SPASD Wall of Shame Announces 2013 Inductees...

...Dr. Culver and the SPASD Management Team!

Which we understand to be comprised of:

     Tim Culver
     Phil Frei

     Alice Murphy
     Jenifer Apodaca
     Annette Mikula


And it's really a downright shame, because we genuinely like and appreciate at least a few members of the Senior Management Team.

Why are they being awarded this dubious distinction?
Because they are responsible for reviewing and approving all budget proposals that are brought forward to the pubic and the school board.  And Athletics & Activities Director Jim McClowry prepared a 4-part budget proposal (including hiring himself an Assistant AD!!! ) which was incredibly poorly written, incomplete and lacking any real substantiation or supporting data/rationale in most areas.

DOESN'T ANYBODY REVIEW THIS CRAP?!

Somebody should be keelhauled and hung from a yardarm for even allowing this to be presented.  Why expect good quality work when you are clearly accepting of piss poor shoddy performance?

We don't know what the vote was within the Management Team ranks, but we're willing to bet that there was not unanimous support for including Mr. McClowry' proposals.  That means it falls on Dr, Culver's head.  Funny....at one point during the meeting Dr. Culver even asked "It says see attached data.  Where's the data?".  Hello!  It wasn't there the first go around and you let this fly.  NOW you want to know where the data is?  Maybe you should have read the proposal MONTHS ago!

What's especially troubling is that Culver recently made a decision, based on the poor quality of data presented, that ALL reports and data to be presented by Mr McClowry would require Management Team review.   Gee...guess that was a hollow sanctioning.  And once again...SPASD Administration says one thing and does another.

Newsflash Dr. C....that's not how you go about building community trust.  And you just might need the community to trust what you say when you say you need to go to referendum for an 8th elementary school in the next 1.5-2 years.  Might want to ponder that a bit.

What we do  not know is where Lisa Heipp fis in here.  As Mr. McClowry's 1st line supervisor, one would THINK that she reviewed his proposals first.   But there's something about Mr. McClowry that makes us suspect that Ms. Heipp was bypassed.  But we could be wrong.

Does ANYBODY Review What Comes out of the Athletic Dept?

We had to start somewhere in reviewing these budget proposals...what better place than athletics.  If you glance at the budget proposals most include some level of detail and rationale.  Jim McClowry's do not.  We got bupkis.

We happen to have some inside information that, following the poor information presented regarding hockey fees, that any future reports to be presented by Mr. McClowry would be reviewed by the entire management team.  Did they?  Either way, the Management Team comes off looking poorly here because either (A) they reviewed--and approved--this proposal, or (B) they didn't review it and let it go to the public as is (again).

How can we trust ANY budget information coming out of the district when such poor quality reports such as this are released?  This district if going to need an 8th elementary school within 4-5 years and that will cost $18-20 M (or more).  Did anyone notice that most of the building referenda got slammed last week?  If one wants this community to support another big ticket venture, one might want to foc on putting one best and most quality foot forward when it comes to information.

And who exactly IS the district "Management Team"?  We assume it would include Tim Culver, Phil Frei, and Alice Murphy.  One would hope that HR Director Annette Mikula is also part of the team.  But that makes only 4 and most teams have an odd number to ensure no tie votes.  Is there a 5th?  Perhaps Student Services Manager Jennifer Apodaca?

Our next question is...do they vote on issues like this?  Knowing these folks, SOME of them HAD to take issue with Mr. McClowry's report.  Did they simply get over-ruled?  Really?  Someone actually thought the Athletics and Actvities Budget Proposals were well written and supported by data?  Or did some members of the Team simply not read it (and we can understand why)?

See attached ( Non-existent ) data
Two out of Jimmy Mac's 4 budget proposals, in response to the instruction, "2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal." were annotated with "See attached data".  Yet there was no data attached...at least any data that remotely responded to the directive.

