Fumbling Towards Equity

With sincere apologies to Sarah McLachlan...

Way back last spring, the good Dr. Culver brought forward a situation report in the interests of securing equity for all staff.

"...it is in my heart to speak up for these 31employees and say let all employees take the pain at the same time."                                                  

---District Administrator Tim Culver

This would not make them entirely "whole" (e.g., they would have to pay FICA and other required taxes on the miscellaneous income), but on the district end there is no added cost above what is already in the budget. We would be spending funds that were not mandated by law to do so. But, please consider letting all employees take this pain at the same time. We aren't strapped for this $32,500 in this year’s budget - we had planned to use it to compensate these employees through June 30.

---District Administrator Tim Culver

---

Cut to present day.
What happened to Culver's desire for equity?  Three (3) GINORMOUS inequities remain.  When will the school board/district do something to fix them?


1. Culver's Miscellaneous Funny Money
Culver's contract:  l. In lieu of other expense reimbursement for miscellaneous costs incurred carrying out official duties, District Administrator shall receive $125 per month to defray miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses.


Who gets ANY money for which no receipts are required?  He can do nothing and just pocket the additional $125/month.  People this kind of benefit exists no where else but Wall Street and school district administrators.  


2. Culver's Mileage re-imbursement
Culver's contract:  k. Flat monthly payment for the use of personal automobile of $325 per month for use in district and in Dane County.


Other administrators (gulp) got that rolled into salary and now must submit mileage reimbursement reports, like us normal folk.  How come King Tim gets treated differently?

3. Dental Health Insurance Premiums

All employees EXCEPT Local 60 pay 5% of their dental insurance premiums.  Local 60 get it all the way with a ted hot poker and pay 14.5%.  Why are we stickin' it to the lowest paid employees?

Administrators Look For A Hand Out?

Maybe Dr. Culver's use of the statement, "We're not strapped for cash" in his "Equity" situation report was but a taste of things to come.

What many community members may have overlooked on last week's school board agenda was the item for Closed Session discussion:

Category: Closed Session
Subject:  Accept a motion to go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed School Board minutes of March 14 & 16, 2011; discussion and action on a grievance settlement; discuss Local 60 and Sun Prairie Education Association (SPEA) negotiations parameters; discuss and develop parameters regarding administrators' compensation/benefits; and discussion of District Administrator's contract [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)]

What's up the Administrators' collective sleeve?
Surely they wouldn't be looking for a raise...right?

Unfortunately, this is that part of the game where they tell the board what they're looking for, but the public doesn't get to see their "demands" until a counter-proposal is passed by the school board. And even then, you either have to be present at that meeting to get the proposals, or you have to request them. Nothing is easy in this district.

Reader's Write: Culver's 6 Wishes

We couldn't resist sharing this from our inbox:

Just noticed in the latest bimonthly installment of Dr. Tim's Daily Dose of Bad Medicine* that he "empathizes" with the teachers on the issue of skipping work.  This is wrong.  He means he "sympathizes" with them.

Sympathy is having feeling for someone/something.  Empathy is sharing someone's feelings/situation.  Dr. Tim didn't play hookie last week, and teachers would LOVE to share Dr. Tim's retirement situation.  They are looking at paying half of their retirement, and he has a steady check coming and a Scrooge McDuck vault of bonus cash that he is trying to sweeten a little more.

How much sweeter is a matter of speculation.  What we do know is that he has two old lamps, possibly looted from the Cairo Museum during the recent uprising.  We know there are two lamps, because each genie grants three wishes, and Dr. Tim has six wishes. Assuming Dr. Tim's math skills are better than his vocab skills, he should be able to divide six wishes by three per genie and come up with two lamps.

If so, ali Whalen and ali Seabass are wearing turbans and floating in a puff of smoke and refusing to divulge the nature of the wishes.  I guess we won't know what he asked for until 1) he gets it and they have to tell us;  2) ali Whalen and ali Seabass develop a little respect for open government and community engagement and share the wishes with the people who will be funding the wishes; or, 3) we actually see the twelve-inch pianist.

