Open Meeting Violation?

We hear the following from a community resident:

Neither tonight's meeting nor the negotiations meeting tomorrow have been properly noticed in the Star.  I called the Star this morning to see if I overlooked it.  The person I talked to verified that there were no notices and said they must have made the request too late to make the deadline.  I don't think the board can hold a legal meeting.

The issue at hand is: does a public notice have to actually appear in the paper?  Or can the district just SEND it to the paper?  One can argue that with the wide availability of the Internet, by virtue of posting a meeting Notice on the district website (BoardDocs) is sufficient.  The district also posts notices at the District Office.  The District send notices to the library, but we learned recently that the library doesn't always post them.


Last week a similar violation was alleged because notice was not found in the STAR -- the district's official newspaper-- in the usual location (back of section 2, with other notices).  We learned that on this occasion, the STAR published the Notice in question in the "LifeStyles" section.  Seems logical to us (NOT!).


So...at the very least does the district have to consider whether or not the STAR is adequately serving us in its role as the official newspaper?  Should the meetings be cancelled tonight?


The state's Open Meetings Law Guide states the following:

Note, however, that the requirement to provide notice to the officially designated newspaper is distinct from the requirement to provide notice to the public.  If the chief presiding officer chooses to provide notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium, the officer must ensure that the notice is in fact published. 

Shenanigans Encore - The Pool Manager Salary

In our last episode, the school board had planned a closed door session to discuss the hiring and compensation for the Pool Manager (OK, the more officious title is "Aquatics Facility Manager"...but let's not split hairs, it's a Pool Manager.)

We posted our concerns that this was a stage 5 Shenanigans alert, and a number of community residents wrote or called to share their concerns. The main question was, "How can the school board set the Pool Manager salary --in fact LOWERING it $5000 from what Administration recommended---in open session one night (Monday May 10) and then schedule a closed session (May 19) to re-consider the compensation!!!!

So they cancel the May 19th meeting. We never heard a reason, but we're willing to bet that Culver and the board received a few e-mails and phone calls declaring "Shenanigans"---not to mention a significant potential for a case of violation of open meetings laws. But now they have RE-scheduled a closed session for tomorrow, May 24th at the conclusion of the school board meeting.

What's the Difference This Time?
The devil is in the details, as the say. And here, the detail is in the phrasing used. What should stand out

"...consider the employment and compensation of specific applicant for the position of Aquatics Facility Manager"

Seems rather innocuous...doesn't it? But the difference means a great deal in meeting the letter of the laws that exempt certain meetings from being held in open session.

What do the Open Meeting Laws Require?
The statute in question is chapter 19, specifically, 19.85(1)(c). The law states that...

19.85 Exemptions.
(1) Any meeting of a governmental body, upon motion duly made and carried, may be convened in closed session under one or more of the exemptions provided in this section. … A closed session may be held for any of the following purposes:

(c) Considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility.

History:
Sub. (1) (c) does not permit closed sessions to consider employment, compensation, promotion, or performance evaluation policies to be applied to a position of employment in general. 80 Atty. Gen. 176.

---

The devil in the details here is that there is no Aquatics Facility Manager yet, so there is no public employee. The reason for the allowed secrecy is to protect the privacy of the employee...particularly if they are being "called on the carpet".

The meeting can now--legally--be held in closed session because they specifically spelled out the fact the meeting is to discuss hiring salary for a specific applicant, rather than a generic salary for the position, as was voted on 2 weeks ago. Arguably, this was the intent all along--even for the 19th--but the public meeting notice was not written in a manner that clearly met the letter of the statutory exemptions.

So the shenanigans remain, but this time, its legal shenanigans.

By the way...a shout goes out to Sun Prairie's very own Nancy Harms, who we understand is a candidate for the "Aquatics Facility Manager". Ms. Harms coaches the girls swim team, and has been very involved with swimming. She and her husband Matt, owner of Harms Insurance, also get kudos for their very recent donation of $16,000 by Harms Insurance for the naming rights to the pool scoreboard. From the interaction we've observed between Ms. Harms and Tim Culver and some board members during some committee meetings as the Pool Manager position description has been solidified, it seems she would work very well with the Administrative team. Good Luck, Ms. Harms!

Let the Record Show:

OK, Sportsfans...
The records request has been filled, and oh....the picture it shows.

Again...let us be perfectly clear up front. The following is not intended to slight Partor Rayford. We think he will be a good addition to the Finance Committee. We see him as merely an unfortunate pawn in the school district's bizarre chess game. The issue on the table is ONLY the manner in which John Whalen fractured "the rules" and "sacred" policy in order to get the candidiate they wished on a Committee. Similarly, the rest of the sheep that supported Whalen's misdeeds should be held just as accoutnable.

