Sensible? Responsible? Not the Sun Prairie School District

There's a great article in the Wisconsin State Journal today regarding the looming national debt crisis. The parallels here in Sun Prairie are simply uncanny. Here we are facing massive cuts to education in the form of state aid. The governor has declared that, "Wisconsin is broke".

"A family, if they get over-extended ...what they do is, they say, how do we start cutting our monthly costs?
We don't stop sending our kids to college, we don't stop fixing the boiler or the roof that's leaking. We do things in a sensible, responsible way."
---President Barack Obama

What the President is talking about is MAINTAINING.  He's talking about choosing NEEDS over WANTS.  Our school district administration wants to discuss MORE spending tomorrow night. Their own public hearing slide show (slide19) says:

Ok...so we added in the individual costs of each initiative...which the district conveniently left out. "Let's not talk cost...let's just look at the value and not worry about cost, eh?" Do any of you REALLY just go buy something without looking at the price? (Ok...so maybe if you are in the $100K club, that's how you operate). When you go buy a car...do you just write a check for the sticker price plus tax? (please, please, say no) Or do you negotiate...haggle? Do you maybe decide that as much as you'd like to get a Mercedes, you're going to settle for a nice, sensible, reliable, economy car?

So...when a family (or the nation) is struggling, what they do is they cut costs. What does the school district want to do? Keep spending and simply raise your taxes!
Why can't this school district say, "Hey...maybe we could do without that administrator position...after all we managed just fine for a number of months with a substitute for far less cost"?
Why can't the district say, "Hey..maybe our principals' cabinet money is being used too much to stock up on Twinkies and Ho-Hos. Maybe we cut that expense."?

Certainly some of the district's initiatives are worthy of funding. But there's only so much money to go around, and we can't just keep on tapping the taxpayers for every whim. Many average Sun Prairie families (not one of the $100K club) says, "Gee, it would be really nice to spend a couple of days at the Kalahari and enjoy the awesome waterpark, but money is tight, so why don't we just go camping instead?". Or, maybe they're saying, "Ok, let's spend the money and go to the Dells, but in return, there'll be no dining out for the next month". Reasonable people make reasonable compromises. If the district wants to fund some of their desired initiatives, they need to take the taxpayer off the table and give something else up instead.

How come the district was able to (using their words here), "aggressively bid the district’s insurance (worker’s compensation, liability, and property), such that the district will save $150,000", yet they seem incapable of "aggressively" scrutinizing their own internal spending?"

Over the last few years, we've heard these property tax increases likened to "just a couple of less pizzas per month" for the average family. Has anybody actually thought about how many pizzas per month we've done away with over the past 5 years? Did any of us really ever eat that much pizza to begin with?  And what is the long-term increase we've paid?

More to the point...what "bang" did we get for all our bucks?  Well...other than a few palatrial schools? Are our kids any brighter?  Absolutely... if your metric is the honor roll or the number of graduates receiving "high honors".  But what if you look at a less skewed metric...like...say...WKCE scores relative to districts our size?  How about National Merit Scholars (or scholarships) relative to other districts our size?  How about grades in college relative to grades in high school?  Is SPASD really juicing our kids' brain cells?  Or are they just juicing the GPA?

Just sayin...

Readers Write: Administrative Audacity

Sp-Eye,
I can't help but raise a few questions as a result of reading your recent post "Whatever Happened To No Take Backs". I am perplexed at the timing and quite frankly the audacity of this request by the Administration.

Is this request being made by the same Administration/School Board that ridiculed and thumbed it's noses at the those who pleaded with them to recognize the seriousness of the financial circumstances that the citizens of this community are experiencing? Is this request being made by the same Administration/School Board that has the gall to claim that the citizens of this community do not understand the budgetary process and funding procedures necessary to run the SPASD? Is this the same Administration/School Board that sends home notes to Parent's that give the impression that "the community" is making them turn down the thermostats in schools in order to save money. (I personally found that note particularly juvenile). Isn't it funny how "the community" can make budget cuts when necessary? That was a poor attempt to stoke the fires of class warfare in this community.

I just don't understand. Maybe its because I am not as highly "educated" as those running the SPASD and the School Board, but if all the indicators were there regarding the current financial climate, the reduction in State aid, knowledge of the QEO being repealed, etc. why would anybody agree to the contract in the first place and then force a double digit tax increase up the back side of tax payers?

My personal opinion is that this Administration and School Board have taken their cue from our State and Federal "representatives". One only need to openly and honestly look at the reckless way money is being spent and the lack of representation of "we the people". It is a little understandable, after all, Government employees, like those in the SPASD Administration, as well as the School Board, are not responsible for producing anything tangible. Their salary and budget funding sources as well as their salaries come from a magical pot of money that they have the "power" to tap into on a yearly basis. This past year should serve as a wake up call to the citizens of Sun Prairie. There needs to be some significant change in the way business is conducted or we can only expect double digit increases in our bill to support this out of control cash cow that the SPASD has become.

Wow, talk about leadership. Where's that "lead by example" spirit? Where's all that talk about caring for the Teachers? All of the faux compassion that was demonstrated at the Electors Meeting when outrage was expressed over the lack of foresight by this Administration and School Board in the contract negotiations. I've got a funny feeling that even by forcing a furlough day or two on the Teachers won't affect the Administration's wallet one dime!

A supportive reader.

Of Slipshod Work and Non-Responsiveness

The following is a correspondence from Roger Fetterly to the school board last week, which--to no one's surprise---has gone unanswered. So much for community engagement and quality work product.

At the Finance Committee meeting on 11/23/09, citizen --and former multi-term school board member---Roger Fetterly pointed out a discrepancy between the School District FY2008-09 Audit Report, which was reported by Kevin Krysinski of Johnson and Block, and the information presented to the electors in the 2009 Annual Meeting report.

Fetterly pointed out that the Annual Meeting budget report for Fund 10 shows an Ending Fund Balance, Designated of $7,130,391.38 and an Ending Fund Balance, Unappropriated of $762,815.27 at June 30, 2009.

By WUFAR (Wisconsin Uniform Financial Accounting Requirements) definition, the Unappropriated fund balance is the difference between revenues and expenditures at the end of a fiscal period and is commonly referred to as the surplus remaining at the end of the fiscal year.

The audit report Balance Sheet (page 3 of the audit) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 for the General Fund shows Fund Balance, Designated of $7,893,208 and there is no Unappropriated balance shown.

It appears that the auditor combined the Designated and the Unappropriated amounts into one fund and identified it all as Fund Balance, Designated. When Fetterly queried Kevin Krysinski, Krysinski said his audit was based on the financial records provided by administration. He said he would have shown the Unappropriated amount (in accordance with the WUFAR accounting system) if the financial records showed the Unappropriated amount.

Therein lies a problem. There was no formal action by the school board (as required by WUFAR, which states, "Changes in this account results from formal budgetary action.") to shift the Unappropriated balance into the Fund Balance, Designated. It appears that the administration has exceeded its authority and is manipulating fund balance amounts to serve its own convenience and purpose.

Fetterly pointed this out to Terry Shimek and the Finance Committee and the chair's response was to shrug it off and proceed to accept the audit without question. Fetterly --and SP-EYE-- believe that the public deserves an explanation why the audit and the financial records and reports to the electors have an unexplained discrepancy for which the board has no rational answer.

