Why Policy Governance is a Cop-Out

Without calling it out as such, John Whalen and Caren Diedrich constantly extol the virtues of policy governance.  And in their minds--well, after July 30th we're clear that not even Caren Diedrich knows what's in her mind---the SPASD school board has historically operated on a principle of policy governance.

Apparently they did not get the memo.  Or their Cliff Notes was missing a few pages.

Because in their minds, the school board simply writes policy--or delegates the writing of policy to administration-- and then steps back with their rubber stamp firmly in hand.

The problem with a policy governance model is that at its very foundation is a committment to ADHERE to the policies.  We've just seen far too many cases where the school district and even the school board either "forget" or outright ignore their own policies.

Perhaps, in their defense, there are simply too many policies to remember.
Scratch that...even we can't begin to accept that rationale.
Plain and simply stated, policy governance will not work as a model when there is rampant abuse of policy and no consequences.  How do you get people to obey the speed limit?  Set up random speed traps.  Issue a few tickets.  Smacking people where they sit is a good motivator.

What exasperates this problem when it comes to Diedrich and Whalen, is that they believe that having to step in and fix things when they are broken constitutes micro-managing.  So...Mr. Whalen, and Ms. Diedrich...do you apply the same logic in your private lives?  If your financial advisor is making decisions that loses you money, is it "micro-managing" to step in and issue some directives to squelch the problem?  If you do not like the advice offered by your doctor, do you just blindly follow it, believing that to do otherwise would be "micro-managing"?

We think not.
And thus comes the real question...why do you apply different logic at the board table?

If you do not like what your own policies say/require, then by all means, bring them forward publicly and declare in public how you wish to change them... and the rationale to support the change.  Those are discussions we'd love to hear from you.  Of course, that would actually mean having to prepare a Situation Report.....

What did hockey & golf get?

Monday July 30 is the big school board work study meeting on atheltics and activities:

See the agenda and materials

This all started with Athletic Director McClowry proposing to raise all athletics fees a little bit ($40 max) EXCEPT for hockey.  The hockey kids--girls and boys--got poked with a very sharp stick to the tune of a $350 increase from $200 to $550.

As justification,  Mr. McClowry verbally presented some cherry-picked facts that suggested we were the only district NOT charging that much.  He alluded to the incredible cost of ice time.  We recall him using a figure of $30,000 or more.  The real number seems to be closer to $22K.

10 E 410 940 162223 000 BOYS ICE HOCKEY DUES AND FEES GENERAL 22,200.00

What we want to know is this:
As part of the new high school referendum, virtually every sport BUT hockey and golf got complete new "digs".   They got zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  So...if the taxpayers can cover that and field maintenance, why aren't we covering (taking out of the equation)  ice time and greens fees?

Isn't this all about equity, Dr. Culver?
Or do we just like skewing the data to make a point?


Sorry to say folks, but SP-EYE doesn't even have a dog in this fight.  We're not hockey fans.  But we believe in equity and fairness...and it's not fair to raise the hockey fees one iota.

Behavior Modification Therapy

When a new puppy peediddles on the carpet, what do you do?  You don't say, "there's a good puppy!", right?  Hopefully you also don't smack it either.  But what you need to do is SOMETHING to alter the course of future events.  Otherwise, young puppy is gonna be thinking, "YeeeeeeHAH, my master doesn't give a rat's hairy tookus if I just lift my leg and let loose on this nice comfy carpet.  And it's oh so absorbent, so I think I will."

Are you with us so far?

Along a similar vein, our school board needs to introduce some form of behavior modification therapy when administration does not produce what is expected.  Like a puppy who pees on the carpet, administration will continue to engage in unacceptable behaviors so long as the board allows it.  Ultimately, of course, it should be Tim Culver that is instituting the behavioral modification therapy (because ONLY Dr. Culver reports to the school board; all others report to the good doctor).  But, if he is unwilling, or unable, it falls on the school board.

In the real world, many people/businesses do something called a "post-mortem" after a decision has been made to evaluate the process and the decision made.  Let's do just that, in abbreviated form, and look back at the decision to raise hockey fees by 275%, when the most any other sport fee was raised was 70% (from $50 to $85; baseball, basketball, football, soccer, and wrestling).


It started with an informational item at the May 14th 2012 school board meeting.  Note that informational items require no action by the board--they just are told what transpired.  In addition, responsibility for establishing athletic fees was delegated to administration years ago (and maybe THAT is a decision to re-consider).

Discussion was had at the May 14, 2012 Board Meeting (https://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/Private?open&login) regarding the changes being proposed by the Administration in fees related to students participating in district sponsored sports.  Fee changes were recommended for all sports, however, the fee for participating in hockey is planned to increase 275% from $200 per year to $550 per year. This would bring the SP Hockey fee into line with other districts in the conference, which range from $450 to $800 and last year averaged $644.

Subsequently board members Jill Camber-Davidson and Tom Weber put together a Situation Report to re-visit the athletic fees for 2012-13 at the School Board Meeting of June 11, 2012.  Now, bear in mind, those that present a Situation Report usually do so for a reason.  This Situation Report, an Action item this time, outlined the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATIONS:Direct administration to research and prepare a report answering questions above and to:
Option 1:  Direct administration to maintain the current $200 hockey fee until further information can be obtained and research completed on a justifiable and appropriate fee adjustment and fee setting procedure.
Option 2:  Propose a modification to policy JN that would include language stating that any fee or fine amount change greater than ‘x’% in a single year be approved by the Board.
Option 3:  Propose that the Board take over the ownership and execution of procedure JN-R and have fees and fines established directly by the Board.
Option 4:  No action on this item

So...clearly a number of options were provided.  This was the meeting at which Athletics Director McClowry provided a long, ramblingly chaotic discussion in an attempt to rationalize his fee increase for hockey.  The problem was that (A) McClowry was obviously unprepared, and (B) the board was given NO hard data to support McClowry's ramblings, and (C) there was no verification of data which would have allowed the board to see that McClowry cherry-picked the data which supported his position.  A more complete analysis and more complete set of hard data would have shown a very different picture than the one McClowry painted.  A lengthy board discussion ensued.  In the end, however, the following motion was made, and you can see how the vote went.