Really?  Nobody caught that?  Who's responsible?  (ahem...Tim Culver)

Let's take only the left front wheel instead of a complete  turn key operation
Mr. McClowry...the district?....is proposing to add girls varsity lacrosse next spring.  Yippeee.  Seriously ...that's great.  And there's even a proposal to add boys varsity lacrosse th year after.  But hat about JV?  Freshmen? Lacrosse is by and large the number one growing sport in the country (although Jimmy Mac's report includes nothing about that).  It already would be better populated than several existing school sponsored sports...but we'll take just girls varsity and then boys varsity?  Really?

From the Why Don't We Show Growth Numbers That Don'T Support Our Proposal Dept.
...and then we have the request to add two assistant coaches each for swimming and cross country. Swimming...we get  The data bears that out.   But just look at the cross country data.   It does not support ANY additional coaches!

McClowry Needs Help
Out personal favorite is batting in the leadoff position.  In which McClowry asks for a half FTE (at a hefty salary) an Assistant Athletics and Activities Director.  Mr. McClowry has publicly stated that he's really, really busy.

At .50 FTE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include:
Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade nonconference athletic events.

Hmmm... not seeing much about activities there?

We hear Bon Jovi's releasing an updated version of one of their old hits.  It will be called "You Give SP A Bad Name".

Does ANYBODY Review ANYTHING here?

OK....people make mistakes.  We get that.  But is there anyone else that sees that the Sun Prairie school district seems to make mistakes at a highly accelerated rate compared to others?

This e-mail message went out to families of Patrick Marsh students this past week.
You'd think that something with the good Dr. Culver's name on it....
... given the pretty hefty salary we pay to a Communications Manager...
... and after all the poor quality information (which clearly has not received adequate review) coming out of the district...
... that SOMEONE would have proofread this simple e-mail message!

Right?
Or was this a contest?  You know...parents, please fill in the blank of who you'd like to see as interim Assistant Principal?

This isn't a personnel matter you have interest in.

And what's REALLY noteworthy is that NO ONE is even talking about WHY Mr. Luessman is suddenly called upon to take over as interim Creekside principal.  This one has a rather fishy odor to it.  For this level of secrecy, it must involve a rather touchy subject.  Were any of the kids at any risk?  Teachers?

Budget shenanigans alert: $384K of OVER-expenditures identified

Instead of an Annual Meeting Book
or a  150 pg Monitoring Report, how
about each resident gets a copy of this?

We knew it was too good to be true.
We saw at least $700K in surplus, Phil Frei kept saying only $200-400K.
Ah...but he controls the purse strings, so he knew.  He knew.
The questions are, however: did his supervisor, Tim Culver know? Why didn't the school board know?

Budget Shenanigans#1: $300K over-expenditure for textbooks
District administration had to know these were coming.  So why weren't they budgeted for?
Or did Mr. Frei know that there would be a surplus to cover the shortfall in these budget lines?


Budget Shenanigans#2: Who knew? And why wasn't it reported?

District administration certainly, without a doubt knew they needed to purchase these textbooks; they'd been meeting on the issue through 2011.  It is our understanding that when board members asked if there was money in the respective department budgets for these materials, administration indicated affirmative.  Clearly that is not the case.  So where did they think this money was coming from?  Fund Balance?  Budget surplus, hmmm?
Why was this not reported as part of the March budget adjustments?  Did Tim Culver know about/approve this?

Budget Shenanigans#3: Robbing Peter to pay Paul
Clearly, the intent was to purchase $300K of textbooks required for the 2012-13 school year using projected surplus dollars from the 2011-12 budget.  This is not appropriate.  Budgets are budgets. Any budget surplus belongs to the taxpayers, NOT district administration.  Could they ASK nicely (via the school board) if the taxpayers would be so kind as to allow surplus dollars be used to pay for next years expenses?  Sure.  And likely it would be approved.  But that's not what was done here.  The manner in which this was handled is questionable at best and subject to repercussions at worst.

The question that this brings, however, is what OTHER budget hijinx is going on that we have NOT yet discovered? It brings to mind the old adage that if one would steal a candy bar, it establishes that the individual has thieving tendencies, which leads one to question: what else will be (or has been) stolen...and when.