Therein lies the second--and perhaps most egregious --problem. While the board and administration may find sloppy accounting to be an acceptable practice (Hmmm...would any of our teachers accept similarly shoddy work????), it is wholly unacceptable to disregard any resident that presents a valid concern. SP-EYE has been party to and has heard third party reports of "unofficial" statements from several board members who have sheepishly agreed that the board has spoken about and agrees to summarily dismiss any presentation by a "select few" residents. Care to guess which ones? SP-EYE does not recall such a group discussion transpiring at an officially noticed public meeting....gee...yet another incidence of violation of public meeting laws?

Also, on page 32 of the audit under "2009-10 Budget," is the following statement: "The District budget anticipates applying general fund balance of $1,879,643 in 2009-10 and the District will act on reducing the reduction of fund balance throughout the year." That statement does not reflect the action of the school board and has no place in an audit which should be providing reliable and factual information. That statement apparently reflects the wishes and recommendations of the administration. Fetterly commented that the appearance is that the auditor is a little too cozy with the administration to get an independent factual report on the financial condition of the district. At best that statement can only be described as speculative.

On a slightly different but related matter, after Tim Culver stated that the "State budget is a mess," it turns out that he and Phil Frei produced a budget mess of their own at the district level. Their biggest problem is that they are unwilling or incapable of following the state statutes, DPI administrative rules, guidelines and recommended formats for budget planning, presentation and reporting purposes.

1. The administration and the board dithered for months and did not have even a recommendation on July 1 when the budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year should have gone into effect. Remember, it was Tim and Phil that coerce the electors to change the annual meetings from July to October which allows very little time to meet November reporting deadlines.

2. The board was complicit in creating the mess by rushing to approve overly generous employee master contracts, administrative compensation plans and new spending programs such as 4K before revenue estimates were available.

3. When the board and the administration finally got around to it, they tried to adopt a budget before the public hearing was held at the annual meeting, ignorant of the fact that the only authority the board has prior to the annual meeting is to present a proposed budget at the public hearing.

4. Subsequent to the annual meeting, the board dithered again without adopting the budget until October 26th when the administration provided the following recommendation: "The Deputy District Administrator (Business & Operations) recommends the adoption of the 2009-2010 Budget (with October adjustments) as it appears in [Budget item] attachment 5." There was only one slight problem; attachment 5 does not show a budget for the capital projects fund (Funds 41, 48, 49) and the food service fund (Fund 50), in addition to other funds not shown. It appears that the board has only adopted part of the budget presented to the electors at the annual meeting. Is the board going to get around to correcting this problem, or is food serve and other operations going to continue operating without an adopted budget? How was this covered in the budget report to DPI? It is evident that the board doesn't understand the budget so they just do what the administration wants them to do.

5. Another problem with adoption of the budget as shown in attachment 5 is that it is entitled "Budget adjustments 2009-2010." If you understood the law (Sec 65.90 Wis. Stats.) you would know that adopting a budget and making budget adjustments are two separate and distinct decisions an can not be legitimately mixed together. After the public hearing at the annual meeting the budget should be adopted by the board, subject only to changes resulting from the annual meeting. All other changes to the adopted budget must follow Section 65.90(5), Wis Stats., which requires a 2/3 vote of the entire board and a public notice within 10 days. If Phil and Tim are trying to confuse the board and the public---they are doing a great job.

6. A 3rd problem with attachment 5 is shown under the column titled "2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET." The budget shown under that column was never legitimately approved. At best it was the budget that was proposed to the electors at the annual meeting. The first line of the so called "2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET" shows "taxes" and gives the amount $36,678,662.

The electors, exercising their statutory authority, rejected that proposal from the board and voted a tax levy of $34,678,662, or $2,000,000 lower than what was proposed by the administration and the board. So---to list $36,678,662 as the "taxes" in the 2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET is pure nonsense.

To show the $34,678,662 as the taxes under the "2009-2010 AMENDED BUDGET" column is a gross error. The electors vote to establish the tax levy at $34,678,662 could not be an amendment to the so called "2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET" as it was displayed on attachment 5, and in the public notice published in the STAR. It appears too difficult for the administration and the board to understand that there could not be an approved budget prior to the annual meeting, the board can only present a proposed budget. To characterize the elector's vote to reduce the tax levy by $2,000,000 as an amendment to an approved budget is misleading and a falsehood created by the administration.

7. In addition to all of the substantive errors in this mess of a budget, someone should have proofread the board documents one more time. On the second page of attachment 5, and the second page of what was referred to as attachment 1 (but not marked as such) and the public notice printed in the STAR on October 29th and approved by Clerk Jill Camber Davidson, in addition to all the errors identified above, the columns under the DEBT SERVICE FUND are identified as "2009-20109 APPROVED BUDGET" and "2009-20109 AMENDED BUDGET." What kind of dates are those? It is reasonable to expect, that with at least 3 highly paid administrators and 7 school board members reading these documents (for comprehension, we assume), that someone would notice typos and correct them. Who is responsible for this sloppy work?

8. Finally, in the 2009-2010 Annual Meeting Report, on page 17, there is a math error in TOTAL ENDING FUND BALANCE under the Budget 2009-2010 column---the numbers don't add up! A computer spreadsheet is smart enough to add up a column of numbers if someone knows how to tell it what to do. What this tells me is that you have administrators and/or staff that don't know how to use a spreadsheet or a calculator.

SP-EYE: Mr. Fetterly is --to quote Marisa Tomei in 'My Cousin Vinny'-- "dead on balls accurate". The board needs to take action to correct the mess---no excuses. Mr. Fetterly is owed an apology, and the board needs to change its attitude towards citizens they don't particularly care for. The school board's Finance Committee and the school board owe the community an explanation and the corrective action taken to prevent such a mediocre performance again. The board's credibility depends on it.

School Supply Lists Come Under Fire

Here's two words for ya:

Inconsistent.
Questionable.

Inconsistent is for the ridiculous variability across the 7 elementary schools for even a single item on the supply lists.

Questionable (and we're being kind here) is the word that comes to mind when we really look at these class school supply lists.

5th grade supply lists Do they really need this many :
□ Pencils: Royals Oaks requires 12 pencils. Horizon requires 72 PER CHILD. Other schools require 36 or 48. 72 represents 1 pencil for about every 3 school days. Is that realistic?

□ Post-It Notes?

□ 400 sheets of notebook filler paper? That's about 2 sheets per child per day! And 2 of the 7 schools don't require it at all!


□ There are too many others to call them all out. W suggest, however, that you take a look.

Why do the kids/parents need to supply these items
□ Hand sanitizer (2 of 7 schools). Yes, we understand the need. But isn't this -as a need- something akin to toilet paper? It's needed, all kids use it (or should) therefore the school provides it. Or next year will each kid be required to bring a 6 roll pack of Charmin?

□ Disinfectant wipes (6 of 7 schools). Same issue.

□ Dry-erase markers (6 of 7 schools). Hello! Or are kids going to have to chip in next year and supply the whiteboard to go WITH the dry-erase markers?

□ Zip-lock bags. Some schools require them, some don't. There are size variations. We're just curious what they are used for.

□ Flashdrive. We get this one...and it is more of a personal data thing, so it does make sense to have each child bring their own. But we have two questions: (1) why is Eastside the only school to require one? and (2) are 128 Mb drives even still available? You might be able to find a 1 Gb drive, but pretty much 2 Gb is the low end these days.
Shouldn't these items be covered by the budget?


Why should parents even be providing these things, when the schools themselves aren't even spending all that was budgeted?
So we budgeted (and paid taxes for) about $50,000 that went unspent during the school year. Consequently, Administration proposed cutting budgets by 5% --that amounts to roughly the amount that went unspent-- so they could afford their 3.8+% pay raises.

Great! but the parents are still on the hook to provide all these questionable classroom supplies--not to mention the class fees that are "imposed".