Motion & Voting

hockey fees 4.06 - TO TAKE NO ACTION - (leave fee as in the procedure, but still bring to F[inance Committe] in 2 weeks)

Motion by John Whalen, second by Caren Diedrich.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried

Yea: Caren Diedrich, Mike Krachey, Tom Weber, John Whalen

Nay: Jill Camber Davidson, John Welke

So...ultimately the board decided to take no action, which essentially translated to "go ahead with your fee increase".  It was passive support.  Only board members Camber-Davidson and Welke felt that something else should have happened.  It's not our intent to throw board president Tom Weber under the bus, but we have to ask the question: "why did you support a motion that kept the fee increases when you co-authored the report to re-visit them?"

The next ...actually more of a comment... is for the four board members who supported the motion to leave the fee increases as is:
Your decision to take no action effectively rewarded Mr. McClowry's unacceptable report. (You DO realize that this kind of filtered, oral only information is unacceptable...right?)  This is Behavior Modification Therapy 101.  If you reward the unacceptable behaviors, then they will only continue (and multiply).  You need to get on a long term path to consistently enact consequences to correct (not necessarily punish) inappropriate behaviors.  This is the teachable moment...right?  Didn't we just invest a huge amount of time and money in PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support)?  Did we not learn anything at the board table from this?  You must also see that ultimately these behaviors fall upon the district administrator to correct.  Your role is to make it abundantly clear with Dr. Culver that these behaviors will no longer be tolerated.  Call it tough love; call it whatever you like...but call it.

When administrative student problem behavior is unresponsive to preventive school-wide and classroom-wide procedures, information about the administrator's student’s behavior is used to (a) understand why the problem behavior is occurring (function); 

(b) strengthen more acceptable alternative behaviors (social skills); 

(c) remove antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain problem behavior, respectively; and 

(d) add antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain acceptable alternative behaviors.

Sorry to be hard on you, school board, but if this district is ever going to be what it could be, you need to be doing it better than the other guy.  You need to hold administration accountable.  You can trust...but you must verify.   And, perhaps more to the point...if you can't verify the information, you need to revoke the trust.  Do not let the puppy to continue to pee on the carpet...unless you care to spend an awful lot of money on carpet cleaning and replacement.

Need More Input!

Just perusing the "Future Meetings" portion of the school board agenda for Monday July 9.  We noticed with interest that there is a school board "work study" meeting which appears to begin right after the first public hearing on the 2012-13 budget on July 30.

That timing is nice, as people (you know ...all those tons of non-district employees that attend these sessions) can hang out after the public hearing listen in.

What would help however, in an era in which personal calendars quickly get filled, is if we had a tiny bit more information regarding the subject of the work study.  While it seems logical to suspect it could be post-budget discussion, it would be nice to know if that were the case...or what else might be discussed.

Taking Stock

Has this book finally been 

removed from circulation?

We're told the economy is improving (depending on which day it is).  Is it time to re-invest?

A lot of changes have been made on our school board.   While sometimes it may not seem so, we have come a long way since the days when the board was ruled by the triumvirate of Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, Cheryl Batterman, and Caren Diedrich.  Of course, Caren somehow has hung on to her board seat.  She is the veritable Energizer Bunny of school board members.

We've lost some very good members who understood the need for a quality education while balancing that against holding the district accountable to the taxpayers: folks like Jim Gibbs and Steve McHoes. There have been others of course.  We think Al Slane had it figured out just as he was voted out.  But these were the people that were not afraid to stand up to the cameras and say what had to be said without regard for how it would play in some aspect of their lives, whether it be grocery store conversations or disgruntled individuals. We're pretty sure Mr. Gibbs and Mr. McHoes moved on because there simply weren't a majority of board members willing to speak up at the table.  We've heard LOTS of bold talk outside of the board table over the years.  But there's something about sitting at the table and knowing the cameras and mics are on.

Perhaps it's time to reflect on that change and project the effect the new face of the school board could have on the Sun Prairie Area School District.  One noticeable change we've observed is that rubber stamps seemed to have been traded in or discarded.  We now have a clear majority of board members that care (or demand) to see and review hard data before making decisions.  That is a huge change, people.

President Tom Weber.
We see Tom as both a thinker and a harmonizer.  He wants to avoid unpleasantries if possible, but deep down he knows that things need to change at the district.  Our only advice to Tom is that sometimes hard work means getting a little dirty.  Pro education with fiscal restraint and accountability.

Vice President John Welke
Mr. Welke has brought hope back to the community.  He is well-spoke, does his homework quite well, and is not afraid to make the hard statements at the board table.  We suspect that his style is to give people every opportunity to fix things on their own before he rolls his shirts sleeves and digs in.  Those are good qualities.  He's often found himself standing alone, yet others are starting to gain the courage to join him.  Pro education with fiscal restraint, transparency, and accountability.

Treasurer John Whalen
John Whalen is a nice guy...but a softy.  It's's pretty clear that he doesn't invest the time into independent review of data (you know...trust, but verify).  He trusts Culver and district administration implicitly.  And that is the problem.  He pays lip service to the taxpayers on occasion, but ultimately supports whatever the district wants.  And that is dangerous.  Education regardless of cost.

Clerk Jill Camber Davidson
Ms. Camber-Davidson is somewhat of an enigma and harder to nail down than the other tenured board members.  At times (e.g., wellness/nutrition, advertising in schools, huge increase to hockey fees) she stands firmly and speaks boldly and passionately.  At other times, where we would expect her to stand with other board members on a particular issue, however, she does not.  We think some of that comes from being outside her comfort zone.  She does do her homework though, and that is critical.  Pro education with fiscal restraint and accountability.  Pro education with concern for the taxpayers as well.

Deputy Clerk Mike Krachey
After o mere three months since election, it is clear that Mr. Krachey  is a data guy.  That is a good thing.  He's also not afraid to ask the tough questions, recently exposing another $200K of technology purchases for 2012-13 using "surplus" 2011-12 funds.