Hopefully, we can catch those slippery genies and each get six wishes.  I would only need four:  end world hunger, bring world peace, a Scrooge McDuck vault, and a twelve-inch pianist.  Then you would wish you could empathize with me.


* Culver's blog, "InspirED", aka ConspirED, backfirED, haywirED, misfirED, quagmirED, retirED, vampirED, tripwirED, underwirED, and just plain tirED (not to mention heavy on the ED)

Newsflash! School Board To State The Obvious!

On Monday, the school board is poised to extend District Administrator Tim Culver's contract for yet another year, through June 2013.  What has us scratching our heads is...what's the point?  As part of the LAST time the board adjusted Culver's contract (last September), there was (as there has been) a little clause that states:

This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2012-2013 school year unless either the Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2011.

Dear school board...you may want to check the calendar...that contractual deadline passed 2 weeks ago.  Legally you already extended the contract by fiddily... (ooops, nevermind)...er...by not taking any action to NOT extend the contract [pardon the double negative].


It's s done deal.  So why waste taxpayer dollars sending the contract to be reviewed--scratch that---to be WRITTEN by a law firm.  You crossed out and replaced like 50 letters.  What exactly did that genius move cost us?  That editing couldn't be done by one of our secretarial staff?


Adding insult to stupidity...your open records bumbling suggests that we'll be seeing YET ANOTHER revision to his contract in the very near future.  Which required even MORE legal staff time.


We may be a tech savvy district, but someone forgot that Microsoft Office stores key information about a document in its "properties".  Ooopsies!   What we can now tell speaks volumes:

1. The contract document was written by Godfrey & Kahn (district legal counsel).  Why are they WRITING a contract instead of just REVIEWING it?
2. The total editing time for this monumental contract change was exactly 19 minutes.  Hmm...wonder what we paid in legal fees for that?  Our staff couldn't change a couple of dates?
3. The contract was last "saved" 12/15/2010.  That means that it has been  available for TWO MONTHS!  Why hasn't action been taken?

Here's a question SOMEONE should be asking:   Why was Culver's contract extension sent to legal to edit without even stopping for a moment to think when board president John Whalen and the district balked against having legal counsel review a $10 MILLION "addendum" to the district busing contract????


And here's a follow-up question....How does "addendum" fit as a descriptor for a contract that was carved up pretty heavily both internally and by legal counsel?  Hell...it's not even a revised contract anymore...it's better defined a s a whole new contract!!!


But you keep on rockin', school board.  Because precious few care enough to come to your meetings and tell you differently.  Many residents are indeed asleep at the switch until tax bills arrive.  And many others believe that calling you and e-mailing you won't change your minds.  Once you drink the KoolAid, you're unreachable.


Your action Monday will merely state the obvious.  Do you REALLY have time for such foolishness?

Culver Plotting His Exit Strategy???

Quietly nestled within last week's school board meeting agenda was the following agenda item slated for CLOSED [to the public] session:

Go into closed session for the purpose of discussing and reviewing the district administrator's performance evaluation; and consideration of negotiation of changes to District Administrator's employment contract and parameters related thereto [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

To make matters even more suspicious, a citizen's open records request revealed that good ole Dr. Culver recently submitted 6 "contract change proposals" to the school board for consideration.  Hmmmm...What do you suppose those proposals were?  When the citizen requested a copy of the contract proposal under the Open Records laws, Culver--the district records custodian -- denied the request!


Curiouser and curiouser...eh?  That's not even the slightest bit conflict of interest-ish, is it?  The records custodian (Culver) refusing to release records about himself that he doesn't [obviously] want the public to see?????