How's about NOT cutting the school budgets and using that money to pay for these ridiculous school supplies? Especially when you advertised so well that 1500 families cannot afford to purchase the school supplies that ---now that we look closely at what they are--- the parents shouldn't have to pay in the first place.

And do not even THINK about going down the, "This the way it has always been and nobody's complained in the past" road. That road is closed permanently. FIRST, this is YOUR job, school board members. To make sure that the kids are provided with everything they need for a day at school. And yes they use the rest room, so you better supply TP for the restroom. And yes, they may have to blow their nose or sanitize their hands. Provide that as well.

TWO. These are unprecedented times, that call for re-evaluating ALL past practices.

OBSERVATIONS................

►Notice who gets hurt most by the proposed cuts. The three schools with the highest number of socioeconomically challenged families (Bird, Westside, and Creekside) also came closest to exhausting their budgets. These schools will be seriously impacted by the proposed building budget cuts.

►Or was that the plan? The budget is being cut, so we'll require the parents to provide more.

►Couldn't the school district get these items in much larger quantity at a much better price AND tax exempt?

►Look...we get that parents should be supplying those things that are individual in nature: gym clothes/shoes/ an old "dad": shirt to wear for art, assignment books, even notebooks, and some other things. But back in the day, when a compass or protractor as needed, the teacher lugged out a box full of them. What's next? Parents required to supply toilet paper? Each parent assigned a certain square area of the floor to mop/wax?

►It seems only logical that those supplies that are consumed as part of the education process (let's apply--say---"the toilet paper test") should be provided by the school district and be budgeted for accordingly.

►How come parents need to provide these items -to the tune of let's say $40-50 per child- when the elementary schools alone had over $14,000 in unspent budget at the end of the school year. Those funds get scooped by the district, pooled and used to purchase "larger ticket" items before the end of the year.

---

---- Phil Frei wrote:
=============
Any surplus money from any budget, building or department, goes into the general surplus account. Schools understand this and this has not been a problem. We encourage schools to not have the mentality to spend it or they will lose it. We try to pool money together in the spring for large purchases. Every department within the district is affected by the 5% cut, for example B&G, Instructional Services, HR. In general the schools got cut $50,000. Capital projects got cut $50,000 and $150,000 came from all other areas. We could not do across the board 5% cut to all budgets b/c some budgets could not be cut, for example utilities and transportation. In these cases the adm. cut 5% from areas that could be cut. Yes, the overall reduction to the mill rate is about .07 cents from the 5% cut.

---

►Two other schools, Creekside and Royal Oaks seemed to have a sneaky way of sliding in what WE would call "class fees":

□ Royal Oaks 2009-10 Kindergarten School Supply List - $10.00 for film development and crafts (please make checks payable to SPASD). Who the heck uses film these days?

□ Creekside 2009-10 Supply Lists: Optional $10 classroom donation for picture printing & crafts (please make checks payable to SPASD). Optional! That's clever!

Newspapergate?

Letters...we get letters...

SP-EYE,
I'm not sure how long the State Journal subscription is for, but a few weeks ago I renewed mine for $ 41.80 for 7 days a week for 26 weeks.

I'm assuming [the school district office staff] don't need the Sunday paper, yet on the Newspaper web site a 26 week subscription for 7 days is $123.50 [which is the exact amount of EACH of the 2 checks approved].

We may need to have JohnE do some price shopping for us before we buy things (or would that be micro-managing also?).

-----A concerned and "tax poor" citizen

---

Hmmm....so...are we paying for a couple of people's Sunday paper now, too?

Ever curious and wanting to "get the facts", SP-EYE did a little Internet digging and found on the State Journal website that "Concerned "Tax Poor" Citizen doesn't speak with the forked tongue we've come to expect from the Powers That Be.

For the record...we're certainly not opposed to having a newspaper subscription for the middle school and high school libraries (Do elementary kids really read the newspaper?). But the taxpayers shoulder enough of the luxury life of the $100K club. We think this was yet another in a growing list of poor calls by our elected leaders, the school board. And stomping on the Finance Committee...which made the correct call, makes this truly bad form.

Ya know what's really poor form though? Administration should have stepped up and said, "hey school board, we really agree that this is an inappropriate expense, we're just going to cancel those subscriptions, which we shouldn't have made in the first place". Ahhhh...fairy tales....aren't they grand?

Psst... school board members... John Q Public IS watching. And they don't think very highly of your shenanigans.

Admin Support vs. Dept. of Labor Statistics

Ok...so simply put, here's the issue.

Many of the 30 "Administrative Support" positions have parallels outside of the high-priced world of school districts. SOME school district--a leader perhaps-- has to finally take a stand and re-evaluate these positions.

A simple check of the US Department of Labor Statistics website can provide median and mean salary data across the nation, or even just for a given position and state.

The following comparisons are taken directly from the May 2008 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Wisconsin. It's likely a safe bet that wages have not increased significantly since that a year ago May. Food for thought, school board members.
..............................................
Program Managers (Special Ed. and Instructional Services)
We have 10 employees classified at this level.
Current salary ranges: $39.29 to $45.52 per hour (1680 hr/yr positions
Proposed salary ranges: $41.21 to $46.63 per hour
Proposed raises: $1.11 to $2.90 (3.1 to 7.2%)
Compare to: Education Administrators, All Other. Median salary: $30.50/hr.
..............................................
Business Services Manager
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
2007-08 salary: $31.72 per hour
Current salary: $34.22 per hour (2080 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $36.43 per hour
Proposed raise: $2.21 (6.5%)
Compare to: Business and Financial Operations, General. Median salary: $24.72/hr.
..............................................
Communications Specialist
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $23.39 per hour (1462 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $25.10 per hour → %26.19/hr on 7/1/10
Proposed raise: $1.71 (7.31%) + $1.09/hr on 7/1/10
Compare to: Media and Communications Workers, All Other. Median salary: $20.66/hr.
Compare to: Writers and Artists. Median salary: $20.48/hr.
Compare to: Technical Writers . Median salary: $25.38/hr.
Note: This position is much less challenging than that of a Technical Writer.
..............................................
District Health Nurse
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $32.67 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $33.98 per hr
Proposed raise: $1.31 (4.01%)
Compare to: Registered Nurse. Median salary: $29.27/hr.
Compare to: Licensed Practical and Vocational Nurses. Median salary: $19.06/hr.
Note: We have no information as to whether the employee is an RN or an LPN.
..............................................
Accountant
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $23.50 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $24.20 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.70 (2.98 %)
Compare to: Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks . Median salary: $14.96/hr.
Compare to: Accountants and Auditors. Median salary: $26.48/hr.
Note: We might be missing something, but we don't see this position as equivalent to an accountant as in CPA.
..............................................
Custodial Services Night
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $22.79 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $23.60 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.81 (3.55%)
Compare to:
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers. Median salary: $17.08/hr.
..............................................
District Administrator Secretary
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $21.85 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $22.30 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.45 (2.06 %)
Compare to: Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. Median salary: $17.49/hr.
..............................................
Administrative Assistant
We have 6 employees classified at this level.
Current salaries: $17.04 (1), $18.72 (1), and $19.27 (4) per hour (2080 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $17.87, 19.31, and $19.80 per hr
Proposed raises: $0.53 to $0.83 per hr (2.75 - 4.87 %)
Compare to: Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. Median salary: $17.49/hr.
..............................................
Payroll Specialist
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $19.27 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $19.80 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.53 (2.75 %)
Compare to: Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks. Median salary: $16.52/hr.

---

We're just sayin'....