Member Caren Diedrich
Ms. Diedrich is like that Forrest Gump box of chocolates...you never do know what you're going to get.  Except, after observing her for a number of years, we can count on the fact that in the months prior to an election, she suddenly starts playing the role of the taxpayer's ally.   Too bad that, as soon as she's re-elected, she goes back to fully supporting whatever Culver wants.  Of course, maybe its all those lunches he takes her for.  Unfortunately with Ms. Diedrich, it's all opinion (Tim Culver's that is) and no data.  Whatever "the big dog" wants, she supports.  We think that 5 or 6 3-year terms is several terms too many.  It's time for some new blood.  It's eductaion regardless of cost unless we're within 6 months of an election date.  Forget education and fiscal responbsibility.  Whatever Culver wants, Diedrich will support.

Member Steve Schroeder
Newest board member Steve Schroeder, recently  voted by the board to fill departed member Jim (Seabass) McCourt's seat,  is another promising board member.  As assistant dean of UW's Business school, he's got the chops to understand the budget madness, and he appears to believe strongly in holding firmly to a budget.   We think there's a lot of potential here.  Too soon to gauge, but we suspect, based on his background, that Mr. Schroeder is pro education but also favors running the district more like a business.

Micro-managing? Or Putting Management Under the Microscope?

Micro-management.
That one word will stop most school board members dead in their tracks if not reverse their course entirely.
And school district administrators know it.
All they have to do is carefully work the idea that some on staff are concerned that the board might be crossing over into micro-managing territory and the pucker factor goes up a dozen notches.

The threat or fear of the word "micro-manage" is an incredibly powerful weapon on par with Mjolnir.  Sometimes, however, weapons are simply waved to make those in authority back down.

We recently heard SPASD board president Tom Weber couch some remarks with the words to the effect of, "At the risk of giving the appearance of micro-managing...".  Those words said it all.  It wouldn't surprise us in the least if Dr. Culver hasn't already used the "M" word casually in conversations with president Weber.

If you Google micro-management, you'll find a basic definition along the lines of "manage[ment] or control with excessive attention to minor details".  Of course "excessive" is itself a subjective term.  How much does it take to become "excessive"?  Micro-management is often assumed to be a perception that the manager lacks trust in the managee.  Well...DUH!   If you begin to lack trust in the individual(s) you manage do you pay LESS attention to what they are doing and how they are doing it?


Trust is a two-way street.  Rather than crying "micro-manager!", perhaps those that invoke that accusation need to take a little introspective inventory.  Perhaps the micro-managee(s) need to ask themselves if they are failing to deliver what the manager has requested.  Perhaps the manager may need to be a little more clear with their direction.  Of course, the greatest excuse for any micro-managee who fails to live up to expectations is, "Gee...I thought that's what you wanted me to do; I wish you had been more clear."  Beginning to sound familiar?  Now we're crossing into passive-aggressive behaviors.


The problem is that school boards are expected (by whom exactly?) to manage (govern) by way of establishing policy.  Great.  But policies in themselves tend to be vague and more conceptual.  And then of course, many boards, SPASD included, have an abundance of policies, and adherence to policies is questionable at best.  So what good are they?


SPASD Policy DBJ, "Budget Implementation" says the following: 


The district administrator, or designee, shall keep the Board informed on the status of the budget at regular Board meetings.

Um...excuse us...but we haven't heard a peep about the budget since March (and that was a very tiny peep).  So here's a policy statement that, arguably, isn't being followed.  

Policy DBJ also says, "3. No expenditure of funds will exceed the major function to which it is to be charged, except in accordance with state law and established procedures."

That's great...but all the district does is move a bunch of money around between functions (most of which the average board member does not understand) et voila!  They can now spend more.

Sometimes, managers simply need to exercise a little tighter grip on the reins to ensure that the horses don't stray off the path.  Certainly there needs to be a good working relationship between the board and the district administrator, but ONLY the DA reports to the board...not the other administrators or staff in the district.  So...shouldn't the board hold the DA's feet to the fire --without fear of the "M" word--if performance of district staff is less than desired?


The other dynamic here that no one thinks about is that the district administration consists of 20-30 professionals.  Surely some (many?) of those professionals are not enamored with how some of their colleagues are performing.  Because it makes them ALL look ...well...not so good.  Maybe Donnie Osmond didn't quite get it right.  Maybe one bad apple won't spoil the whole darn bunch...but on the other hand, it makes the whole bunch less appetizing, doesn't it?

Is it micro-managing to expect accurate and reliable information from the district?
Is it micro-managing to require that the district be transparent in its fiscal management?
Is it micro-managing to expect to see budgets for all aspects of district operations?
Is it micro-managing to demand that  budgets consider the finances of those struggling in the community?
We don't think so.
And neither should you...or the school board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement

Whatever happened to the athletic fee issue?

We very clearly heard the school board vote to bring the athletic fee increase issue forward to the June 25th 2012 meeting of the Finance Committee.  It says so in the minutes from the June 11th school board meeting. But it does NOT appear on the agenda for this Monday's (June 25) Finance Committee meeting.

What gives?

Once gain, a vote is taken to do something, there is no follow through, and nothing to tell the public what happened.

We see that Mr. McClowry has already raised the athletic fees on the school district website (gee...how come the school district can move so quickly on SOME things?).

Has the issue been quietly put to death (as Mr. Welke feared)?

Seabass Resigns from School Board

As a result of his bush league tactics
to institute new programs at the annual meeting,
the AGT judges have called for McCourt's ouster.

We have it from multiple credible sources that Jim "Seabass" McCourt has finally received a paycheck and is heading of to California immediately for his new venture. We understand that Seabass tendered his resignation to the board, opening a vacancy to be filled at some point.

The Seabass has been an infinite source of amusement for us over the past 5 years.  We wish him the best of luck...sincerely.