We Don't Negotiate with Terrorists!
...and neither does the board "negotiate" with district administrators.  Hello!  This is not union-related collective bargaining!!!  A school board offers a district administrator a contract and said administrator can take it or not let the door hit him on the backside on the way out out the door...right?


And When We Get Behind Closed Doors...
Wethinks Dr. Culver dost protest too much.  There's clearly something there that he did not want us to know and wished to get board approval on behind closed doors.


Culver already has a VERY lucrative salary and perks package.  He makes $20,000 more in salary alone than the Secretary of the entire DNR!  Hmm...let's see...running a school district of just under 7,000....versus managing the entire natural resources for the entire freakin' state of Wisconsin!  


Culver's End Game

Culver already has just a hair under $115,000 tucked away in the "reserved" fund balance for his retirement.  His own District maintained tax shelter?  All he had to do for full vesting is stay on at the district for 12 years.  Guess what?  He's passed his 12th year.   And he turns 57 this year!  Could he be looking for more before hittin' the door??  A little sweetening of the 'ole retirement pot before he punches out?  Wonder how our elected leaders voted on those 6 proposals....You may want to give 'em a call...or e-mail.

Stop Making Sense II - The Principals

So...the Administration kind of opened the door for comparisons when they recently spent $9,000 to do a job study (read: How do we get these people more money?) for Administration Support staff. As part of that study, as directed by none other than Tim Culver, of course, 11 school districts were chosen as "comparable" to Sun Prairie. Thus...we have our basis.

So...how do we compare? We looked at a number of positions to see how we stack up. Particularly in tight times, it IS important to see the lay of the land. We only wish that either (A) the school board had directed Administration to provide them with similar data, or (B) the board members did this work themselves. Neither is going to happen. Also...as a side note...no $9,000 was needed...this data is readily available from the DPI website. Yes, the consultant did a little bit more in-depth work, but did we really need all that? As always, YOU be the judge.

All data is 2008-09 salary data reported to DPI.

High school principals: Average salary = $105,222. Range = $92,000 to $114,000. Sun Prairie pays its principal the 3rd most. Note: new principal Lisa Heipl's salary for 2009-10 is $110,000.

Middle school principals: Average salary = $96,705. Range = $85,000 to $109,000. Sun Prairie pays its two principals more than any other district in the comparison.
Elementary school principals: Average salary = $88,908. Range = $70,000 to $110,000. One of Sun Prairie's principals, as a former District Office administrator, is paid in the top 5. Should this salary be frozen?


Average Elementary school salaries
Beloit $79,256
Fond du Lac $84,881
Oregon $85,762
DeForest $86,638
Middleton-CP $86,859
Elmbrook $90,964
SunPrairie $92,018
Waunakee $94,416
Mukwonago $98,520
Verona $99,977
WestBend $101,019

Remember as well that the board approves only the compensation "package" dollar amount. Tim Culver (at least for now) holds the purse strings in terms of doling the raises out. Raises are tied to scores on evaluations (which we know are subjective). So Culver gets to reward his pets...and penalize those that don't march properly. Dontcha think that the board should request to see and approve or modify any raises at an open meeting??? Maybe that would stop those crazy $5.00 per hour raises!!!

Despite Statewide Budget Slashing, Board Approves 7.0% Increases

As expected, the School Board voted to approve the contract agreement with its teachers this past Monday. Only board member Al Slane was either brave enough or honest enough to vote "NO".

The STAR attributes the following summation to Phil Frei,deputy district administrator of business operations: "The SPEA ratified the contract on June 12 with "overwhelming support," [Sheeee--aaahhh! From the "Color Me Surprised" Department: Like who would have voted AGAINST such a deal!]