Dateline Friday July 10, 3:46 pm.
Pastor Rayford's e-mailed letter of application is received, 15 minutes before the deadline. This letter requests ONLY consideration for the Human Resources Committee.

FROM:Tim Culver
TO: pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com
CC: Diedrich, Caren; King, Gwen; Mikula, Annette; Whalen, John
DATE: 7/12/20096:56 AM
SUBJECT: Re: Citizen Representative Committees

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter. I have forwarded it to the appropriate Board members. Thanks for your interest. Hope to see you soon.
----------------------
>>>> pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com 7/10/2009 3:46 PM >>>>>
Dr. Culver,
As a resident of Sun Prairie, I am greatly concerned about the future of our district and its ability to continue to serve a growing and diverse community. I have devoted a significant amount of time over the past 2 years, to studying the complexities and challenges facing our community and I would like to serve the community by volunteering for one of the citizen representative positions.
The committee I am most interested in is the Human Resources committee. Having served on 2 special committees pertaining to bUilding a diverse workforce, I feel this will be the best fit for me. I will gladly provide a personal resume of my work experience upon request. The work experience includes over 10 years in management at large corporations such as General Electric, CitiCapital, and The Associates.

Pastor Harold E. Rayford
Faith, Hope and Love Worship Center

Dateline Sunday July 12, 6:56 pm.
Tim Culver acknowledges receipt of Pastor Rayfors's application.

Dateline Monday July 20, 8:20 pm.
Pastor Rayford's scheduled interview ONLY for the Human Resources Committee.

Dateline Tuesday July 21, 4:31 pm.
Verrrry interesting. John Whalen's e-mail to Pator Rayford requesting that he call him on his cell phone. We wonder....did any OTHER candidate get to have the opportunity for additional questions or interview time? Nice decision to use the personal cell phone...untraceable record-wise. Geee...since this was part of the interview, shouldn't this have been done under the watchful public eye?

From: John Whalen
To: pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com
Date: 7/21/2009 4:31 PM
Subject: Follow up questions

I was certainly a pleasure talking to you last night. I have a couple follow up questions that I would like to ask you. When you have a moment, would you please call me at 513-xxxx.
John Whalen President
Sun Prairie School Board jewhale@spasd.k12.wi.us

Dateline Thursday July 23, 5:02 pm.
Here's the silver tuna. John Whalen officially makes his nominations for the committees. Note that we have NO RECORD indicating that Pastor Rayford even REQUESTED a slot on the Finance Commitee. Yet here he is...nominated for that appointment.

From: John Whalen
To: Tim Culver
Date: 7/23/20095:02 PM
Subject: Re: Committee Members
I have inserted the names below. It would be nice if Gwen called the nominees on Monday. If we send a letter to all applicants, I don't know if it is necessary to notify those that were not nominated. If you feel otherwise, give me a call and we can discuss it.
John Whalen President
Sun Prairie School Board jewhale@spasd.k12.wLus
>>> Tim Culver 07/23/09 1 :27 PM >>>
John:
If you give us the names of the members you are going to nominate on Monday, I can have Gwen insert them in a situation report.
Education & Policy Committee 2009-2011: Christina Klawitter
Facilities, Technology & Transportation Committee 2009-2010: John Wilke
2009-2011: Patrick Anderson
Finance Committee 2009-2011: Pastor Harold Rayford
Human Resources Committee 2009-2011: Betty Collier

Dateline Friday July 24, 9:55 AM.
Here is Culver's--not Whalen's-- rather urgent request to Pastor Rayford that he submit a follow-up letter of interest for the Finance Committee.


From: Tim Culver
To: pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com
Date: 7/24/20099:55 AM
Subject: Re: Citizen Representative Committees

My assistant Gwen is gone today, so perhaps you have already done what I am going to inquire about. The Board president, John Whalen indicated that he intends to nominate you this Monday 7-28-09 to become a member of the Finance Committee. To do so, by Monday he needs a written letter of interest to serve on the Finance Committee on file as well as your address in the school district. As I said, perhaps you've sent these to Gwen or John, but if not, feel free to send them to me via e-mail and I will see they get to the people who need them on Monday.

Dateline Friday July 24, 3:26 PM.
At long last, the district has the magic letter of interest in hand, expressing interest in appointment to the Finance Committee. 2 weeks after the application deadline; 4 days after the interview.