Many likely have not notice but the school board officer elections this week pretty much declared that gale force gusts of change (OK...so maybe that's a teensy smidgeon of exaggeration) have descended upon the school board.  Maybe we misunderstood, but we thought we heard that new board President Tom Weber's first official act was to request that board members surrender any and all rubber stamps in their possession for immediate disposal.

Got Eggtooth?

http://www.turtlejournal.com/
wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wcg-2010-003-840.jpg 

'Tis the season for school board elections, and that makes the timing right to discuss board member characteristics.

The problem with many local elected officials  is how they operate once they are in the high chairs facing the cameras.  This phenomenon is even more prominent with school board members.  Often referred to as "drinking the Kool-Aid", what it really amounts to is an inability to truly speak one's mind.

Once they leave their board chair and the board table, most board members will display a very different attitude--and commentary--regarding agenda items.

What is an eggtooth?

"In some egg-laying animals, the egg tooth is a small, sharp, cranial protuberance used by offspring to break or tear through the egg's surface during hatching. It is present in most birds and reptiles. "
---Wikipedia

 Many local elected officials would seem to be lacking an eggtooth.  Instead of yearning to break free and emerge from their shell, they seem to prefer the peaceful, risk-free existence inside their shell.  Instead of vocalizing their concerns regarding the agenda du jour [gratuitous use of French language] publicly, they opt to either speak up only behind closed doors, or not at all, reserving their true feelings/concerns for those people in their "inner circle"--or once they get to the local pub post-meeting.

Sadly, what the community really needs is to hear what these folks truly have on their minds.  School district administration will only change when forced to do so.  Unfortunately, that, at least in Sun Prairie, means throwing decorum to the wind and speaking candidly.  One can speak their mind openly yet still be respectful; so why don't our elected leaders do so?

Getting to "No" You
What makes a board member who is deeply troubled by, or has significant questions regarding,  a particular issue suddenly vote in the affirmative at the board table?  Is it the fear of going against the district administration's wishes?  The fear of public reprisal for their position?  Fear of reprisal from employers?
It's almost as if board members suddenly lose their innate ability to say, "No".

We'd be rich for every time we've heard elected leaders support something at the table and then trash it privately afterward.  OK....perhaps "trash" is a little too powerful a term.  But you get the point.  Here's a great example....remember when Creekside was going to be built and the land was "donated" to the district. The board stood up there and talked about what a great location it was.   What a crock of you know what! There isn't a single board member that believes that Creekside was built in the best location.  It was built where it was because the land was free, dammit. But do you think a board member would ever say such a thing publicly?  Hell no!  Three years have gone by and Creekside has less kids than the two SAGE schools,  has several classrooms yet to be christened with kidlets, while Horizon and Eastside are splitting at their respective seams.

School board members alike smile and say "Yes", despite inner gnawing conflict, for the sake of decorum.

The Devilish Diva Decorum and Dr. Seuss
Desiring decorum is often akin to desiring world peace.  It's a lofty goal, but it's just not realistic.  People always seem to get in the way.  Disagreement is that which makes us human and keeps us from being a planet of clones.  We don't have to agree with every position or idea that comes before us, but we need to be able to speak our mind.  We'd argue that half of the world's problems would be solved if people would simply be more direct in their communication.  We have become a nation of world class beat-around-the bush-ers.  No wonder why the nation is becoming obese with all the sugar coating going on.

de·co·rum  (d-kôrm, -kr-)

n.

1. Appropriateness of behavior or conduct; propriety

So?  Why does everyone shrink away from issues out of fear of breaking decorum?  One can behave appropriately and still call out things that need to be called out...right?  So what don't people (red: board members) do so?  Decorum has become the boogeyman of local politics.  Gee...if I question the school district administration on this issue, one of the City bigwigs may not want to rub elbows with me at the upcoming shindig.  Boo frickin' hoo!  If said "bigwigs" are such small people that they do not want decisions made based on facts, then let 'em drink alone.

Dr . Seuss was so right when he wrote, "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."   Actually, there is disagreement regarding whether or not Seuss ever wrote that.  But you know what?  Who cares!  We love it.  And it fits.

STOP THE MADNESS!
Have YOU used your eggtooth today?

Whalen E-Mail - Crossing or Just Blurring the Lines?

Seems that there's an e-mail chain going around initiated by current school board president John Whalen in his bid for re-election to a 3rd term.  While we aren't suggesting that what Whalen's doing is a violation of statute or rule, we will say that it begs the question.  Actually, it begs a LOT of questions

---

From: John Whalen [mailto:john4schools@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:14 PM 
To: Adam Kristina Boardman; brian.campbell@kraftfoods.com ; Caroline McCourt; Cheryl Batterman; Dan McIlroy; Dan Deprey; Dave Joan Unmacht; David Glusick, P.E.; Dawn Moret; Dr. Reeder; Heather Reeder; Jan Kiecker; Jan Nelson; Jeanne Behrend; Jeff Zacher; Jeff Tubbs; John Bloemer; Karin Delaitsch; Kellen Dorner; Kim Erb; Kimberly Trent; kjkobussen@charter.net; Lorie Candelmo; Mary Swita; Matt Silbernagel; Matt Harms; Mike Gomoll; Mike Healy; Mike Nelson; Mike Larson; Monique Glusick; Pam Albi; Pam Klute; Sharlot Bogart; Todd Birkrem; Todd Sears; Tom Bernard; Toni Rossmiller; twoblondetornadoes@hotmail.com


 Subject:  Re-Elect John Whalen for Sun Prairie Area School District School Board 


 Friends,


 Attached, please find a brief flyer outlining my qualification for the Sun Prairie Area School District . I would like to ask two things of you. First, I would like your vote on April 3rd, and second, I need your help.  

Whalen didn't propose "looking into options" to address
elementary space needs.  That was John Welke.  Without Welke's
intervention (not Whalen's) the district simply proposed
building an 8th elementary school.

In order to get my message out efficiently, I would like you to forward this email to everyone you know in the Sun Prairie Area School District . In addition, if you ask these people to do the same, we can cover the District in a very green way.