The 3.8 percent increase is not a straight raise on salary, said McCourt. "The first year it will be the salary, because the health care costs are staying down," McCourt added. "But those are expected to go up in 2010. When you look at the total package it gets a little deceiving."
[Hmmm..."deceiving"...interesting choice of words. Actually, the raise for 2009-10 is 4.2%. And 2.8% for 2010-11. Let's not forget that state workers are getting -2% for 2009-10 and 0%--or LESS--for 2010-11. And Dane County workers are taking a pay cut. Raise your hand if you're getting a 7.0% raise over the next 2 years. Yep...about what we thought. ]

A plea for common sense from District resident and former school board member Roger Fetterly ferll on deaf ears (except for Slane). Perhaps luckily, Terry Shimek abstained from the vote since his wife is a teacher for the district.

"I think you should be aware that the state of Wisconsin is in real financial crisis," said district resident Roger Fetterly. Fetterly urged the board to not approve the contract at the June 20 meeting, but table it until the state financial situation was known.
"Employment is hovering at 10 percent. And you're going to give 3.8 increases here," Fetterly said. "That's a real poke in the eye with a sharp stick for the taxpayer to watch you people throw out that money. In spite of dire financial crisis, you're going to give 3.8 increases. This proposed contract is grossly irresponsible. The state has not finalized their budget. What you should do is table it until you find out what your financial situation is."
-the Sun Prairie STAR 6-25-09

So....state and Dane County employees will see %5 cut in pay. Many local folks have been laid off. But Sun Prairie teachers will see a 7% INCREASE to their pay over the next 2 years. Let's tune in to the newswires and see how our school board stacks up in handling the budget problems against those districts whose vision of reality is less distorted:

MEQUON-THIENSVILLE 2-17-09
District faces $450,000 in cuts for next budget
Elimination of energy education contract, 3 1/2 positions possible

In order to cover the projected $450,000 shortfall in the projected 2009-10 budget, Means said, one high school position and two paraprofessional positions would be eliminated, along with an energy education program contract and the half-time position that oversees the contract. Flow-through grants for special education would be used to offset some special education costs.

In addition, the district would offer 20 Open Enrollment seats at the high school.
Means said as long as the Open Enrollment students are taking open seats in classrooms, there would be no additional cost to the district and their enrollment would bring revenue, $6,800 per pupil, into the district. The cost spent per pupil in Mequon-Thiensville is more than $11,000, he said.



JANESVILLE 4-1-09
Among the budget-balancing ideas thrown out at the Janesville School Board's study session Tuesday:
-- Restructure the administration of athletics.
-- Eliminate the elementary school track meet, saving $13,900.
-- Find space in school buildings the district owns to house one of the district's charter schools.
-- Have central-office administrators who are licensed to teach fill in for absent teachers. Each day of substitute teaching by the 21 administrators would save about $2,100.
-- Use the "fund balance"...
-- Cutting the position of coordinator of the 4-year-old kindergarten program.



WISCONSIN RAPIDS 6-3-09
In an effort to avoid more drastic cuts that could affect class sizes and student learning, the Wisconsin Rapids School Board will see if its employee groups will give up wages to balance next year's budget.
District leaders are trying to make about $500,000 in additional cuts for 2009-10, because the current state budget proposal includes a 2.5 percent reduction in state aid to schools. The School Board already approved about $1.8 million in cuts on May 11
On Tuesday, the board empowered Superintendent Bob Crist to contact each of the district's unions to see if members would agree to eliminate pay for one holiday next school year.


WATERTOWN 6-5-09
"Our best estimate right now is that we will need to slash another $300,000 to $350,000 before the start of the next school year,"

"This will be in addition to the several hundred thousand dollars in reductions we made to the district budget earlier this spring."
...the district is waiting to receive the legislative language that will be written to define what the Joint Finance Committee's decision will mean to the district and what budget cuts the district will have to make.
Over the next several weeks the district will continue contract negotiations and determine where the additional cuts will need to be made.

OSHKOSH 6-11-09
The Oshkosh Area School District could close an elementary school and further reduce staffing levels to offset millions of dollars in lost state aid next school year.