From: Tim Culver
To: King, Gwen; Whalen, John
Date: 7/24/20093:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: Citizen Representative Committee

>>>> pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com 7/24/2009 2:43 PM >>>>>

I would like to amend my original letter of interest to include my new home address and to express my desire to serve on the Finance Committee. As you know, I have extensive experience working in the finance arena. Also, my new home address xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sun Prairie, 53590. Please feel free to forward this information as you see fit.

Pastor Harold E. Rayford

Faith, Hope and Love Worship Center

---

SP-EYE - What bother us most is that the board and Dr. Culver clearly got Pastor Rayford involved in their duplicitous dealings. That is shameful to say the very least.

Here is the incredible list of shattered rules and policies that Whalen and the sheep left in their wake. Public trust? Kiss that goodbye.

• The board violated it's own clearly published deadlines (applications due July 10).
• The board violated its policy (requires application materials --with a due date--to include the committee(s)_ of interest; a separate letter is required for each.
• The board interviewed the pastor ONLY for HR.
• The followup interview questions John Whalen asked of the pastor are part of the interview process and therefore are part of the public record. Where is the public meeting notice for that phone call? Where are the minutes of the conversation? Yet another violation of open meeting laws?

Where will it end? When will it end? All we can tell you is that until members of this community that are disgusted with this way of doing business step forward and speak out, why should the board follow the rules?

Dear Dr. Culver…Do we need to review Open Meetings Laws again?

First off…and we may have missed it…but we do not recall anyone asking you whether or not you agreed with Mr. Mealy’s allegation that the vagueness of the agenda item related to “Youth Advocates” represented a violation of noticing requirements under the Open Meetings laws. Furthermore, a significant number of community residents would prefer that you remember that these are school board meetings, of which you are NOT a member. Remember? You are the employee…the board is the employer?

Second, we’re wondering how difficult it must be for you to dance between positions. At one point during Monday’s meeting you clearly counseled board members (your employers) that any members planning on attending an upcoming meeting need to alert Gwen King in order that she can generate a public meeting notice, if an equivalent of a quorum planned to attend, to satisfy Open Meetings Laws noticing requirements. So, on the one hand you’re going out of your way to alert the board to situations that potentially fall under the jurisdiction of Open Meetings Laws. A conservative position, one would say. On the other hand, you’re arguing that burying an underlying, critical issue regarding security at the high school under the innocuous agenda title of, Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE, does NOT represent a violation of Open Meeting Laws. Where did that conservatism go?

Logic Analysis
Let’s look at the logic (or lack thereof) in your argument that the agenda item was NOT a violation of Open Meetings Laws. Administration’s plan was/is to replace security guards with Youth Advocates. The board agenda item related to approval of the Youth Advocate job description. A separate board decision would be required to discontinue Security Guards, replacing them with Youth Advocates. Therefore, Mr. Spock would tell you that it is illogical to begin by approving a job description since the creation of those positions was dependent on the board FIRST approving the switch from Security Guards to Youth Advocates. What if they agreed to approve the job description but not the switch? That wouldn't make sense? It only makes sense to decide on whether or not to use Youth Advocates instead of Security Guards. THEN you move forward with a job description. Of course the decision to switch should consider a maximum amount to be invested in Youth Advocates to keep the plan cost neutral.

You put the cart before the horse. The first action SHOULD have been to allow the public to know about and have input on the decision of whether or not to discontinue the practice of using Security Guards.

Do we have any doubt that you’ll find an attorney who’ll support your position? Nope. After all…attorneys get paid by the hour to argue contrary positions. How do you get an attorney to argue an unreasonable position? Pay ‘em!!!!

What does the Law say?
The law ( Open Meetings Laws Guide 2007, III.A.2.a.) states that Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) sets forth a reasonableness standard [for clarity of public notices] , and that such a standard strikes the proper balance contemplated in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81(1) and (4) between the public’s right to information and the government’s need to efficiently conduct its business.” The document states further that the reasonableness standard “requires a case specific analysis” and “whether notice is sufficiently specific will depend upon what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

In making that determination, the factors to be considered include:
“[1] the burden of providing more detailed notice,
[ How much effort would it have been to have the agenda item read, Replacing Security Guards at the High School with new positions, titled, Youth Advocates???]

[2] whether the subject is of particular public interest, and
Hello! You KNOW there has been significant public concern about violence at the high school!

[3] whether it involves non-routine action that the public would be unlikely to anticipate.”
This is the easiest. We have contracted Security Guards for several years now, so this is a non-routine action. Further, there is no way the public could make the leap in logic from approving a job description for “Youth Advocates” to replacing Security Guards with these positions.