Of Sense & Sensability: Can We Talk?

After a lengthy illness, has Common Sense died?

Reminds us of a rhetorical question heard numerous times:

Q: "Boy? Why'd you do that? Where's your common sense gone?"
A: "He never had any."

The Death of Common Sense

Maxims that need to be firmly placed on the table for discussion:


This is not personal
Because...it's not. We are not on some personal vendetta against the school board (contrary to water cooler district talk). We raise issues like the proposed compensation increases because they are part of the overall problem. That problem is that Sun Prairie has grown to be a spend-happy school district. The answer we get in return is that things are great! We're a growing district! We can find the money. Those are all technically correct responses, but plain and simply we have to run this (or any) school district like a business. More to the point: like a business in which we have invested our personal life savings. When it's 'other peoples' money' it's just too easy to spend, spend , spend.


Our ultimate product here is providing our kids with a proper education. Does having TEN program mangers each getting pad over $40 per hour REALLY improve the quality of their education? Really? More so than if these same manager were paid...say $25/hour?


The issues here relate to people, and therefore its hard not to view things as getting personal. Sadly, we have no desire to make things personal. Ultimately, the people involved (sadly) are just pawns in the grand scheme.


It's not just about Sun Prairie
Ultimately, our views on the ludicrous state of school district salaries are not limited to Sun Prairie alone. But Sun Prairie likes to view itself as a leader...and this is OUR community. So we have to start here.


The average Joe on the street --once [s]he's aware that Tim Culver earns about $150K per year-- is flabbergasted. No one in their right mind believes that a school district administrator of 800 or so staff and 6,000 kids is worth more money than the governor, or surely the state school superintendent who oversees ALL 426 school districts! Or any of a whole host of occupations, for that matter.


The grim reality is that Dr. Culver is paid only moderately above average when compared to ALL 426 school district administrators. But that's not an excuse. That argument is akin to the age-old, "If Johnny Jones jumped off the Empire State building, would you?" conundrum.


More to the point is the trickle-down effect. Just as School district administrators are paid obscenely, so too are those beneath him: asst school district administrators, district administration, administration support, and so on down the line. Are teachers fairly compensated? Yes and No. Very few people can claim to retire at a salary of $70,000 or more. That's the argument that teachers are VERY fairly compensated. On the other hand, entry level teachers....not so much. The answer is easy: we need to raise the lower end and then compress the salary scale. Easily said; tough to do...especially when everyone else is doing it. An by "doing it" we don't mean the typical adolescent colloquialism. We mean that no other district is doing the right thing, so why should we?


This is not really about the economy
It's easy to point to the economy as the reason to speak out against arguably ridiculous raises, but the simple truth is, it has nothing to do with the economy. The issue was always here. The economy is just a convenient spotlight to use to highlight the problem.


We need to take this opportunity...even blame the economy if we so choose...to right this ship or else run the serious risk of sinking further down the road.


Nobody gets paid what they think they are (or their job is) worth
Here's the elephant in the room to which Caren Diedrich likes to refer. Let's be honest, folks. We all think we deserve more money. We don't blame the Administration folks, or the Admin Support folks...or anybody. It's human nature. Can you name ONE person who would honestly say, "I'm WAY overpaid for the work I do".

So...let's just get past that. Everyone thinks they are underpaid. Do you REALLY think all state workers are overpaid? Do you think that Gov. Doyle said, "Geee...all these guys are overpaid, so instead of giving raises, I'm going to cut pay 5 % by furloughing (3%) and rescind 2% raises previously agreed upon"?


This is precisely why doing a job survey (an unbiased survey) makes sense. However, paying $9,000 for it for 30 people is not so good an idea. And basing it on comparisons to other districts (for reasons previously discussed) just makes it more of a bad idea.



Nobody WANTS to assess the reasonableness of salaries
This is where the school board (and committee members) get squeamish. NO ONE wants to be the person to say..."that's too much money!" Unfortunately, this where the rubber meets the road for school board members. For all the gooey photo op moments and recognition ceremonies, this is where you pay the piper for the privilege of being elected by ALL the community residents. This is where you have to lead. And real leadership is tough.

Nobody wants to "be the bad guy"
We get it. The least enjoyable aspect of being a manager is when the bad news has to be delivered. But becoming TOO cozy with "the hired help" can make that an even more unpalatable proposition. You need to keep an arms length from the District administration. You need to be the boss...not the buddy.

That being said. You need to suck it up and MAKE the hard calls. Publicly and privately, you can apologize all you like and tell people you'd love to give them more. But ultimately, you're the boss, and the business can't afford more personnel costs. They have a VERY nice job situation./arrangement, and they DO have a rewarding career. There are many people that hate their job, but do it because it pays the bills. Pass that on as well.


We need to plan for the end game
We keep talking bout how the district is growing, growing, growing. But that growth is NOT endlessly self sustaining. In every district, a growth peak occurs, followed by a plateau, and inevitably declining enrollments.

The number of kids enrolled IS the lifeblood of the district as, until a change is made in school funding, kids = dollars (of state aid). But the rest has to be made up in property taxes, and there is a tax levy ceiling to factor in as well. All of these things get reduced when enrollment drops.

We've got about $175M of debt to pay over 20 years. Sure, some of that falls off sooner than that. We're adding new programs and paying huge inflated salaries. And let's not forget that over 80% of the district budget is eaten up by salaries and benefits.

We need to start projecting for when this end game (declining enrollments) will occur. It's quite possible that Tim Culver will long be retired when that happens, and your board terms will long have expired. But as an elected official it's your duty to plan for the future and NOT leave this mess for a future board.

And we need to start making decisions based on the end game rather than the time of growing enrollment. Hey...here's an idea...we need to run this district like a business. And YOU, not Tim Culver, are the CEOs.


We need to face the cold hard realities of real life.
In the REAL world, the reality is that there are a lot of quality people (many unemployed) that gladly would do most of these jobs...and do them well...for HALF of the salaries being paid.


The old adage of the business world is that NO ONE IS IRREPLACEABLE. The cold hard reality is that whether you retire, or leave to take another position, your job WILL be covered by someone else. And often, for less money. It's the really the Bill Bellichick model for success. Rather than paying megabucks for some prima donna, you pay someone veteran scale wages to come in, do the job, and be part of as team. Can you say Three Superbowl titles?


At some point, a quality school board will lay the personal coziness aside and make the cold hard business decisions.


New Mantra (proposed)
[Insert a job title here]? You're paid MORE than adequately. You got a $2.50/hr last year. That's it. Consider yourself red-circled. We appreciate the job you do--very much so-- but this is a business. And our decision is that no increase is warranted at this time. We hope you'll understand and have no hard feelings, but we'll also understand if you wish to seek employment elsewhere.

---

So, school board? This all ultimately rests in your hands. You want our advice? Seek out--that's right, get on the horn and call the average Joe---the community residents you DON'T know and ask what they think given ALL the data. That makes your job easy. Then you can be apologetic to the affected district staff and say, "Sorry. We'd like to pay you more, but we serve at the will of the people and we serve to DO the will of the people."

Peace. Out.

Recession-Proof

While the rest of the world, country, state, and county continue to struggle with mounting unemployment (now just shy of 10%), layoffs/furloughs/wage cuts, and foreclosures, at least we sit secure in the recession-proof Sunny Prairie school district!!!

At least that's what District Administrator/Super Nintendo Tim Culver desperately needs you to believe...at least until he can get his as yet unseen budget passed and sweet raises for everyone.