RHINELANDER 6-16-09
...voted to eliminate Rhinelander High School’s forensics program and the freshman B and sophomore basketball teams, but it left a motion to eliminate the RHS swimming program and mothball the pool without a vote.

...likely have to make between $300,000 and $500,000 of additional cuts for next year
In order to meet those figures, the board would likely have to approve additional big ticket item cuts that could involve cutting athletic programs, reducing custodian coverage, reducing paraprofessional staff and/or closing the pool.

...the district has also considered re-configuring its schools in a way that would allow it to maintain fewer buildings

2009-11 Teacher Contract Details; Board Votes on Monday

On Monday June 22, the agreement between SPEA (teachers union) and the school district comes before the school board for a final vote. That vote is likely a formality. And with only several days to see the parameters, it is unlikely any residents have =even looked at the contract, let alone will come out and address it.

Links to Contract Agreement and Costing Details

A review of the contract details yields the following key points :

• Teachers receive a 7.0% increase over the 2-year deal. A 4.2% salary increase for 2009-10, and a 2.8% increase for 2010-11.


• The average salary per teacher raises 7% from $47,469 to $50,840.


• Retiring teachers gain a "golden parachute": a $6,000 (maximum) lump sum payment for those that, prior to October 15, 2009, declare retirement at the end of the 2009-10 school year.


• An increase upon receiving a PI-34 license.


• No increase in the percentage cost of health and dental insurance paid by teachers. This contract caps teacher share of health insurance costs at $400 per year for a family and $150 per year for an individual. The school district covers $14,223 per family and $5,472 for a single plan. Note also that the employee can cuts its costs in half ($200 and $75 per year) if they agree to participate in a Health Risk Assessment (paid for bu the district). For reference, the average state worker pays over $1,000 per year towards their health insurance costs and the Governor has indicated that they will pay a larger share in 2009-11 contracts.

Questions you might be asking:

(Q) Hey! How come this contract calls for a 4.2% salary increase in 2009-10, but the "QEO" only calls it a 2.80% raise?
[A] Good eyes! That's because, for QEO consideration purposes. both the salary and the fringe benefit increases are calculated as a percentage of the TOTAL compensation package.

(Q) So is that why the fringe benefit percentage increase is so much different than that calculated for the QEO basis?
[A] Absolutely! In fact, the difference is far more pronounced (3.24% vs. 1.0% for the QEO) because everything is calculated on a "total package basis".

(Q) Could you explain this total package basis one more time? It seems important.
[A] For the QEO, it IS important (of course it appears that the QEO officially dies sometime between July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010). Increases have to be assesses relative to the TOTAL cost of salary and benefits. In the SPASD, fringe benefit costs represent about 44% (on average) of salary costs. Do a little math, and that means that salary costs are about 2.25 times that of fringes. That means that the "pie" often referred to by the school board is one that is cut into 3.25 pieces, with one slice (~ 30%) being fringes and 2.25 slices (~ 70% of the pie) representing salary.
This explains why an overall salary increase of 4.2%---when expressed in terms of the QEO-- is called a 2.8% increase. Similarly, a 3.25% increase in benefits--in QEO terms--represents only a 1.0% increase.

(Q) Does this contract represent a "QEO offer"?
[A] Technically, yes, it appears to meet the minimal requirements to avoid arbitration.

The $2,964,930 question
Because that's what this contract costs the district (and taxpayers) over the next 2 years, a 7.75% increase over 2008-09 costs.

Will the school board approve this contract? Sheee-ahhhh! 3 board members (McCourt, Stackhouse, and Diedrich) negotiated it. All they need is one more. So, of course they will. Note that Terry Shimek should (and likely will) abstain from the vote because his wife is a teacher.

The school board will approve the contract of course, but perhaps Terry Shimek's comments at a recent Finance Committee meeting are most appropriate here. We lack an exact quote, but Shimek commented that this is one year when the district should pursue a sub-QEO offer.