 Please note April 3rd is during spring break and if you are going to be out of town, please vote absentee. You can vote by absentee right at city hall. It is quick and easy. Your vote is very important to me. Please contact me with your questions or concerns.

 Thank your for your support,

 John Whalen

 608-834-3340

  John4schools@yahoo.com

---

Election Rules & Campaign Flyers
One thing that is immediately noticed regarding his "flyer" is that it lacks the de rigeur "Authorized and Paid for by ______________" attribution, which must appear on any campaign material.  These requirements are spelled out in section 11.30, Wis. Stats., " Attribution of political contributions, disbursements and communications."


Sure, Whalen could argue that e-mail costs him nothing--and therefore he is exempt.  But it DOES cost him something to maintain an Internet connection with which to send it.  We also don't know whether or not any of these were printed for handing out.  The bottom line, is that --after 6 years/2 terms--Whalen simply knows better.  And we expect better from someone in his shoes.   He's not a "newbie" at this who has made an innocent mistake.  He needs to be doing it BETTER than the other guys.


Conflict of Interest?
The list of recipients on this e-mail (and perhaps there were other "lists") is a veritable list of "Who's Who In Sun Prairie".  More to the point, many of these folks do business with the school district, and therefore Whalen puts himself in a very sticky wicket.  Kip Kobussen--of Kobussen Busing-- has a contract with the district worth about $10M.  Should Whalen now recuse himself from voting on any future contracts or checks written to Kobussen?   What about the others:


Correction: we've since learned that Kip Kobussen is not a part of Kobussen Buses, as we've been told.
Our apologies to Mr. Kobussen and Kobussen Buses for the error.

• Jeff Tubbs (Findorff, who built the last $100M+ of district projects)
• Sharlot Bogart (owner of Teddy's Place, one of the district 4K sites)
• Caroline McCourt (co-owner of Beans & Cream, from whom the district frequently purchases things)
• Matt Silbernagel (with whom the district has done some multi-media business)
• Pam Albi and Matt Harms (Board of Trustees for the Sun Prairie Education Foundation, which has received over $500,000 in money from school district naming rights.

That's a lot of big names and local business owners/big wigs. Doesn't this put Whalen in a very awkward position on the board?  We've never heard Whalen abstaining from ANY check in the past.  Should he now if re-elected?  Furthermore, if the intent is for these folks to pass the e-mail on to their employees, there are statutory cautions involved with doing that as well.


Look...we understand. Whalen mingles with the "beautiful people"-- the "haves".  And in doing so, he cultivates new relationships.  But when these relationships could potentially result in business opportunities with the school district, the lines get blurred and the community starts whispering things like "influence peddling".  It just looks bad, and smells a little funny.  When one hears a community member suggest that the school board is in bed with So-and-So business--right or wrongfully so--, now you see how such statements or beliefs are born.


Over-Stating His Position?
Whalen's flyer states, "It is projected that we will run out of space in our elementary schools in the next few years. Instead of rushing ahead to build a new elementary school, I support looking for options for addressing the space needs. "  


Funny...but we don't recall Mr. Whalen coming up with that idea.  In fact, had it not been for board member John Welke motioning to create an Ad Hoc committee to explore space options, it sure looked like the board was moving directly to building an 8th elementary school.   Whalen never expressed such an idea before, when the board agenda item was the timeline for an 8th elementary school.   Sensing the community is not so hot about building yet ANOTHER school right now, is Whalen now simply stealing Welke's thunder?  


In fact , 3 years ago, when Whalen was re-elected, Welke was running as a Write-In candidate.  Many in the community believed then that a significant number of votes that Whalen received were due to confusion over the two names.  If that was the case, it looks like Whalen is once again hitching a ride on Welke's star.


But "Green" Sounds So Chic
"...we can cover the district in a green way" is like spraying Febreze on a soiled carpet. It may mask the odor temporarily, but the soil still remains.  Other candidates are printing buttons and flyers.  Is Whalen really so "green" thinking?  Or is the "green" tagline tossed in there to avoid people from thinking he's just lazy or cheap?


What We Really Are Dying To Know
Who exactly are the "two blond tornadoes"?  John?  Ferris Bueller?  Anyone!  Do Tell.

Former SPASD School Board President Charged

2/6/2012 11:54:00 AM Sun Prairie STAR
Former school board president charged with stealing from booster club
 Chris Mertes Managing Editor
  http://sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=52&ArticleID=9517

Lots of rumors regarding former school board president David Stackhouse have surfaced over the past few years.  It would seem that now they have become materials facts in a formal criminal complaint. It's gotta be a difficult swallow for Editor Mertes, who has so unabashedly supported Stackhouse in even last spring's school board race.

According to the criminal complaint, David A. Stackhouse, who currently resides in Pennsylvania, allegedly wrote $10,254.90 in checks from the booster club's checking account from July 21, 2003 to Nov. 7, 2008.

RIP: Annual Electors Meeting

The integrity and purpose of the Annual Electors Meeting was torn asunder last October.  And nobody seems to care.  The Annual Meeting isn't even on Life Support somewhere, it's dead--another victim of the Sun Prairie School District Administration..  Deceased. It's passed on. It is no more. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is bereft of life. It has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It has CEASED TO BE.  
You know...like the famous Monty Python skit (see video below right).  Except this isn't funny.

Two Wrongs Don't Make It Right
The Annual Meeting over the past three years has been like Goldilocks all over again.
In 2009, as the recession took hold, angry taxpayers flooded the Annual Meeting.  A meeting which historically drew a "crowd" of under 30 people--and all "district people at that--suddenly swelled to over 200.  They felt that the district budget was overly inflated and voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M.  Several board members puffed their chests and declared that they would ignore the electors. In the end, they wisely chose to follow the electors' advice.  Because when the year ended, the district had a $1.3M SURPLUS!.  And that was AFTER scooping $2M of cream off this budget pie.  This represented the "this bed is too soft" scenario.

In 2010, the school district seemed to have learned their lesson and ultimately a reasonable budget was proposed.  Despite another large turnout, the budget and proposed tax levy were passed with minimal public comment.  This, of course, represents the "this bed is just right" scenario.