Culver was working his mega mojo at the school board meeting Monday night, stating that while other districts such as arch-nemesis [DAMN! They got named top city by Money; we only got Family Circle] Middleton are struggling, "...we're in great financial shape." [SP-EYE...shouldn't that little cheer be followed by a resounding, "naaa naaaa nuh boooo booooo"? ]

Let's summarize how wonderful life is in the Sun Prairie school district.

The teacher's contract is water under the bridge at this point, but those contracts will cost the taxpayers $1.5M this year and another $1.5M next July. That calls for a 4.2% salary increase this year and amounts to a 7.74% increase in salaries and benefits over 2 years. Since salaries and benefits account for over 80% of the annual operating budget, that means the budget will automatically increase by at least 6.0%.

Next up is the administration contracts. The board voted to accept their GRACIOUS offer to reduced their "entitlement" of 4.5% increase to 3.8%.

After that, the plan is to give Admin Support a "3.8% package" increase. Our calculations show that in salary increases alone, that translates to a 4.40% total increase, with at least one individual being awarded a 13% increase.
More little tidbits regarding the Admin Support package that you likely won't hear:

• 17 out of the 30 members of this group will get raises of at least $1.11 per hour
• 12 out of the 30 members of this group will get raises of at least $1.50 per hour
• 3 of the 30 members of this group (10%) will see raises of over $2.00 per hour ($2.14, $2.21, $2.90)
• The "Business Services Manager", who received a $2.50 per hour raise LAST July, will get a raise of $2.21 per hour effective THIS July. That's a $10,000 per year raise in ONE year's time!
  
• 10 of the 30 members of this group are "Program Managers"; each will have a per hour rate of at least $41.21 (max of $46.63). Can you say "top-heavy"?
• The program mangers only work 210 days per year. You and us? We work 2080 hrs/year, which means 260 days.

A 3.8% increase is also being offered to the Substitute Teachers.

Oh wait...we can't bat 1.000...Local 60 is stuck with 3.25% increases.

Dr. Culver has asked for a 0% increase. Geee...do you think the board will feel bad and give him one anyway? I mean...afterall...what's $5500 on top of a $70,000,000 general budget...right?

Property tax bills will also bear the brunt of the rest of the $100M borrowed for the high school construction.

The cost of the 4K program will be heavily borne this year, as we only get state aid for 1/3 of the kids this year. And enrollment hadn't reached projections when we last checked. Oh, and the plan was to operate the program at about a $600K loss this year. That would be what's known as a positive liability, sports fans.

Oh...and word on the street that the exodus of students from Sun Prairie, at least at the elementary level (where our growth has been coming from) outweighs the expected inodus [OK...that' not really a word; we just made that up...but it sounds cool, n'est ce pas?]. Less bodies means less state aid (which is already being cut). Less state aid means more has to come from property taxes.

Does anyone else think it's nuts to be talking raises at all??
Only fringe board member David Stackhouse had the intestinal fortitude to make a motion that furlough days be included to cut the costs. NONE of the other board members would second that motion. So...you know how things are goin'...right?

How long will the school board continue to write checks that the taxpayers can't cash?

So...Dr. Culver...you who keep chanting how great SPASD is because we tax below the allowable limit (like 20% of the districts, right Dr. C?]....so how long do you project that we'll continue to tax below the ceiling...like is that little feather in your cap just about macaroni tight now?


Oh...and McSeaBass? We're sure we're probably just making these numbers say whatever we want. So we anxiously await your explanation of how all these numbers should be properly reviewed using your new McFilet o' Math.

What's the 411 on the Budget?

First we had the "Amber" Alert (missing child). Recently discussions about establishing a "Gray" Alert (missing senior citizen) were held. We're calling for a "Green" Alert to be implemented. Green as in....WHERE THE HECK IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET?

Administration and the board have been merrily agreeing to and proposing 3.8% raises for all levels of staff...all except for the poor Local 60 folks. They get stuck with 3.25%

Salaries and benefits account for more than 80% of the school district's basic operations budget, which was over $65,000,000 THIS year.

The teachers' contracts will cost over 2,000,000 in new money.

We don't know what the Local 60 increases will cost.

Admin is "proposing" that Admin Support will add $80,000 to the debit column.

We don't know yet what Admin's "requested" 3.8% increases will cost.

We haven't even seen anything CLOSE to a budget.

Phil Frei has told us that as a result of state aid cuts, that cuts will have to be made to each building's operations budget.

So...we can afford raises, but expenses that DIRECTLY go to the kids will be DECREASED?
We don't think so.

How can we even be discussing what raises we can afford?

Oh...back to the budget....or lack thereof.


So....what have we seen THIS year? NOTHING CONCRETE.
Yet...suddenly....we think....there's a public hearing on the budget for NEXT Monday, 7-20-09. At least that is what was discussed during the 6-22-09 Finance Committee meeting. This hypothetical budget hearing (A) wasn't even on the famous BoardDocs meeting calendar as of this morning and (B) no preliminary budget has been brought before either the Finance Committee or the full Board!!!

The Budget Timeline, presented to the Board in January 2009, says:

• April Management Team reviews budget draft #1.
• May The Finance Committee & School Board review budget draft #1.
• June The District Administration refines the planning budget and formulates draft #2.
• July A Budget Hearing is held.
• July or August The School Board takes action on the proposed budget.

POLICY DB ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET specifies:
5. The public distribution of budget documents.In accordance with the budget calendar, the district administrator shall submit a preliminary budget to the Board for consideration.

►The Board shall study and evaluate the proposed receipts, expenditures and the amount to be raised by local taxes in terms of the educational plan and the ability of the school district to support the plan. Recommendations for changes in the proposed budget will be considered.
►The Board may schedule special budget review meetings.
►The Board or Finance Committee may request written justification, documentation, and analysis for any programs.
►The proposed budget and tax levy, as tentatively approved by the Board, shall be presented to school district electors at a budget hearing at the time and place of the annual meeting. Electors at the annual meeting shall adopt the tax levy.
►The Board shall adopt the annual operating budget at a Board meeting following the annual meeting.

How was the budget handled last year (as in previous years)

5-27-08 Finance Committee: 1st draft of 2008-09 Revenue Budget
6-23-08 Finance Committee: draft of 2008-09 Expenditure Budget
6-9-08 School Board – Draft Revenue Budget Informational Item
7-6-08 Public Hearing on Budget 7-28-08 Finance Committee – Budget Hearing Discussion

What have we had to review THIS year?
Read for yourself what we have(not) been provided. NOTHING has been presented to the Finance Committee. NOTHING has been presented to the School Board. The public has no formal notification of a public hearing on the budget--which is 1-week away (we think) and hasn't been seen by or reviewed by ANYONE. Oh...but we're going forward at warp factor 9 on handing out raises like they're Skittles.

12/22/2008 5.03 2009-10 Budget Timeline
1/12/2009 5.01 2009-2010 Transportation Budget
1/12/2009 8.01 2009-2010 Budget Timeline
1/26/2009 8.01 2009-2010 Transportation Budget
1/26/2009 3.05 Budget Forecast Model
2/9/2009 6.06 Budget Forecast Model
3/30/2009 6.02 Instructional Programs Budget Review
3/30/2009 6.01 Student Services Budget Review
3/30/2009 3.01 Youth Options Program Requests - Fall 2009-2010
4/13/2009 9.02 Instructional Programs Budget Review
4/13/2009 5.02 Technology Budget Review
4/13/2009 5.04 Buildings & Grounds Budget Review
4/13/2009 9.03 Student Services Budget Review
4/13/2009 8.06 Youth Options Program Requests - Fall 2009-2010
5/26/2009 3.01 2009-10 Budget Development - Initial Budget Assumptions
6/8/2009 8.10 2009-2010 Budget Development - Initial Budget Assumptions
6/22/2009 5.02 Update on State Budget Progress and Impact on SPASD
6/22/2009 3.01 Review of Food Service 2009-2010 Budget
6/22/2009 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement
7/13/2009 8.01 Food Service Preliminary 2009-2010 Budget

N

Lord of the purse stRings

As the school board ponders (wait...is there really any pondering going on?) pay raises for school district administrators, let there be no mistake as to who holds the purse strings.

