to add the position:
Yea: Caren Diedrich, Jim McCourt, John Whalen


Board members that did not
Nay: David Stackhouse, Jill Camber Davidson, John M Welke, Terry Shimek

For those keeping score at home...if this vote passes tomorrow night, you may wanna chalk up another $100,000 that the tax levy can be reduced in 2 weeks.  They can vote for it, but we, the people, do not have to support a levy to do so.

Tall Tale Terry

On Monday August 9, school board member--and acting president-- Terry Shimek professed that he was "offended" by remarks made by community resident Rick Mealy.

Tall tales
During his tongue-lashing, Mr. Shimek told --for the TV cameras and the general public-- the very tall tale that he had "taken Mr. Mealy out to lunch and had several phone conversations with him regarding the Finance Committee".  That didn't happen, Mr. Shimek...and (unless senility is rushing in) YOU KNOW IT!  Without a doubt Mr. Mealy told us that you told him that you PLANNED to take him out to lunch, as you had the other citizen representative.  But...and perhaps because you were a tad miffed that the SP-EYE blog exposed another tall tale...said lunch meeting never was scheduled.  Can you tell the public WHEN and WHERE you and Mr. Mealy had this alleged lunch?  Of course not...because it did not happen.

Those phone calls
Now tell the truth, Mr. Shimek...isn't it also true that the only time you spoke with Mr. Mealy on the phone was in returning HIS call to YOU last September regarding the board meeting of 9/14/09? Is it all coming back to you now?  Remember the subject: how you voted on the issue of whether or not to use $183,060 of fund balance to pay the issuance cost of the Qualified School Construction Bond dated 9/28/09.

Allow us refresh your memory:
http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2009/09/meeting-minutes-should-help-jog-shimeks.html

Mr. Shimek KNOWs that was the only time he spoke with Mealy by phone.  Actually, after Mr. Mealy had had enough of Shimek, his wife spoke with Shimek for about 45 minutes.  It's a wonder Shimek has any backside at all left after the butt-chewing he received that night.

We understand how easy it must be to forget that you never took someone to lunch when you can't even recall how you voted on a $183.000 issue!

The thing about tall tales is that the devil is in the details.  Once you started providing details to the fairy tale (all the phone calls, the lunch, the orientation you provided during these "events"), you were trapped.

Do NOT tell us fairy tales, Mr. Shimek.  Save those for bedtime stories for your grandkids.
Would you prefer "Shimekkio"?

_______________________________________

The text of Mr. Mealy's statement to the board is provided below.  Mr. Mealy emphasized three main points:

1. Board Policy () requires that citizen representatives be nominated by the board president for approval by the full board.  How can the latter occur if the appointments are presented on the agenda as "Information Only" (no action) items as was done for the 8-9-10 agenda.?

2. Mr. Mealy also pointed out that board committee chairs SHALL provide citizen representatives with orientation.  Mealy stated that in terms on both the FTT and Finance Committees, no orientation (or discussion whatsoever regarding duties) was provided.

3. If the board doesn't follow it's own "rules" (policies) why should staff or students?

" The Board shall appoint the citizen members of each committee upon nomination of the Board President. If one or more Board members need to discuss substantive issues related to the appointment of committee members and such discussion might reasonably be construed to have an adverse impact on the reputation of specific persons, the Board may convene in closed session as permitted by law to consider such information. The closed session will be held prior to the nomination(s) being considered by the Board in open session. " 

--Board Policy BCE (clearly showing intent that board members discuss and vote on nominations)

______________

Statement from Rick Mealy 8/9/2010

First, I wish to thank the board for allowing me the honor of serving as a citizen representative on the Finance committee for the past 2 years.  Appointment of citizen representatives to committees is offered as an "Informational Item" tonight instead of "New Business" or "Consent Items".  A fine slate of individuals is being nominated from a very qualified pack.  Unfortunately, you do these people a disservice by failing to follow your policies, just as you did last year.  One would have hoped that you would have learned from your past mistakes.

These appointments have historically been --as required by your policy BCE-- voted on by the full board under New Business.

In fact, policy BCE states, "The Board shall appoint the citizen members of each committee upon nomination of the Board President".

How can the Board "appoint" without a vote???  Or was their a closed session that wasn't noticed? 

Imagine the position you would put one of these citizen representatives in if they had already participated fully in a committee meeting prior to being formally appointed by the board!.  One cannot expect new citizen representatives to be familiar with the details of board policies. But we do expect it of you.