Then in 2011, a group of pro-district folks got together determined to make the pendulum swing the other way.  Despite the school board telling them, all through the entire budget process, "Not with new tax dollars", this group worked behind the scenes to override the school board and set a tax levy higher than that proposed by the district/board.  And it sure looked like shenanigans had been visiting.  The motions appeared too well "coached".  And for reasons still not adequately explained, the district slideshow eschewed subtlety and promoted the poor six budget initiatives for which the school board refused to increase the tax levy.

Both cutting the levy and increasing the proposed levy were wrong.  More to the point, had the board "reigned in" administration, those roads would never have even presented themselves as options.

Making it Right
So the annual meeting is broke.  And if it's broke, it needs to be fixed.
Here's what we think needs to be done to make reparations and resurrect the integrity and value of the Annual Electors Meeting.

1. The School Board Has to TALK ABOUT IT
That's right.  Someone needs to write up a situation report and make the annual meeting an agenda item at a formal school board meeting.

2. Discuss Budget Options; But Affix a "Sell By" Date
The budget process should include multiple times at which options are discussed with the public and public input collected.  Instead of just reviewing the final budget, the school board needs to establish a mid-course position on items such as the now infamous "Seditional Six" budget initiatives.  Put the budget status on an agenda and take some initial action to refine the process for the home stretch.  Clearly, with a roll call vote, establish whether or not specific initiatives will be built into the budget.  Then move on.  This shall be the last call for spending it all.

Just like your grocer uses "sell by" dates, so should there be "sell by" dates established for budget "initiatives".  If you haven't sold the board majority once the budget is adopted in September, that's it.  The gavel has fallen.  Move on...nothing to see here.

3. Focus on Building a Budget "Necessary to Operate and Maintain Schools"
The statutes clearly outline that the School Board needs to establish a budget which is sufficient to operate and maintain schools.  Nowhere in there does it say to establish a budget which either ENHANCES or DETRACTS from schools.  Operate.  Maintain.  Period.

This is where the power of the community lies.  But it should be a rare occurrence.  If the board decides to [for a wild example] cut all building maintenance to lower property taxes, then clearly this would not be a budget that "operates and maintains schools".  Similarly, people cannot think that just because a politically motivated group can fill the school's amphitheater and vote to raise the tax levy to the authorized revenue limit, that is what the board will do.

4. "Rein In" the School District's Reign
The biggest problem at this year's meeting was the slideshow.  People do not need the history, and this is not the time or the place to review what options were excluded.  The clock has expired for those.  This is not a meeting for the district to run a 20 or 30-minute slideshow.  This is the time to present a bare bones, just-the-facts-ma'am, expenditure and revenue summary.  Absolutely, this is not the time to incite or rally a certain crowd by showing a series of "Here's what we wanted to do but the school board wouldn't let us" slides.   If someone really is all jazzed to show 24 slides, maybe at the first public hearing of the budget that would be appropriate.  The annual meeting should be all business.  The shouting be over and wish lists put away.

5. Make it clear that the school board has ultimate authority over the tax levy
People still don't get it, so the School Board has to tell them. Repeatedly.  Loudly.  Clearly.
If you build this in, they will not come.  The rabble rousers, that is.

6. Make the Annual Meeting be "Just Right"
If the school board has sufficiently and appropriately directed district administration, we should have a budget that operates and maintains schools while also considering the impact on taxpayers.  The Annual Meeting should not be a place where Belichickian battles are waged. Nor should it be a place where "he who brings the biggest crowd wins".

 The Annual Meeting should be made over to be a place for celebration of achievement.  A time to celebrate a budget which satisfies all factions within the community and an opportunity to officially "launch" the school year.  [Great googly moogly...it sounds like WE'VE been drinkin' the Koolaid!]

Turfing Ashley Field: Project PriceTag Rockets 42% to $2.4M

The hardest part of this story is how to title it.  There were so many subplots that were dragged into the daylight at the January 9, 2012 FTT Committee meeting:

• Stackhouse Tossed Under The Bus!
• "Better" Numbers Means Bigger Price Tag!
• Now Seeking Referendum to Turf Ashley!
• How Much Fundraising For Asley?  Zilch. Zero. Zed. Nada. 零.
• 18 Months Later  and NO Fundraising for Ashley Field!

It's been nearly a year since we heard anything about the project to put artificial turf on Ashley Field, build new team locker rooms, and add parking (after we cut out so much parking during the CHUMS re-model).  Many wondered if the idea had withered on the vine.

Now we learn that the project, which was originally (April 2010) said to cost $1.3M has soared off the charts to $2.4M. Asked for an explanation, district administration simply said, "We have better numbers now", effectively tossing former school board member and Ashley advocate David Stackhouse under the bus.

What Referendum?  Costs That Multiply Like Rabbits
How does a project increase 42% in less than a year?  How does it mushroom 83% in less than 2 years?
WHY WHY WHY does this district continue to pound for more than more, better than best?  And how do these numbers keep growing?  What originally was discussed as a maximum taxpayer commitment of $475,000 has ballooned into the idea of going to referendum with the "new building (elementary school) referendum?  Note once again that no decision has been made to even BUILD a new building...but athletic director McClowry and district administration put forth a Situation Report that sure seems certain that that is what's going to happen?

Let's stroll back through time, shall we?  Take a look see at how the landscape of the Ashley Project has changed.

April 26, 2010 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.314M ($475K District; $839K fundraising)
RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.

District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.

May 24, 2010 FTT Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.
Step 1: Allow the Sun Prairie Quarterback Club to actively campaign and be the primary contact for private donations and fundraising for artificial turf and to help create locker room facilities to be attached to the SOAR building. This will be done through a collaborative effort with other organizations that will utilize the facility.
Step 2: For the district to back the funding of the project, as they have done with the turf project for baseball, based upon the commitment of the fundraising effort. A complete plan will be submitted for board review.
Step 3: District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.
Action needed at this time:
To approve Step #1 as outlined above, request details for Step #2, and request the Quarterback Club to obtain concept drawings and cost estimates for Step #3.
The result of school board action on that was to postpone the item and refer it back to the FTT committee for its 5-24-10 meeting.