According to law, the school board, elected to represent the district residents, SHOULD hold the purse strings. Sadly, this board, like most past boards, hands the purse strings over to the District Administrator.

Last fall, Dr. Culver attacked community resident John Welke, proclaiming that Welke had "ulterior motives", when Welke asked some pointed and valid questions regarding SAGE program compliance.

Now it would seem that similar allegations could be levelled at Culver. Reports abound that the district staff are not as enamored with Culver as their leader as once they may have been. So how does a leader regain his disbanding flock? Perhaps by fighting for 3.8% compensation package increases when the rest of the community, region, nation, and world are facing job and wage cuts, furloughs, and the burden of paying an increased share of healthcare costs.

Just as Culver accused Welke of having ulterior motives, it can be argued that Culver now is the one operating with ulterior motives. For, after all, Culver indeed is the Lord of the Purse Strings for the Sun Prairie School District. He supported a 3.8% increase for teachers (4.2% salary), a 3.8% increase for administrative support staff and administrators. But...geee....those poor Local 60 folks are stuck with the 3.25% they bargained last year. Too bad, so sad for them...right?

Self serving interests, perhaps?
Culver's motives strike another chord in the ulterior motives sonnata. Could it be that Dr. Culver is cleverly lining up the dominos so that down the road they all fall neatly in a line to further his own interests? Consider for a moment, that if Culver helps to secure 3.8% for the teachers, 3.8% for Administrative support staff and then 3.8% for Administrators, it would be pretty hard for the school board to not give HIM a 3.8% raise...right? Got your thinking caps on school board members? Are you getting this?

Wake up, school board! For once, just TRY to tell the community how much you value the administration in words, but keep our wallets securely in your pocket. Tell Administration that you appreciate their willingness to drop their "entitled" 4.5% increases to 3.8% and tell them that if it's 3.8% they want...fine...but furloughs will be enacted...10 days for those with 260 day contracts. Yes, it will be hard to do that. But you weren't elected to wield a rubber stamp.

Oh...and when Culver's "raise" comes up for discussion, perhaps it's time to "red-circle" him.

3.8% Across the Board RAISES!

Have our school board members been living in some remote hideaway with no access to the TV, radio, Internet or newspapers?

Must be...because while the rest of us....you know the ones that foot the bill for the expenses THEY approve....are struggling in this recession, they are on a spending spree.

Local 60 (support staff) are stuck with the 3.25% increase they negotiated last year. The board gave the teachers union a 3.8% "package" increase. Now mind you, if ANYONE deserves a raise, even in tight times, its the folks who are actually doing the educating. That being said, these ARE tight times, and no better reason could be given for negotiating a wage freeze. But...water over the dam, that contract has been settled.

Next up, however, are the Administrative Support Team, the Administration, and Dr. Culver. The Admin Support raises got tabled Monday night, so more on that later. In the meantime, we hear things. We understand that at last week's Negotiation meeting-- though details are sketchy and suggest no vote was taken--- Phil Frei was said to indicate something along the lines of: [Admin] is entitled to a 4.5% increase (as teachers got last year]...but...given the economy...we'll take 3.8%.

Gee? You'll "take" 3.8%? Well isn't THAT taking one on the chin for the team???

So...we're expecting that sometime tomorrow, when the school board agenda comes out for Monday's meeting, you'll see a quiet little item regarding contracts for Administration. Our sources indicate that the 3.8% is a done deal. Want to know what 3.8% means??? Another $110,000 to the taxpayers. Phil Frei will tell you that that means another couple of cents on your property tax...so how can you disagree?

Time to take stand folks. If you don't think it makes logical fiscal sense to be tossing around 3.8% raises when jobs and wages are being cut all around, then:

1. CALL your school board members.
2. E-mail your school board members
3. Come to the meeting Monday July 13 and TELL them.


Tell them, "NO More". Not until this economy changes.

What does 3.8% look like?
The chart below compares last year to what a 3.8% increase would look like. Yes...one administrator has retired. And yes, Paul Keats will not be with us. We know that. But you should at least know how things will look for others.

And we have a question....since the principal of Creekside is so much more highly paid than other elementary principals (because they were formally a top shelf Administrator)...shouldn't their salary be frozen anyway???????

And let's not forget that Culver gets $425/month in addition to his salary...pin money so to speak. Why do some folks get less benefit $? Several are opting out of health insurance because they have coverage from a significant other. And for that they get $300/month cash that isn't included here.

CLICK THE CHART FOR A LARGER VIEW---if you dare

Slippin' It Past the Goalie Pt. 2: Admin Support Raises

Remember last summer when Admin tried to slip one by the goalie and give the Business Services position a $5.00 PER HOUR raise? And the school board was caught flatfooted (ex Prez Stackhouse> "I didn't see anything about a $5.00 per hour raise...")? So the board -- in their infinite wisdom, reduced the raise to only (ONLY!!!!) $2.50 PER HOUR? And then...they agreed to conduct a job survey (which...ahem.. cost us $9,000)?

Fast forward to Monday night's HR committee meeting, because it all comes together when they unveil their new plan for Administrative Support pay raises. The plan...which they have NOT shared as yet...calls for raising the pay grid maximums an AVERAGE of 10.6%. But there's a "lot of spread"...meaning some will increase far MORE than 10.6%!!!!! NEWSFLASH, sportsfans.....if the UPPER end is raised by an average of 10.6%...then so is the LOWER end!!! That's how these grids work.

Yep...you heard it right....pay RAISES. State workers took a 5% cut. Dane County workers are taking a 5% cut. And just this past week, the city of Fitchburg announced plans to furlough employees....or face cuts.

Isn't it grand to live in a bubble in Sun Prairie where the recession has no impact on you at all....if you work for the school district, that is. Family Circle even lists Sun Prairie as one of the nation's top 10 places for families to live. Yup...except the senior members of those families, the ones living on Social Security or retirement investments, will have to live elsewhere and just come to visit.

Had enough yet? Then speak your piece Monday night July 6th. Otherwise it will be rubber stamped by the board on July 13th.

Meeting: 07/06/2009 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE,
5:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.
Chair: Caren Diedrich

Report prepared by: Tim Culver, District Administrator & Annette Mikula, Executive Director of Human Resources
HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS: On August 11, 2008 the School Board authorized an Administrative Support Staff Group Classification and Compensation Study to be done. The study used objective job evaluation to establish internal consistency; strategic market data to pay fairly in your employment markets.

It recognized the diversity of jobs and required levels of knowledge, skills, and abilities. The study also provided plan implementation that will be useful (and which is appropriately flexible) for many years. Charles Carlson presented the findings to the Administrative Support Group on June 30, 2009 which included a new salary schedule structure.

The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.

RECOMMENDATION:
1. Management Team recommends adoption of the new pay plan.
[SP-EYE- But of course they do! ]
2. Management Team recommends that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase which is $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.
[SP-EYE- But they're not saying whhat it is for 2010-11, now are they? ]

Read the Sales Pitch on the Job Compensation Survey

See the CURRENT payscale...how much will these increase?