Policy also dictates that citizen representatives are provided with an orientation to their new role.  And if it doesn’t happen before they start…what’s the point really?  So I hope you’ll schedule orientation for new committee members before they participate in a committee meeting.  I served on two board committees without ever receiving a moment of orientation, so that has been another weak area for you. 

Perhaps your excuse is that you simply ran out of time; terms begin August 1 and you were still interviewing candidates after the last board meeting.   But that Hail Mary would land out of bounds. Like the old adage goes, "Poor planning on your part does not allow you to break the rules to meet deadlines."

Some of you may be inclined to think, "What's the big deal?  These are just committee appointments."  But it's not that simple. 

Serving as a Citizen Representative is often a proving ground of sorts for future school board members...as many of you board members know.  This IS important....if not to you, then certainly to the citizen representatives.  They want it done right.  So should you.

It's one thing to write policy, but it's a horse of completely different color to actually follow them.

And if you have such a hard time following your policies, what is the use of even having them?

If the board does not follow it's own "rules", how can it expect staff members to follow district policies?

How can anyone expect students to follow rules in the Student Handbooks?

Or is it just a case of "this one we have to follow....that one...not so much?"

You rightfully take pride in the district's bond rating, but that rating is in part related to perceived strength in fiscal management policies. 

How do you think that perception may change if you continue to ignore your policies? 

What if an underwriter concludes that while you have nice policies, they're worthless because you don't follow them?

One of the underlying allegations in the district's upcoming arbitration hearing regarding the removal of girls basketball coaches is that the district did not follow its policies.  Is there really any surprise to that?   I wonder how much these continued incidents of failure to follow policy may further erode the district's position in the arbitration hearing?  And that decision could cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

The bottom line is that failure to adhere to board policy is just another symptom of the real illness:  lack of accountability.

And it starts at the top.  If you want people to be accountable, you must lead by example.

Terry Shimmerek...Captain Administration Affirmative

OK....after this past week, how can one NOT notice the uncanny ability of Terry Shimek to constantly waver in what he supports...or does not support?

He claims (largely falling on deaf ears) to be a fiscal conservative, yet supports nearly every spending initiative brought forth by administration.

He wants to tackle the "800- lb gorilla" (personnel costs) but doesn't want to talk about it. And he usually abstains from any personnel cost votes because his wife is a teacher. But...it's only a conflict of interest if his vote SUPPORTS a raise which his wife would receive...right? He could vote "NO" without conflict...right? Not gonna happen, folks.

The, finally---when he has a chance for a defining moment--- he WAVERS FROM HIS VERBAL COMMENTS and becomes the deciding vote on hiring yet another overpaid administrator (another assistant principal for a new high school with one less grade). Where was the fiscal conservative there? Administrative personnel costs are like a lot of STDs...forever.

In yet another defining Shimek moment, he recently voted (part of a 5-2 vote) to reduce the initial salary for the Pool Manager from $45,000 to $40,000. That would be the fiscal conservative. Of course...we know now the vote didn't end there. THEN, in a completely flip flop, once he got behind closed doors-and outside the public eye--he CHANGED HIS VOTE (along with the newly crowned Flip Flop Queen, Caren Diedrich) and voted to authorize administration to offer UP TO $54,000 for said Pool Manager. So...Terry...$45,000 was too much in public, but in private, $54,000 was not? Or are you just a little dyslexic? Alrighty then...behind closed doors, Shimek again reverts to his alter-ego, Captain Administration Affirmative.

He claims to be concerned about safety, yet this past Monday night vocally refused to support the one-time $60K initiative to hire a second Police Liaison Officer (PLO) for this coming year. This coming after he initially spoke in favor of spending money on Ashley Field, and later supported $88K for 8 traffic safety simulators. So...Shimek is concerned about safety of the students outside the school in cars...but in the school....not so much?

Shimek feels that all the many cameras and Youth Advocates --oh, and another assistant principal--provide enough safety in the schools. Newsflash, Terry....how many of the expulsion hearings you attended over the past 2 years involved acts of violence that weren't thwarted by cameras, administration, or Youth Advocates? Here's another newsflash, Terry....the PLO offers something that cameras, Youth Advocates, and administration cannot: restraint. ONLY the PLO can physically restrain a student who is so out of control that others are endangered. And don't tell us that doesn't happen. We know better. And so do you.

Terry Shimek has gone AWOL. In his place, we have an administration loving pod person who wavers and shimmers. The dictionary defines "shimmer" as " To appear as a wavering or flickering image, as in a reflection on water or through heat waves in air.".

Perfect. we have a name for this pod person. call him Terry Shimmerek.