Budget Shenanigans#4: Money Manipulation 101
How can any budget manager, in good conscience, DECREASE the amount budgeted for a specified line item when expenditures for that line item already exceed the budgeted amount?  Because that's what happened for line 471, Textbooks.  The "budget" in March 2012 was $70,173, which was reduced to $66,814 in April 2012, the same month in which the budget was not just exceeded, but shattered by $161,500?   More to the point, the budgeted amount even in December 2001 was $186,003.  Why was it reduced by $120K when Mr. Frei KNEW these purchases were coming?

Wait...why are we even adjusting budgeted amounts on a monthly basis?  Hello...McFly!  A budgeted is a fixed amount by which one's spending is constrained.  If one simply moves the target every month, it defeats the purposes of even having a budget!  This little known trickery has got to stop.

In an attempt to rationalize this practice, Mr. Frei has used an analogy that a teacher might in the spring decide they want top purchase a magazine, but come fall, decide they no longer want the magazine and instead want to buy construction paper.  Therefore Mr. Frei decreases the magazine budget and increases the paper budget. NO!  What happens is that one line item will be a little short and the other will be a little high.  But they balance each other out in the end! So no harm, no foul.   Changing the budgeted amounts just muddies the water.  Of course, sometimes we muddy the water when we don't want people to see what we're doing.

Budget Shenanigans#5: Disingenuous Information
The value "FYTD %" on the monthly Expenditure by Object report is disingenuous at best. It ONLY reflects actual expenditures vs. budgeted amount. This value MUST also include encumbrances, which are financial commitments the district has made. School board members and residents who look at this stuff will generally simply scan the FYTD% column and look for anomalies. The April report shows that we've only spent 64.69% of budget for line 479 "Other Instructional Books", which at a glance, seems like we will have a surplus with only 2 months remaining. Only if you look at the Unencumbered balance and recognize that -133K represents a budget exceedance would you catch it. And it appears near the bottom on page 2 of a 3 page report.

Budget Shenanigans#6: These Are Not The Only Ones
Take a look at budget line items 440 (Non-Cap Equipment) and 550 (Equip. Addition) as we are now $57K and $27K over budget respectively for these lines (roughly 8%). Was the board made aware of this? What did we purchase that required us to exceed budget for these lines?

Eroding the Public Trust

Really!  What if you needed to pass
a referendum for a new school now?
Does anyone really trust the information
coming out of 500 S. Bird St.?

 It is incidents such as this that continue to erode the public trust in the district as good stewards of taxpayer money. People are hurting, and a surplus used to lower the levy for 2012-13 would have been very nice. Instead, it continues to look like the district wants to squeeze and spend every single taxpayer dollar even using questionable means.

District Leaving the School Board with Egg on their Faces
 The quality and shadiness of data coming out of the district is unacceptable, and these things also make the board look either ignorant or complicit. We don't believe either is true...we know how much information there is and how hard it is to peel all the layers of this onion. However, the district has placed all board members in a very bad position.

From poor data to NO data

Less than 48 hours away and NO information!

Last year, it became patently obvious that the quality of data coming out of the school district was poor and unreliable.  One would have hoped for improvement.  Instead, it seems like we're moving from poor data to no data at all.  Maybe it's like Mom always said...if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all.


At issue here is the Elementary Task Force Committee meeting slated for this Wednesday, May 30.  There is not one speck of information posted regarding this meeting.  How helpful is THAT to community residents.  More to the point, how can committee members prepare for a meeting when they have no information with which to prepare?

Is this a not so subtle message from the district administration that they don't like the direction in which they think the committee is heading?   Because certainly SOMEONE was able to get a whole boatload of information posted for the school board and committee meetings scheduled for tomorrow night.

Really, people?  This is the best the $100K club can come up with?
Not impressed here.

Cackle Fruit! Annacannatuna!