Poor form, Dr. Culver. The law is clear. Your logic was equally clearly flawed. That public notice violated the requirements of Open Meetings Laws. Save us a few hundred dollars and skip the attorney consult to which you alluded, will you please?

There’s no need to check with the attorneys and cost the taxpayers money. Simply open your copy of the WISCONSIN OPEN MEETINGS LAW A COMPLIANCE GUIDE 2007 (OML 2007) and read section III A 2.a. Then resurrect that conservative approach you presented when trying to protect the school board’s collective keesters earlier in the meeting.

Dr. Culver…you hung President John Whalen’s keester out on this issue, because –as you know—you are immune from any sanctions related to violation of Open Meetings Laws. Only elected officials can be taken to the woodshed. But rest assured, John. We already know that DA Blanchard is waaaaaaay too busy to deal with Open Meetings complaints. He still has one in the hopper on which he has yet to adjudicate.

Boom Boom Boom...Out Go the Lights?

Ok... time for audience participation.
Raise your hand if you heard Phil Frei on TV 2 weeks ago --or read about him in the paper--saying that economic stimulus money (which will now soon be arriving) would pay for (drum roll) lights for the athletic fields at the new high school?

Read the Channel3000.com article
Play the video

School Security, Baseball Lighting Top Sun Prairie's Stimulus Wish List
District Could Potentially Get $2.2 Million
UPDATED: 9:29 am CST February 3, 2009

Phil Frei, the deputy district administrator and the man in charge of business operations for the district said:

"There's always those things we do, then there are those things we wish we could do but don't always have the funding for so those are the things it will help out with."
Frei said on the top of the Sun Prairie list is lighting for the new baseball and softball fields and track.
----Channel3000.com 2/3/09

Surely, lights for athletic fields was not what the president had in mind with this package!

What a difference 2 weeks make
Fast forward to this week's edition of the STAR. No mention of lights here!
2-12-09 STAR article on the stimulus package and Sun Prairie

"I understand the construction part of it. We can spend that money fairly quickly on construction," Frei said. "Our primary thing would be fixing the entrances to all the elementary and middle schools. So they have secured entrances like we do at Horizon and Creekside, and like the new high school and upper middle school will have."

We agree that security is most definitely in the best interests of all the kids and is what the stimulus package is all about. We've spoken with a number of folks in the district as well to hear their ideas for the stimulus money. Two recurring themes that come up are to make some much needed changes to the SOAR (Alternative Learning Center) and to make some changes to improve safety and the learning environment at Royal Oaks elementary. It's amazing what quality input district residents could provide to the school district and the school board--if only the board majority cared to listen.

Of course, a question we have is: Why the change in approach? Why were lights on the athletic fields suddenly not on "top of our wish list"? We didn't hear this discussed publicly at a board meeting....so when was it discussed? And...who gave the order to "tone down the lights on the athletic fields" statements? [ You ordered the lights out, didn't you, Colonel?! You're $#@% right I did!!!! ] Did it come from the board? Or Culver all on his own? Conspiracy theorists might suspect that this may have been an inappropriate topic for discussion at the close of one of those frequent "closed sessions" to expel a student or discuss personnel issues. [ If an issue that doesn't meet the criteria for closed sessions is discussed during a closed session, and there's no one from the public to hear it, has a violation of Open Meetings Laws occurred? ] And to think the board wonders why people are concerned about violations of open meetings laws!

SP-EYE: Sometimes we forget that school board members aren't endowed with special powers to have the right ideas on everything. All they did to sit at the big table is obtain 100 signature and manage to be elected....or selected as replacements.

Are lights needed on the new fields? Absolutely. Is the federal economic stimulus money really the right thing to be using for that purpose? We don't think so. But again, if only the school board would ask a few of its own teachers or residents, we're pretty sure that we could come up with a plan to get lights on those fields.

Factoid of the week: how many district residents knew that Royal Oaks elementary school is one of the last remaining "open" schools in the state (if not the country)? That's right...no hard walls between any of the classrooms! Bookshelves and bulletin boards serve as natural room dividers.

---

$45,000 to re-locate school board meetings. Why?

One of the school board's pet projects for some time now has been to slowly position things so it can move board meetings to the District office. At the last FT&T meeting, this issue was raised as an action item. The advantages and disadvantages as presented by District Administration--along with our comments---are provided below.