June 14, 2010 School Board Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

5.05 Ashley Field Improvements
Motion as recommended by the Facilities, Technology & Transportation
Committee  TO APPROVE STEP 1 AND ALLOW THE SUN PRAIRIE 
QUARTERBACK CLUB TO ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN AND BE THE PRIMARY 
CONTACT FOR PRIVATE DONATIONS AND FUNDRAISING FOR ARTIFICIAL 
TURF.
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 2:
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 3:
APPROXIMATE DISTRICT COMMITMENT OF $475,000.
Motion carried 


March 21, 2011 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.68M (no breakdown of who pays for what)
Fundraising: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.04 Ashley Field Improvements

Motion by David Stackhouse, second by John Welke TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE LOWEST BID FOR THE ARCHITECT WORK AT ASHLEY FIELD, AND FOR THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH THE PRIORITIES FOR THE ASHLEY FIELD PROJECT. Motion Carried

Note:  The official recommendation from FTT included the following:
In exploring the project it was clear that the funding would be shared both by the district and independent fund-raising, with the majority coming from independent sources. The district funding would primarily come from maintenance savings, additional use fees and the yearly School Board approved capital projects budget.


At this point, the committee recommends that the board considers this project to be a future priority and one that will be explored as funding becomes available, while independent organizations are engaged in fundraising activities.

January 9, 2012 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $2.4M (no breakdown of who pays for what; discussion of referendum)
Fundraising to-date: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:

The Athletics & Activities Director, the Supervisor of Building & Grounds, the Deputy District Administrator (Business & Operations), the Principal of Alternative Programs, and the High School Football Coach met several times to discuss the next steps. The recommendation is:

1. To not anticipate nor ask for any school district contribution for the project outside the normal capital projects budget
2. To encourage the Quarterback Booster Club to begin fund raising to support this project.
3. To gain broader community input, ask the School Board to include upgrades to Ashley field with the next referendum; either as a separate question or included with the building question

And Nobody Came...
We're not sure which chaps us more...
....whether it was Mr. McClowry, when asked how much fundraising has occurred to date, stammering that none had occurred and that he wasn't aware that fundraising had been approved.
...or that a $2.4M project of this magnitude was being discussed and NON ONE from the football community (or any other sports that might benefit) even showed up to support it!

Is it apathy?  unmitigated gall? Or is it that the people behind this project don't want to spend one minute seeking donations?  Why should they?  When they can tack the whole project onto the elementary school referendum which the school board seems to think is not necessarily even in the cards?  What do the McClowry's, Frie's and Kaminski's know that the school board--and the public-- does not.

For Shame!
When baseball Coach Rob Hamilton wanted to upgrade the new baseball field and make it a state-of-the-art, drool-worthy competition site, he didn't ask for public monies.  He went out and solicited public donations to pay for the upgrades.

When the music boosters wanted to upgrade from a really nice concert piano to a breathtaking Steinway Model D, what did they do?  They busted their collective hump to solicit not only the funds needed for the upgrade, but also for funds to pay for future maintenance and tuning of the piano.

Even the agriculture program hit the streets and collected donations in support of the new greenhouse.

But footballers?  Not to mention all the other sports that could use an upgraded Ashley Field?
Nothing. Not one thin dime.  What IS up with that?
Epic failure.  SOMEONE ought to be ashamed.

December 1 means School Board Nomination Paper Time!

It's that time again!
December 1 marks the date on which those interested in running for the Sun Prairie School Board can start circulating nomination papers.   All it requires is a cakewalk 100 signatures.
We've already heard rumors of several potential candidates...possibly enough to require a primary!

The seats available this year are (at least currently occupied by) John Whalen and Terry Shimek.
Will they even run for re-election????

Whalen hasn't been looking so hot lately...with all the squirmingly unprofessional body language he's shown at the board table.  Shimek is well....the King of all Flip Flops and a Teller of Tall Tales.  Neither is serving the taxpayers of this community, particularly senior citizens.

Who's that in the back of the room at recent school board meetings?
Some folks have identified an individual seen at the back of the room at recent school board meetings as Missy Vervoort-Landsness.   A member of the Eastside parent group, could she be on an advance scouting mission in anticipation of a run for the board?  Word has it she's precisely what Culver is looking for as one of his "bosses".

Stay tuned

School Board President Whalen Channels His Inner Edgar

Last Monday night, the school board received a review of the 2011 annual meeting process.  Board President John Whalen wasn't too pleased with taking one on the chin.  He flopped worse than Vlade Divac, interrupting the resident making the comments not just once but twice.

                                                                                         Whalen channeling his inner Edgar.

Mr. Whalen's lack of decorum was appalling.  He'll sit there and let certain residents speak for extended periods of time...as long as they are praising the district or supporting on of Whalen's ...oops we mean Dr. Culver's....pet projects.  The school board must be able to take its lumps along with any praise that comes its way.  After all...it's not like Sun Prairie is an educational leader.  Educational SPENDER?  Maybe.  But so far we haven't seen that spending borne out in things like National Merit Scholarships.  Certainly not to the extent as would be expected from a school this size.  Even the annual statewide Spelling Bee....when was the last time a Sun Prairie student appeared anywhere near the finals?

                                                                                                ... and then he did it again!

HOW WUDE!!!

One Sun Prairie resident likened Mr. Whalen's body language and facial tics to that of the "Edgar" character of "Men in Black" fame.  We think that's a perfect comparison.  Yep.  Edgar was a bug.  and Mr. Whalen certainly was bugged.

School Board Chooses Wisdom...and Compromise

On Monday night, the school board had to make a choice:
...set the tax levy $267,000 higher than proposed based on the voice of the faux "electors".
...or to stick to their guns and Caren Diedrich's line in the sand of a tax levy increase not to exceed 3.5%.

They chose wisely.
And they opted for compromise.
Amidst a little detour from decorum on the part of board president John Whalen.