---

Top 10 Low Hanging Fruit

...Ripe to be Cut..... from the Budget.

Didja hear the one about the economy being in rough shape? Assuming you haven't had your head buried in the sand for the last year, then you know it's going to take 3-5 years for our economy (and investments) to return to the Summer 2008 levels. The governor is making an unprecedented cut of 3.5% to school aids. It's time to get serious about cutting the pork out of the school district budget. There's so much pork in there that it's under investigation as the source of the swine flu. You just KNOW there's pork in there when Phil Frei's battle cry for every new program idea is "I can find the money [in the budget] for that".

We've railed --on deaf ears--against needless expenditures like birthday KitKat bars, memorial flowers, and lunch subs/pizza on the taxpayers dime for some time now. The initial response we get from the board (Dr. Culver says his piece wordlessly through clear body language), is "It's such a small amount!". Yeah? Maybe the amounts are small...but they are quickly adding up. Next year, for the first time in memory, individual school miscellaneous budgets are being CUT (about 5-6%) by the district. NOW we are reducing monies available for direct educational benefit of the kids. So NOW we want to reiterate our objections. Cutting out the KitKats, flowers, and pizza should be done before any cuts are made that directly affect education! But that will only happen if the community speaks up. So...e-mail or call school board members and tell them that the kids need to come first. They may not listen, but they'll get the message.

We're not saying that, conceptually speaking, each and every one of the following expenses is inherently wrong. Some most certainly are. For the others, our question is this: are these expenses providing us equivalent (or better) value in return for the cost?

10. Here's a novel thought...maybe we could actually watch the books instead of rubber stamping all expenditures. Does anyone else care if the administration cries "You're micro-managing!"? Is ANYONE really watching the books?

9. There's no place in a public school budget for Flowers/Memorials, KitKats, and luxury lunches. You want these "niceties? Then get a job in the private sector. A word of warning though...even the private sector is cutting these luxuries these days. Read further. Can you stomach more waste?

8. Stop sending a gaggle of school board members to the annual WASB conference when 1-2 could go and share key information with the full board upon return. Better yet...go for the day only! 6 or 7 board members times 2-3 nights stay each at a swanky hotel x 2 nights of ridiculous dinner costs = TOO MUCH! Remember...this is where that wonderful BoardDocs idea came from..

7. Stamp out sea bass (and other exotic fare) dinners for school board members. This sense of entitlement needs to be stomped like a plump cockroach. What's worse is that some school board members are meekly working to correct the others, and they STILL do it! They need to eat like they were paying for it out of their own pockets. And if they can STILL afford it, then are they really representative of our community? 2009 Expenses. 2008 expenses.

6. Stop running to the $250/hr lawyers unnecessarily! Do we really need to consult an attorney over whether to release the resumes and applications of candidates for a vacant school board seat? For the release of names and e-mail addresses of citizens serving on a committee? To determine if something is a violation of open meetings laws? Read further.

5. Eliminate hotel stays for local competitions. 10 miles away? 2 days before the competition even begins. Doesn't make any sense at all. Read further.

4. Completely overhaul the district check review procedure (which doesn't even exist in policy)! You can question a check, but you can't deny payment. Then what's the point?
Read further. Read even more.

3. Require Demand at least 3 bids for (future) architect contracts. NO bidding required on the $100M HS project, 15M Creekside or $14M Horizon projects. How much could we have saved? We'll never know-except that it would have been millions. Read further. Read even more.

2. Eliminate the (High School) Construction Manager @ $7,300 per month. Read more. The original intent was that this position would "pay for itself" through cost savings earned by the district through their management of the construction. What have we ever seen for this job for Creekside? The only "savings" we had was through applying referendum interest income against costs.

1. Cut the power to the energy management contract @ $9,000/month. Ok, so we "avoided a lot of costs" by learning how to turn off lights in empty rooms and set back thermostats at night. For $324,000? Yikes. We're willing to bet that that advice was available somewhere for free. And you know what? There's this thing called the point of diminishing returns. Read more

Wrecker alert!!! There are those (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that will declare this post a prima facie example of "wrecking". In anticipation, we ask the simple question: How does asking for fiscal accountability equate to "wrecking"?

SP-EYE offers these very simple, sensible suggestions in the interest of helping to build a great, cost-effective, educational Xanadu for the students of Sun Prairie. We want to be part of the solution! We want to be at least the "E" in team. But...but...we can't be part of the solution--part of the team--if you won't let us. You can't chastise us for not being part of the team if you won't pick us!

N

Post-mortem on a questionable decision

Two years ago, as construction for Creekside elementary was beginning and the high school picture was clarifying, discussions about the need for a "construction manager" were held at the school board's FT&T committee. The intent was to hire --actually initial discussions were heavily centered on contracting for services of--someone who could act as the school districts "agent" on the construction site(s) to ensure that we (the district) would get critical input that would ensure quality buildings without "fluff". The intent was that this individual would suggest modifications such as "hey we could use this flooring (or this ceiling tile) instead of what the builder planned and we get better durability at a lower cost" or "if we cut out some of the angles here we could save a great deal of construction cost". They would also monitor invoices to ensure that we get what we pay for. Sounds good so far...right? We agree. But as with everything, whether something is a good idea or not is relevant only when you consider the cost. At 25,000 per year (and if evidence of equivalent or better cost savings is shown): great idea. At $88,000 per year and with no tangible evidence of cost-savings: questionable idea at best.

When it came time to discuss cost is when discussions got hinky. At least one committee member and a construction-savvy board member felt strongly that this was NOT a full-time position, and should be dealt with as a "limited term employment" (LTE) that would not provide benefits, as a cost saving to the district. In fact, former board member and FTT committee chair Mary Ellen Havel-Lang was leading the charge for this to be a full-time position. It would also eliminate the need to pay unemployment when the construction was over and we had no further use for the position.

The discussion (which of course is never captured in meeting minutes and these meetings aren't recorded) was that the construction manager should bring forward regular formal (read: written) reports that basically justified the continuing value of the position. The idea was that the individual would report on the costs savings they had built into the project(s) on a monthly basis that would more than cover the cost of the position. Have we even seen a SINGLE such report?

The district took all this discussion and came to the school board with a recommendation that we hire a permanent (well...at least for the project duration) Construction Manager at a starting salary of $23.17 per hour. (NOTE: that person is almost twice as valuable as a "Youth Advocate based on salary, so how serious are we about safety?). So based on this proposal, we've gone from a part-time position (discussions generally agreed that on the whole this would be a HALF-TIME position at best) to one that bills the district $7,300 per month.

In this economic climate, are we REALLY getting $7300 per month worth of "quality management" from the district's construction manager? Or is this $88,000 we could cut from the district budget and handle with existing staff? If state government can do more with less, why shouldn't the school district?

We're in the midst of unprecedented times. The state is even cutting aid to schools by 2.5%! That decision was announced and we STILL haven't heard any indication of cuts from district administration or the school board. Where is the Sun Prairie school board cutting back? Nowhere. The initial budget report says "no new programs...except 4K". Nothing is being cut. When are we going to start attacking our school district budget with a red pen? What will we do if folks decide they can't afford to live here anymore and they bail? We already saw initial projects of 425 4K students drop to 350. What if ALL enrollments starts dropping?

Decisions such as the Construction Manager position, the $9300 per month we pay to Energy Education Inc. to remind us to turn off lights and lower then thermostat HAVE to be re-visited. We could shave $200,000 off the budget by those two moves alone! We are NOT saying we need to reduce critical things like teaching staff. But the fluff has to be eradicated. We need to hunker down, focus on educating the kids, and cut the sea bass out of our diet.