The disadvantage of using City Hall for School Board Meetings.
1) Will need to provide access to Internet and wireless router. Estimated Cost: $700 per year. SP-EYE: Seems like a small cost in comparison...but perhaps we can access the City's hook-ups for free.
2) Lights take 30 minutes to come on, if turned off during meetings. SP-EYE: Someone suggested an inexpensive "cage" over the light switches to resolve the issue.
3) Limited access to set up before meetings. SP-EYE: How much time is really needed?
4) Will need to transport laptops to meetings and back to District Office. SP-EYE: Hence the name, "LAPtop"....as in small *transportable* computer that can fit on one's lap.
5) Projector and computer must be transported and set up for meetings. SP-EYE: See LAPtop
6) No equipment to show videotapes or DVD recordings. SP-EYE: Videotapes are old technology. All new laptops have DVD capabilities. See LAPtop
7) No computer or video integrated into board meeting broadcast. SP-EYE: Perhaps aim a projector where a camera will pick it up???
8) Poor HVAC controls. SP-EYE: It's as good as the air handling at the District office room 100.
9) Information about checks is limited due to the fact that the documentation is at the District Office. SP-EYE: Checks are discussed in literally the closing few minutes of Finance committee meetings, half of which are only 15 minutes in length. The District can continue to follow-up on questions as needed.


The advantages of using Room 100 at the District Office for School Board Meetings:
1) Internet access is available for board member laptops and access to BoardDocs. SP-EYE: It would be hard to believe that there is no Internet access available at City Hall. Must it be wireless?
2) Projector and screen is in place. SP-EYE: Projectors and screens are quite portable these days.
3) Meetings could be streamed live via Internet. SP-EYE: But how easily will people with a dial-up connection be able to access them? This aspect of Board Docs (already purchased by the District) has not ever been tested in Sun Prairie.
4) Wireless network access is in place. SP-EYE: We need an Internet connection, wireless is simply a luxury.
5) Video, DVDs, and computer presentations can be integrated into the meeting broadcast. SP-EYE: But it requires a body with knowledge to do so....when will we be seeing that request to hire come through?
6) District staff can more easily provide support before and during meetings. SP-EYE: Has anybody noticed the side table full of District Admin folks at City Hall? What are they there for...if not to provide whatever they would provide at meetings held elsewhere?
7) District can record any meetings, presentations, workshops, etc, for live or stored streaming and broadcasting. SP-EYE: Ummmm...this may not be so easy. External trainers very likely will not allow taping of their presentation due to copyright issues. They DO want to sell their presence, right?

The estimated expense of the technology for video equipment and microphones is $40,000. The
estimated construction cost of a raised floor is $5,000. (for a total cost of $45,000)

Sounding much like former board member Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and her spending cry of, "It is what it is", lame duck board member and FTT chair Jim Carrel simply stated that, "These are the times in which we live" in response to questions about the cost of the plan.

Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes gave the idea of spending $45,000 to move meetings to the District Office two thumbs down. Read his Opinion column here.

The School Board Unplugged

Tuesday May 5th was the annual school board "working session" (read: no cameras or microphones) to establish Committee assignments and discuss individual and group goals for the year.

Of course there was pizza (looked like 4 medium pizzas and (2) 2-L bottles of soda (Pepsi and MUG Root Beer if you're interested). But very little was eaten. Oh...but we digress...we should talk about what happened at the meeting.

Carrel takes a new job?
The session began with brief member intros about themselves. The one note of interest was that Jim Carrel used most of his time to explain that he missed the earlier intros because he had to take a call. He has been contacted by a recruiter...a "headhunter"...and for some reason felt people should know that "this was the hiring phone call". Carrel concluded by noting that this was a great job because he "won't have to move and it will help with the people that get upset about [Carrel] not abstaining on checks [to his current (former?) employer, Johnson Controls].

Individual goals
An interesting session where each board member discussed his/her "hot issues".

David Stackhouse: Now that the high school space issue has been resolved, wants to focus on "something else", like connectedness, student achievement. Create enough opportunities for kids so that we're getting kids engaged and preparing them for their futures after high school.

Caren Diedrich: Interested in looking into, at least on a trial basis, same gender classes was done in Janesville. Review whether we are really maximizing education at the elementary level (this is the point at which we need to engage kids in learning). Consider starting a 4-yr old kindergarten program. Look into starting Spanish in earlier grades.

John Whalen: Interested in whatever it takes to get our kids to be the best students, the most highly educated, so that they can be successfully and eventually give back to the community.