The faux "electors" voted a tax levy $267,000 higher than that in the proposed budget because they wanted to fund the "Sensational Six" new budget initiatives that the school board had ultimately decided against building into its budget.

The board chose wisely because the money WAS available in the existing budget (as we've said all along).  So the faux "electors" ultimately get what they want, district administration gets what they want, and residents struggling financially do not have to deal with a property tax greater than anticipated.

You have to respect board member John Welke for sticking to his guns and casting the lone "No" vote.   The original motion coming out of the Finance Committee called for a levy of no more than 3.5% and to fund only the top 4 initiatives.  The district simply did not do an adequate job in explaining the need for the Buildings & Grounds FTE or the Data Programmer.  It's hard to put oneself out on a limb; but anyone can be a sheep.

Everybody wins.

Now, the next task at hand is to repair the damage done and fix the annual meeting process.
What is the point of having ANY budget hearings during the years.  Why not wait until one week before the tax levy is required to be set by law, come out in force at the annual meeting and vote in a tax levy right up to the revenue limit.

Hey...why not just vote a tax levy $2.6M higher, and take us right up to the revenue limit this year.  Then we could simply send any kid that wishes to learn Mandarin Chinese over to China for a year...all expenses paid.  Heck we could send a bunch of administrators as well.

After all, taxing right up to the revenue limit would only add about $0.70 (70 cents) to the mill rate.  For a $200,000 home, that's only about another $140 per year, or about $12 per month.

Isn't it worth sending kids directly to China for a year to lean Chinese at a cost of only a large pizza per month?
Who cares if it would raise the mill raise higher than it has been since 1996-97 ($13.65)?
Right????

Economy in Shambles, Foreclosures Up, but Culver Gets 2%

How's your forecast for a raise?
Sorry...didn't mean to pour salt in a gaping wound.

Tomorrow, Dr. Culver the Sun Prairie School Board will officially throw nearly $3,000 of new salary money at Dr. Culver.  Geee...we wonder how many hours of RTI assistance that just killed.

Oh...theres' nothing you can do about it.  These things are carefully crafted behind closed doors and not put on the agenda until there certain there's at least 4 votes.  And, sadly, the other 3 board members--even if they disagree--will vote "Yes" as well.  Decorum, you know.  Gotta stand as one.  Even if the one is doing some pretty silly things.

We know Caren Diedrich supports this raise.  She can barely contain her zeal about him.  She'll even support his Mandarin Chinese plans.
Jim McCourt and John Whalen are also unabashed Culver groupies.  So they'll vote "Yes".
Terry Shimek, that affable, flipflopping dozer at the board table also believes that Culver is a "CEO" and we compensate CEOs handsomely in this world, don't we.  Of course, as a banker, we expect nothing less than that from Shimek.

So there are the 4 definitive votes.  Where do the others lie?  Does it really matter?
Of course, we have no idea how they feel on the subject, but we're betting that the 3 of them (Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke) aren't all that fond of doling out a 2% increase to Culver in light of the economy.  Especially this close to the annual meeting.

YOU know...decorum

You know, SPASD is not exactly some great beacon of hope or shining example, either.  Sure, there are most definitely some bright spots.  Kinda like when you drag the Holiday lights out each year, there are some bulbs that still burn brightly, others that have dimmed a bit, and still others that are completely shot.  McCourt likes to say that "we're falling behind" other districts.  He's right, of course...but not for the reasons he likes to cite.  A "company" only fares as well as its CEO leads.  And , while Culver's a nice guy and got us this far, the path down which he appears to be "leading" the district seems to be diverging from what this community wants--or needs.

What Will  Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke DO
Well, we can tell you right now they won't be pleased with us for putting them on the spot.  YOU KNOW...Decorum.  But decorum doesn't fix what's broken.  Decorum has done nothing but get in the way of progress.  People need to be free to speak their mind.  School board members simply voting the same way on any issue for the sake of "team unity" (decorum) only makes us DeForest.

So...even if Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke disagree with giving Culver a 2% increase (and, right or wrong,  we believe that to be the case) it will be difficult for them to say so publicly with a "NO" vote.  That is the singular most difficult thing for a public official to do.

And why should they put themselves "out there"?  If the motion already has enough votes to pass, that's just making yourselves into low hanging fruit...right?  So is the issue board members not voting they way the really feel?  Or is the real problem Terry Shimek, King of Waffles?  We wonder how Shimek would vote on this issue if 100 taxpaying community members gave them a piece of their mind.

You see...the problem is that school board members (collectively) don't really vote the way the people who elected them would prefer.  THAT is the problem.  People elected to represent the people don't vote the way the people who elected them would vote.

Whalen Going Rogue?

We keep hearing more and more about this "Mandarin Chinese " program that will be implemented in the district next year.  We already know that the district is spending at least $2500 (that we know of) and Culver is spending another $900 for his virtually all expenses paid week long trip to China in November.  As part of his trip, Culver, as with all "qualified" travelers, must be prepared to speak about their existing or developing Mandarin Chinese program.  We wonder what he'll say...and why the Chinese will know about our "program" before the taxpayers in THIS district do.

So...how come the public hasn't heard a peep about said program?
More to the point...how come said program has never been authorized or discussed by the school board as a whole or even at Committee level?
But the BIG question is:  where does John Whalen get off "authorizing" Culver to spend a week in China?
Shouldn't that have been a board majority vote?
Didn't the other board members deserve at least a heads up phone call?
Or has Whalen so gone rogue that he doesn't feel he needs the other six?
We think Whalen better CHECK six.
If it wasn't abundantly clear by now, Whalen sure looks to be firmly ensconced in Culver's pocket....a lot like a certain former board president who frequently dines with Culver.

Oh...and if those aren't enough questions, then we'll ask another:
How come we're spending money on a program for which we have no need instead of on the students we have NOW that heed help NOW?

Hmmm...a 3.5% tax levy increase...we wonder how much surplus is hidden away to fund the Chinese program.  0.5%?  1%?




什么他妈的!