Peace. Out. On this Memorial Day, please remember those that gave their lives for our country, and the loved ones that lost them.

Is Lack of Oversight an Oversight?

Who's the captain of this ship? In theory, it's David "I'm a Leader Not a Follower" Stackhouse, current board president .

Well, Captain....your board policy says that the board will receive a quarterly report of all bid items between $10 and $25K.

Since this quarterly report has not been included with any board package, are we to conclude that you aren't following this policy?

Or is it that you aren't following the policy which specifies that bids are required?

---

POLICY DJ PURCHASING
1. Bidding Approval
The Board shall approve any bids or quotations as required by state or federal law, and all quotations and/or bids greater than $25,000, except as otherwise provided. Any bid needing Board approval will first go to a Board sub-committee, when practical, for approval and then to the Board, unless it is an emergency purchase.

2. Budget and Purchases
All school district purchases shall conform to the current fiscal year budget. All unbudgeted purchases shall be submitted to the School Board for approval.

3. School Board Oversight The Finance Committee shall ensure that all district purchases are in compliance with board policy, the proposed or approved budget, and state and federal laws, then forward their recommendations to the School Board. A quarterly report will be given to the School Board on bid items between $10,000 and $24,999.

Chickety Ch-Check Yourself...Before you Wrickety Wreck Yourself

The school board's Finance Committee is desperately in need of a major overhaul. This committee is charged with fiscal oversight of the school district's $65M budget. Certainly, some aspects of the committee are working. One aspect of the committee's duties that is decidedly dysfunctional, however, is the whole issue of "Check Approval".

The district writes hundreds of checks each month, totalling millions of dollars. In fact, the check total for the April 13, 2009 meeting was a whopping 400+ checks for over $9.5M. One of the reasons that the Finance Committee meets twice each month is so that checks can be "approved" twice each month, instead of piling up.

The one definition of "approve" to which the school board apparently subscribes to is the concept of rubber stamping approval of checks. The committee can ask for additional information about checks, but the only action they have at their disposal is to Approve". There is no "Not Approved" or "Rejected" button.

Perhaps what's really needed is to add (what many thought was intuitively part of this process already) the words, "Review and ..." in front of "Approve Checks". When your bank statement comes in each month, one hopes that you review it for accuracy, rather than just "approve" it by filing it away untouched. Occasionally, banks (and check processors) DO make mistakes. In our own homes, by reviewing one's statement, one occasionally might learn that one's spouse has gone out and purchased some toy or other which the "management team", so to speak, had not jointly agreed. Regardless of the situation, the proper procedure is to review the check register, ask the difficult (but necessary) clarifying questions, and THEN "approve", those checks that qualify, for payment.. In rare instances, we CAN find that unacceptable purchases had been made.

Check writing is the world's most fertile ground for misappropriation of funds. We say that because it's a fact. Your school board will get either defensive or queasy about this topic. But that attitude is what has gotten numerous businesses--and school districts--into trouble. Don't believe us? Try googling "school district" along with unsavory terms like "embezzlement". We are NOT suggesting that any of our district employees are dishonest. In keeping with the principles of "trust but verify", however, it is simply common sense to build visible, structured, and defensible systems to monitor the check writing process. It has been shown time and time again that the best deterrent to financial shenanigans is to have a very visible, operative system that checks and double checks things. Look, we all understand that bad things sometimes happen to good people. And what follows is that sometimes basically good people make poor decisions. Usually, however, when it comes to financial accounting, the probability of someone reaching for the forbidden fruit is inversely proportional to the perceived level of deterrent activities. Some of you know exactly what we're talking about...right?

OK...this is getting too serious. Time for some levity. Remember that old "Knock Knock" joke?

Joker: Knock. Knock.

Target: Who's there?

Joker: Banana.

Target: Banana who?

Joker: Knock. Knock.
Target: Who's there?
Joker: Banana.

this repeats until sensing frustration, the joker finally changes to:

Joker: Knock. Knock.
Target: Who's there?
Joker: Orange

Target: Orange who?

Joker: Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

Where are we going with this? Well...this joke is so very much like an ongoing discussion within the school board's Finance Committee between Caren Diedrich and citizen representative Rick Mealy. Except it goes something like this.

Mealy: I move to separate check numbers "X" and "Y" for a separate approval vote.

Diedrich: So...you're voting to not approve those checks. But the services have been rendered. We need to pay the vendors.

Mealy: Caren, are you telling me that my only option is to approve ---to rubber stamp--- all checks?

Diedrich: We can't not pay a vendor who has provided the district with something.

Mealy: Oh but we can. The board/district CAN make whoever made an inappropriate purchase reimburse the district. Perhaps the school board should take the employee who made the inappropriate purchase on an all expenses paid trip to the " 'Splaining Room ". Perhaps the employee needs to pay for the item out of his/her pocket. This is the only way people will learn what is and what is NOT an appropriate purchase.

The problem is that neither the school board nor the Finance Committee offer any option or protocol to "not approve" any particular check for payment. Even if there's 1 or 2 dissenting votes on a check at the Committee level, the full school board then unanimously rubber stamp approves full payment an hour or so later at the board meeting. There's no dis-incentive for anyone that violates rules governing spending. In fact, the "rules" themselves are loosey goosey at best.

The procurement system (and not just checks) needs to be re-worked from the top on down. Rules need to be established and followed. There has to be consequences for those that don't follow the rules. The Management Team needs to be the enforcers, so the school board does not have to micro-manage. And lastly, the Finance Committee has to develop a real, sound policy for reviewing and validating checks being generated. Payment --by the taxpayers--must not be an absolute. Yes. it will be tough to do this. But good things don't come easily.
- Rick Mealy

You get the point. This discussion has gone on at too many Finance Committee meetings to count. What makes the whole process so ridiculous is, as Mealy pointed out to Diedrich this past week: "Caren...you have the votes. It's going to be a 3-1 vote to approve these checks as it always is. You're gonna win. So why continue to argue this?" Mealy then suggested that if Diedrich didn't like his approach of voting to not approve certain checks then perhaps she could suggest some other alternative approach that would address the issue.

This past week was a little different; Diedrich actually responded to Mealy in their regular "Point - CounterPoint" session that she "would have to think about a way to cope with this". We'll see what THAT means.

No Policy. No Procedure.

Here's what really underscores the issue. "Checks" is an agenda item at EVERY Finance Committee and School Board Meeting. In fact, Finance Committee members are told to submit their "check questions" to Rhonda Page in advance of the Finance Committee meeting (preferably on Friday....geee we wouldn't want folks to take too much time to review 400 checks, eh?). Of course the check runs aren't even available until late on Thursday. Usually check questions don't come in until the weekend or early Monday. Then a response is provided by Rhonda, typically between 4:00 and 5:00 pm on Monday...often less than an hour or two prior to the meeting. Nothing like having no preparation time...right?

You know what's great? For such a detailed procedure, it doesn't exist in ANY of the board's policies or Administration's procedures! In fact, "check approval" doesn't even appear as one of the Finance Committee's duties and responsibilities in Policy BCE.

Of course, we're just waiting for the school board's response to be something like, "You're right. Check Approval does NOT exist in policy....so we're going to discontinue the practice. We're taking bets that this is their response to resolve this problem. Any takers?

SP-EYE: This is yet another example of where school board members like JohnE Whalen hide behind the "Micro-management" immunity shield. It's their carte blanche to do nothing. And it's wrong. Current (and past) practice is not how these board members would handle their personal finances (gulp...we hope) or their businesses. And it's not how the school district should operate either.