Jim Carrel: Would like to see some new standards for building efficiency...more than just cost per square foot. Sustainability as more than an environmental issue, but socioeconomical concerns. Noting the changing behavioral and financial demographics within the district, wants to "level the playing field" for all students. Wants to better understand "how students get educated"...the education structure. Interested in continuing the community engagement process ("if it's a 10-mile walk, we've just gotten to the door"). Would like the high school to have a competitive debate team (corrected Tim Culver that forensics is not debating; debating is a category of forensics).

Terry Shimek: Primary concern is to provide value in all decisions we make. Cost not to be a deterrent; need to take care of current students' needs first. Look at more involvement for students in extracurriculars, particularly in middle and elementary schools. Expansion for talented & gifted students (note: Shimek's wife is a TAG teacher for the district). Would like to see SP have at least one National Merit scholar annually. More rewards for teachers that are really doing outstanding things. Fiscal responsibility - need to balance opportunity costs with buildings. Wants district to have a swimming pool.

Jill Camber-Davidson: Did not want one high school. Now that the decision has been made, how can we ensure that we can make it the best it can be and kids don't get lost. Agreed with Caren Diedrich; maximize education potential at the elementary level. At the community level, we need to heal the wounds which were opened during the boundary process. We need a better way for dealing with boundaries. When we talk of moving kids based on their parents' incomes, what message are we sending?

Board Committee assignments
It was hard to hear and Stackhouse flew through his assignments. What we gathered (will be announced at next school board meetings was:
FTT - Jim Carrel (chair), Jill Camber-Davidson, and _________
Human Resources- Caren Diedrich (Chair?) and Jim McCourt

Open Records
No board members had any questions. They all have this stuff down cold.
David Stackhouse made some sharp comments in response to a citizen whom Stackhouse had asked for input on the issue. Geee...do you want to offer some input on this issue? SLAM! More on that later!

Open Meetings
No board members had any questions. Predictably, Jim Carrel took the opportunity to defend that the board did not have to public notice their "dinner" during the WASB conference. As usual he got it half right. The board still needs documentation that no public business was discussed during said dinner.

Expulsion became a hot topic. We'll talk more about that tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Catch the School Board...Unplugged

If you attend ONE school board meeting, this is the one that you should attend:

o Tuesday, May 6, 2008 5:30 p.m.
o School Board work/study meeting,
o at the School District Office (Room 106)
o 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.

See the school board with microphones and camera off (of course, seeing the agenda, this is probably the one meeting that SHOULD be shown on TV).

The agenda includes the following:

4. Individual and Board goals (Policy BA)
5. Committee assignments (who will chair which committee)
6. Liaison selection
7. Policy & procedure review
___A. BHA, New Board Member Orientation
___B. BHA-R, Board Orientation Procedures
8. Questions & answers regarding the following documents:
___A. Wisconsin Public Records Law
___B. Wisconsin Open Meetings Law
___D. 65.90 Municipal budgets
___E. 19.59 Codes of ethics for local government officials, employees and candidates

Issues such as Open Meetings and Open Records have plagued the school board both recently and in years past. This meeting will give residents an opportunity to see the board discuss how they plan to address these subjects. The only rule for attendance is that, unlike a routine board meeting, where the agenda provides opportunities for citizen input, this session is for the board members. But we do get to observe.

...and don't be discouraged by the fact that the meeting is being scheduled in a tiny conference room at the District headquarters. This meeting, like all other school board meetings (except those few which meet criteria for a closed meeting), MUST be a public meeting.

More importantly, there should be NO reason why the board should feel uncomfortable discussing these subjects openly. This doesn't have to be a touchy-feely kumbaya session. It NEEDS to be a frank discussion about the school board's legal and ethical responsibilities. And those are things, we, the public DO have a right to be in on. We encourage folks to attend this session. If the close quarters get cramped, the board should do the right thing and move it to Room 100, the District's large meeting room.

Do you think there will be pizza or subs??

What's the 411 on the Community Engagement Task Force?

A meeting of the Community Engagement Task Force scheduled for this Tuesday has been canceled via an e-mail sent only to Task Force members. The e-mail actually creates more questions than it answers:

• Will the Task Force even continue in its current form? Some school board members were not exactly thrilled with the idea of another task force.


• Assuming the task force continues, will Mary Ellen Havel-Lang continue as a member (now as a citizen?


• Will a new school board member be appointed to serve in the role formerly filled by Havel-Lang?


• Should this notice have been posted publicly?


• Could this e-mail be considered a "violation" of open meeting laws? Several board committee citizen representatives have been publicly chastised at board/committee meetings for sending e-correspondence to other committee members. Is this really any different? (Oh...wait...of COURSE the board will find some rationale to justify it!)