Remember that old 3 Stooges episode when the guys are making a "Bubble Gum" birthday cake at the drugstore...and they're shouting out ingredients?
"Cackle fruit! [Cackle Fruit]"
"And a can o' tuna! [Annacannatuna]"

That's kinda how we felt about the December Budget Adjustments.  You look at these documents and it's a mishmash. It's completely Greek.  Hell, we should be teaching Greek, not Mandarin Chinese.  It's like the Bloomin' Onion at Outback.  peel away layers and you just find more.  It's like Rube-icks Financial Cube.  But we digress...

On Monday January 23, the school board's Finance Committee met, and the major agenda item, which seemed innocuous enough at first glance, was "December Budget Adjustments.   But--as usual--there's more here than meets the eye.  And FAR MORE than was discussed in the situation report.  The situation report, prepared by Business Service Manager (and Deputy District Administrator) Phil Frei, said,

The General Fund (Fund 10) was increased by $20,000 due to an Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) grant. A component of the December budget adjustments was transferring $84,074 from the Sun Prairie Education Association (SPEA) FTE budget into the workers' compensation budget. The workers' compensation budget needed to be increased due to an audit, by EMC Insurance, of payroll. All budget adjustments were routine in nature.
--- December Budget Adjustments Situation Report

The Situation Report also indicated that, "The Special Projects Fund (Fund 21, 23, 27, 29) was increased by $78,743 due to special education grants and donations." But let's not even discuss that. Let's focus entirely on the General Fund (Fund 10), the mainstay of the school district budget.

Seems pretty simple...right?  The district received an unanticipated grant for $20,000.  That would count as revenue.  It would then, of course, be offset by $20,000 of increased expenditures on the Expense side of the ledger.  Then we have the matter of needing to transfer $84,074 from the salaries line into the Worker's Comp. insurance line.  Gee...remember when we were told that due to "aggressive bidding", the district was able to achieve $150,000 in savings to the Workers Comp and other insurances budget?  Guess that just got cut in half, eh?  And how are we paying for this "oops"?  By transferring the equivalent of 1.8 FTE of available but as yet unfilled SPEA members.  Hmmm.

But let's look a little more closely at what transpired.  At then end of the day, the expenditures line of the budget increased by exactly $20,000 (or roughly 0.025% of the entire district budget).  The $84,074 is really immaterial because we just simply move the expense from one line to another.  So really it should amount to maybe splitting the $20,000 into a couple of budget lines, right?

WRONG!

What actually happened was:
50 different budget line items were adjusted.  50!
A total of $753,812 was shifted between line items in the budget.  That's nearly 40 times the total amount of the budget adjustment.
One specific line item was increased by a mere $80.  $80 dollars???!
22% of the budget line changes amounted to $1,000...or less!

What's going on here?
The school district doesn't like to be micro-managed, yet we're adjusting budget line items by as small as $80?
Does it really matter?  So one line item over spends by $80 and another is under spent by $80.

Clearly one of three things happened here.
A. This is yet another example of poor data coming out of the Business Service group.
B. We are witnessing first hand the Philly Shuffle as it applies to budgeting, or
C. Maybe this Situation Report was a tad less detailed than it should have been

The Most Alarming Part
If you follow the money (see Situation Report Attachment 3), the Business Administration function (Function code "25", or 250000) took the second largest hit, having their budget reduced by over $110,000.  When asked about this, Phil Frei responded that "I wasn't planning on spending that money anyway".
What...what....WHAT!???

On how reducing the Business Administration budget reduced by $110,000 would affect the district,
"I wasn't planning on spending that money anyway"
--Phil Frei, Deputy District Administrator & Business Services Manager

Really!  So...if you weren't planning on spending it...why was it in the budget in the first place?

This is precisely the lack of transparency and suspect accounting practices that continues to anger community residents.

We were hoping that the quality of data coming out of the district,m and overall transparency would improve.  So far, 2012 isn't look much better than 2011.

Look! Up in the sky! It's Cackle Fruit! 
 It's A Bloomin' Onion! 
 It's Rube-ick's Financial Cube! 
Naaaaahhh...It's just more of Sun Prairie's school district budget.