We appreciate Mr. Shimek's candor in that remark. Yes, the downside of making a sub-QEO offer would be that binding arbitration would likely ensue. Would the arbitration cost us? Sure. But we think the chances are good, given the economic climate

Should the school board approve this contract? Now THAT is the gorilla in the room, isn't it?

Do we support teachers? Absolutely? Do we LIKE this agreement? No. Why? For a handful of reasons.

(1) It raises the teacher base (minimally), but does nothing to stop long-tenured (off the grid and far down the salary "lane" ) from taking up most of the increase. Remember: 4.2% of $30,000 means that newer teachers will only see $1,260 next year, or about $850 after taxes. Those making $60,000 or more will get $2,520, or more. Something has to be done about accelerating increases early in a teacher's career and then slowing the percentage down later in their tenure. Some may not like this concept, but all will agree that giving a $6,000 increase (4.2%) to someone that already is making over $145,000 (Hint. Hint.) is ludicrous. Who's hurting these days? The ones making the big money? Or is it the ones making $30K? Bottom line: an entry level teacher gets a $423 increase (1.32%) in 2009-10 and a $99 (0.32%) increase in 2010-11. We hear all this talk about wanting to attract and retain good teachers. 1.39% and 0.32% increases aren't going to attract good teachers. Sure...once you GET them....if they stay 20 years, this contract could be very lucrative. But you can't retain what you don't have.

(2) People are losing jobs left and right. Those that don't lose their job are accepting pay CUTS. State employees are being furloughed 8 days in each of the next 2 years. That equates to a 3% salary REDUCTION. In addition, they losing a 2% raise which was already provided in the LAST contract. That's a 5% salary reduction. How does THAT compare to a 7% INCREASE?

(3) The state budget also cuts aids to schools by 3.5%. Sure, the QEO is being repealed, but the revenue caps are NOT. That means school districts will have to pay for this by cutting programs...not raising property taxes. Repealing the QEO is not a solution. It's only PART of a solution to fundinging our schools. And it should have been retained until a complete solution could have been identified.

(4) This contract was settled too early. How many other school districts have negotiated contracts? Nearly all are waiting to see the final state budget. In addition, by jumping early, we lack the vision of what stances other school districts are taking in their negotiations.

---

Dear Teachers:
SP-EYE DOES value what you do. We would love to support this contract for you. Unfortunately it comes at a time when everyone else is losing ground. Can you rationally step back and say, when everyone else is seeing cuts, that you--more than any other profession---deserve a 7% raise over two years and not pay a penny more for your benefits?

We understand that this agreement is actually very good for you, and in your place, we would want it as well. Sometimes, however, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You can hate on SP-EYE if you like, but we're just sayin' what everyone else is thinking. We're just upfront enough to say it.

--SPN

Teachers and Administration Agree on a new Contract

It was due for a final ratification vote yesterday, but all indications pointed to this being a done deal. Sources tell us that the contract package calls for a 3.8% total package increase. Remember sports fans...that means a combined increase of salary and benefits.

One big part of the contract reportedly calls for a "golden parachute" incentive for retirement. We hear that there will be a one-time $6,000 incentive to announce retirement by early October (right around the time the final budget is prepared). It's no secret that over 80% of the school district budget is tied to salaries and benefits; and there are a lot of long-tenured educators in the district that earn a nice salary.

While there may be some outrage in this economy to offer "bonuses" to retirement, SP-EYE sees this as a good mechanism to clear some high salaries off the books and replace them with those lower on the salary grid. In fact, it actually creates jobs, which is needed to jump-start the economy.

The practice of offering golden parachutes makes good fiscal sense as long as it results in a net savings to the district. We're not sure whether this idea originated from administration or chief SPEA negotiator Janice Mertes. Regardless, it's a jointly shared vision now and needs only to be ratified. Kudos to both sides for working towards fiscal sensibility. We only wish the state would have the same sense.