• Are materials which are sent to committee members (as referenced in this correspondence) made available to the public at the same time?

Open Meetings shenanigans AGAIN....the case of the two agendas

On Tuesday March 4, the 2nd meeting of the "Community Engagement Task Force" was held. This group is chaired by MaryEllen Havel-Lang. School Board member Jim Carrel is also a member of the group.

The official notice to the public---which was only POSTED on the District website, not published in the STAR or journal--- is reprinted at right.

Does ANYONE have any idea what will actually be discussed at this meeting based on the agenda?? It really gives only a vague idea of what the end result of the Task Force will be, not what will be discussed/reviewed at this specific meeting.


The other --- private --- agenda.
---------------------------------
SP-EYE was able to obtain a copy of a DIFFERENT agenda, one that was apparently e-mailed to Task Force members and perhaps was in their "member packages". The bottom line is that this agenda---and who knows what other information---was NOT made available to the public. In fact....how would the public even know to ask for it? It is exactly those questions, and the concepts behind them, that resulted in the creation of Open Meetings Laws.


The Open Meetings Law Guide, which is available at www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf, says the following with respect to agenda:

"III. A. 2. Contents of notice
a. In general
Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). The notice need not contain a detailed agenda, but because the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information compatible with the conduct of governmental business, the notice should be specific. This requires that when a member of the governmental body knows in advance of the time notice is given that a matter may come before the body, that matter must be described in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 143, 144 (1977). The chief presiding officer of the governmental body is responsible for providing notice, and when he or she is aware of matters which may come before the body, those matters must be included in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 68, 70 (1977). In an informal opinion, the Attorney General opined that a chief presiding officer may not avoid liability for a legally deficient meeting notice by assigning to a non-member of the body the responsibility to create and provide a notice that complies with Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). Correspondence, October 17, 2001.

In formulating descriptions of the subject matter of a meeting, the chief presiding officer should keep in mind that the public is entitled to the best notice that can be given at the time the notice is prepared. A good rule of thumb is to ask whether a person interested in a specific subject would be aware, upon reading the meeting notice, that the subject might be discussed. "

HOUSEKEEPING???

Note the the agenda item "Housekeeping" in the 2nd, private agenda. What resident could possibly hope to understand what actions may be taken under this heading? The Open Meetings Law Guide also addresses this issue further within the same paragraph:

" Governmental bodies may not use general subject matter designations such as "miscellaneous business," or "agenda revisions," or "such other matters as are authorized by law" as a justification to raise any subject, since those designations, standing alone, identify no subjects. Correspondence, November 30, 2004. The Attorney General advised in an informal opinion that if a meeting notice contains a general subject matter designation and a subject that was not specifically noticed comes up at the meeting, a governmental body should refrain from engaging in any information gathering or discussion or from taking any action that would deprive the public of information about the conduct of governmental business. I-05-93, April 26, 1993. "

What's happening here? What does this all mean? For one thing, SP-EYE finds it ironic that in holding a meeting designed, ostensibly, to engage the community, Havel-Lang has done something which, at the very least, could be termed deceptive practices. It's precisely these deceptive practices which have led to the distrust that many community residents hold for the School Board. One could even make a case that this situation constitutes a violation of Open Meetings laws. Sure, Carrel and Havel-Lang will say that it's a subcommittee, that the agenda was harmless, or that it was all an oversight....but haven't we heard this all before?

SP-EYE can't help but see the parallels between this situation and the tense courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men", where Tom Cruise's character asks Jack Nicholson's character: "Colonel...why the two sets of orders?"

Carrel to "turn himself in" to the District Attorney???

At the Monday January 28th's school board Finance Committee meeting, one of the agenda items related to a citizen complaint about conflict of interest/ alleged ethics violations by school board members who vote to approve checks paid by the District ...

• when the payee is the employer of a board member (e.g.; Jim Carrel and checks to Johnson Controls)
• when a board member (or their family) has a financial interest in the payee (e.g.; Jim McCourt and checks to Beans and Cream)
• when board member directly benefit financially (e.g.; board members Jim Carrel , John Whalen, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and checks to the District's legal firm to respond to allegations of violation of Open Meeting laws)

After a lengthy, heated discussion, Jim Carrel came to the microphone and stated that he had looked into the issue and that he and his attorney would be going to the District Attoney in the morning where Carrel would turn himself in for voting approval of checks where he has a conflict of interest.

District residents tabbed for legal expenses to defend School Board members

In previous episodes:

• A complaint , alleging violations of Open Meetings Laws, was filed with the District Attorney against school board members Jim Carrel, John Whalen, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang back in early June.
• The District Attorney began reviewing the issue and requested formal response from the School District records custodian, Tim Culver.
• The matter remains open.

District resident Roger Fetterly has monitored the costs incurred for legal expenses. At the October 22nd School Board meeting, he noted that --based on open records requests--the School District has racked up over $14,000 in legal fees, including 27 separate billings related to preparing responses for the school board members named in the violation of Open Meetings law complaint.

Fetterly also correctly notes that these same school board members who serve to benefit from this legal aid provided at tax payer expense have voted to approve the very checks used to pay for their legal defense! That seems to be a question of ethics.

Why is the District automatically paying for the defense of 3 school board members who should know their responsibilities as elected officials?

Section 895.35 of Wisconsin Statutes specifies that

(1) Whenever in any city, town, village, school district, technical college district or county charges of any kind are filed or an action is brought against any officer thereof in the officer’s official capacity, or to subject any such officer, whether or not the officer is being compensated on a salary basis, to a personal liability growing out of the performance of official duties, and such charges or such action is discontinued or dismissed or such matter is determined favorably to such officer, or such officer is reinstated, or in case such officer, without fault on the officer’s part, is subjected to a personal liability as aforesaid, such city, town, village, school district, technical college district or county may pay all reasonable expenses which such officer necessarily expended by reason thereof.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0895.pdf

Why has the school district jumped the gun and paid for all these expenses before a decision has even been rendered?

Why are school board members voting to approve of checks to pay for services from which they will directly benefit?

Construction Manager position snakes through school board.

Learned at the annual meeting (Oct. 8th) that the board had held interviews for an selected a Construction Manager for the 7th elementary school to monitor cost control. The position is a good thing. The way that the board went about it however, has a certain stench to it.

SP-EYE asked when the interview meetings were public noticed. On 10-22-07, Phil Frei responded that ,

" Administration was directed by the HR committee and School Board to bring a recommendation to the Board on a Construction Manager for the building projects. Adm. sent out RFP's and set-up interviews with three Construction managers. Adm. asked School Board members if they wanted to sit in on the interviews. This was administrative work, not a meeting of the School Board.

Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and Jim Carrel did sit in on the interviews.

The HR Committee also felt that this should not even be a "real" position, but simply an out-sourced service.

Hmmm. Let's see. When the FTT Committee was interviewing Construction firms for elementary #7 thisa spring, THOSE interviews were public noticed and held during open meetings. Even school board candidates for Jim Gibbs' vacant seat were interviewed during an open session. For such a large project, and for a new position--albeit a "temporary" one-- why was this done so quietly?

A word on Open Meetings Laws

At the July 23, 2007, meeting of the Sun Prairie School Board, district resident and open government advocate Monte Couch made reference to a recent complaint made by district resident Rick Mealy to the Dane Co. District Attorney, alleging that members of the School Board violated open meetings laws.

The complaint was submitted early in June 2007 and was based on the fact that a meeting was held on May 9, 2007, by a sub-committee of the "High School Planning Team" for the purpose of devising questions to be posed to the "Community Response Team" (CRT). No public notice, as required by law, was prepared for this meeting, and the resulting questions were not made public before posing them to the CRT. At least 2 other meetings of this group had been similarly held without public notice.

Open meetings laws were enacted to ensure that government remains by the people and FOR the people. These laws require all government bodies to conduct their business in public setting. The public has to be properly notified.

This is not the first time that the Sun Prairie School Board has been the subject of complaints regarding violation of Open Meetings Law. The most recent prior incidence occurred in 2004. As a result of that complaint, the Board was required to undergo intensive re-training regarding open meetings law. Current board members Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and Caren Diedrich were on the board at that time, so they should certainly know better. That training costs the taxpayers approximately $10,000 at the time. Well, at least now, administration could pay such a bill without having to obtain school board approval first! The point is that these elected officials should know the law and abide by the law to avoid these costs to the taxpayers.

What SP-EYE finds most incredible regarding the current complaint, which was written up in the July 26, 2007 edition of the Sun Prairie STAR, is that if STAR readers check out the "Winnowings" column on page 5 of Section 2, there is a note that "10 years ago, July 24, 1997, the Sun Prairie School Board conceded that they "may have violated open meetings law" when they voted on a re-organization plan for District administration in an improperly closed session.

As President Bush was once quoted,

"There's an old saying ...that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

The Department of Justice has developed a great primer on open meetings law in Wisconsin that can be downloaded at:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf