There's a hole in his pocket, dear Liza , dear Liza

Uh..oh....it happened AGAIN!
The district got caught spending (what used to be) 2011-12 surplus funds on equipment that SHOULD have come out of the 2012-13 budget.

This time we "over-spent" the budget by about $200K, bringing the total of hoovered surplus funds to $500K. Word is that it was for computers next fall.



Budget line #560, EQUIPMENT_REPLACEMENT

2011-12	May	2011-12		2011-12 FYTD
REVISED	Activity	Total	Encumbered	Unencumbered
Budget	2011-12	Spent	Amount	Balance
213,548	13,721	203,934	197,274	-187,660

That there negative balance means that we've exceeded the budget by $188K.
The encumbered amount, $197K, is what suddenly got spent once somebody knew there was a surplus.  You know...let's bend that surplus like Beckham before we have to give it back to the taxpayers??
 Doesn't $200K have to go through the school board? Be bid?

C'MON PEOPLE!

Hockey players hit with 275% fee increase

subtitle: Are hockey players supporting freshman soccer moms?
subtitle: Hockey fee increases needed to offset cost of adding freshman soccer program

Anyway you slice it folks, this seems wrong. Does hockey cost more due to the cost of ice time?  Absolutely.  Should there be a supplemental fee for hockey to help defray ice time cost? absolutely.  Is a 275% fee increase in one year acceptable?  Absolutely NOT!

Regardless, 4 school board members voted to accept the new fees.  There were allusions to the potential that the issue may be revisited when the athletic budget is brought to the Finance Committee in a few weeks.  Board VP John Welke, however, expressed concern that the board tends to let these things die once set.  We agree. In fact, Athletics Director Jim McClowry is so sure the fees will stand that he's already had the website updated to reflect the change.  That's moving fast, people...for a district office that plods worse than a tortoise on many more important issues.

Here are our problems with what happened, in no specific order.

No phased in approach.  We knew hockey cost a lot.  We've know for years.  So why hasn't the fee ratcheted up $50/yr each year?  Why isn't this increase from $200 to $550 spread over say three years?  Why suddenly are we all worked up to do something about "equity" NOW?

Dammit Jim, you're not making sense.  First you say that you're under budget constraints because the district office cut your budget (and all department budgets) by 10%.  Then you tell us that you're adding freshman boys and girls soccer next year.  Well...how can you be adding two new sports programs without new funding and in the face of a 10% budget cut?  That makes no sense.  Oh...THEN you tell us you want to raise all athletic fees and raise hockey, in particular, 275% (a $350 per student per year increase).

Champion cherry pickers.    As usual coming from the district, a little research indicates that the information on other program hockey fees looks to be cherry picked to make your case.  Yes...some schools (Madison) charge $800 for hockey.   But there are many other schools that charge a flat rate.  This district likes to present only the facts that support their position...not all the facts.  Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


Funky math softens the blow.  Is it a 275% increase?  Or just a $175% increase.  It depends on the math you use, of course!  $550 ÷ $200 × 100 = 275%.   But...if we just look at the increase itself ($550 - $200 = $350) relative to the current fee ($200), then the "increase" is only $350 ÷ $200 × 100= 175%.  These are twicky wabbits, people.  The INCREASE is 175%, but the FEE is being raised 175%.   This is a classic budget ploy used by the district as well.

It's still apples and oranges.  Yes, ice time is expensive.  But which other sports include the cost of field maintenance.  We've heard the district tout that Ashley Field costs $60,000 per year to maintain.  And what sports play on that?  Football for 5-6 games a year? Even with a varsity roster of 70 something kids, that's about $900/year.  Do we charge football for that?  What about the cost of re-conditioning or replacing football helmets?   That's not cheap. Yet hockey kids supply their own...right?  And their own pads?  Does football?

Why is swimming charged the (new) base athletic fee rate of $65?  Isn't swimming the only sport to use the pool, with its very expensive maintenance costs?  Many schools use a tiered fee structure, but the schools we reviewed....those similar in size to Sun Prairie...had a maximum ratio of hockey: base sport fee of about 3 or 4:1.  These schools charge $100-125 as a base fee and then hockey gets charged about $400-$500.  In our case, the hockey fee will be 8 1/2 times the fee charged for swimming.  Hockey ($550)is being charged 6 1/2 times the fee charged for football, basketball and baseball ($85).  Really?  Football is only $10 more than golf?

It seems to us that ALL fees should be raised to at least $100 and then set a hockey fee at $250 with a programmed increase of $50/year till it hits $400.  Alternatively, we need a complete analysis of costs per sport and assess fees appropriately.  Hockey isn't cheap...but neither is football.  And that's not what the new price structure reflects.

Losing confidence in Sun Prairie School District

Sadly, the credibility of the district is going up in flames, ignited by the sparks of a lengthening track record of poor quality information and financial freewheelin'.

The question we have is: how can we have any confidence in the fiscal management of the Sun Prairie Area School District?

Most recently we have the district exceeding the 2011-12 budget for certain line items and using 2011-12 surplus dollars to purchase items required for 2012-13 school year.  Without any public discussion. Or approval from the school board.

We also find out that the brand spanking new JV baseball field has drainage issues that is budgeted to cost $70,000 to repair.  Is this not something that should have been identified earlier and made the responsibility of the contractor that graded the field?

The Ashley field costing has blown credibility to shreds.  We were told that annual maintenance costs are $60,000 countless times.  Then late in 2010, the district re-calculated maintenance costs at only $15,000 per year.  However that figure has not been widely released.  Why?  Because the initial plan assumed that we'd save at least $450,000 in maintenance costs over 120 years, and therefor the district should pony up at least $450K.

And that's just this year.
Go back to last year and we have the whole candy fiasco, the inaccurate data coming out of the business office, the shenanigans which occurred at the annual meeting to name just the major hitters.

The *new* budget timeline works for the district but not for the community
This year we have heard no official word at all about the budget, and that's bad for the community.  The first time we officially see any form of a real budget, the new fiscal year will already have begun.
Seriously...how wrong is that?
That's like getting your tax bill after it's due.
Like getting your position description after you start a job.

We've gone backwards, people.
We should be reviewing the state of the CURRENT budget with the community from March through June, as the school and fiscal year year ends.
At the same time, we should be reviewing plans for spending for the upcoming year.


Mid-year budget changes are (almost) entirely unacceptable
With the exception of an unexpected grant or some major unanticipated cost, we should NEVER bee changing the budgeted amount for a given budget line.
Administrators get paid the big bucks to know how to budget...accurately.
And, if we DO need to exceed the budget, isn't that what fund balance is for?
Stop trying to con us into believing that leaving fund balance alone is required to get  a good rating and good interest rates. Poppycock.  That's the stuff that Walker feeds us.  Do we really want it from the district?

The complexion of the board has changed significantly.
We have a new board president.

This is a window of opportunity
for a board  with a new majority

We have a new board treasurer.
It's time to change the way the Sun Prairie Area School District does business.
But it starts with the board; it must take action to address and correct the issues.
And that action begins with a Situation Report and a public discussion.
Any volunteers?

And So the 2012-13 Budget Hurt Begins

Most probably didn't notice this report last week about a close neighbor school district just beyond the Dane Co. line:

Our own school district doesn't plan to bring anything forward regarding the 2012-13 budget until late spring.
Hmmm....why wouldn't they at least show the projected expenditure obligations?

Lodi School District Considers Cuts
District Faces $1.6 Million Budget Hole

That figure represents 12.5% of the entire tax levy for 2011-12!

Slipping One Past the Goalies?

"The district said it won't bring forth a new referendum in April, but it won't rule out a possible referendum in August."

Gee.... let's see...this spring could see a very LARGE electoral turnout....so why wouldn't they do a referendum then...rather than in August, when nobody other than the people that would want to push it through would be around and paying attention?  Kinda makes one wonder...eh?  Be they shenanigans afoot?

Stipends: Swollen Memberships

(Part 1 of a series)
Preface
It is important to note from the start that we recognize the value that memberships in professional organizations and societies offer in terms of networking, resources, and professional development.  But like anything, it must be in good measure.  Maybe you agree it's a concern, maybe you do not; but in  the wake of a serious economic downturn, all stones must be turned to at least evaluate potential savings for the district.  The sheer number and cost of these memberships is mind boggling.  But perhaps what stands out most is that these are intangibles; we can theorize that having these memberships could possibly result in a better district....yet we cannot prove it.  Where are the metrics?  How do we assess the return on our investment?   More to the point....many of these memberships are provided for individuals who are already very well compensated.  At what point does it become too much, and if individuals wish to maintain these memberships, they pony up the membership fee out of their own amply lined pockets.

It's time someone took a look at how many professional memberships we pay for in the district.

Teachers continue to have to supplement their classroom materials out of their own pockets because building budgets have been reduced.  That's just plain wrong.   Get past teacher pay for just a moment and ask yourself:  should ANY employee ANYWHERE have to provide their own materials to do their jobs?  We don't think so.

Interestingly enough, teachers' building budgets have been reduced by about $50,000. That reduction only means that teachers have to dig further into their own pockets to provide classroom materials to teach our kids.   Wanna take a guess at how much we spent in the last 12 months on professional membership dues?  Yup...a little more than $50,000.

General "district-wide" memberships:  24, totalling a bit over $27,000
Individual memberships:  104, totaling a bit under $25,000
Of those individual memberships, 72 (69% of individual memberships) were for the 28.5 FTE administrators, accounting for a bit over $21,000 (86% of individual membership costs).
That's an average of 3 memberships per administrator at a cost of just under $1000 per administrator.

24 of the 29 administrators have at least one membership paid for by the school district.  Two administrators take the prize for most individual memberships, with each having 7 membership dues/fees paid for by the district.

District-wide memberships include 17 different organizations. Individual memberships include 40 separate organizations.  That's a total of 57 memberships!

Memberships may be a good thing...but why are we paying for multiple memberships to the same organization?
The district pays for FOUR (4) SAM's Club memberships:  one each for Nursing, Elementary schools (ES?), and --not one, but --TWO memberships for high school athletics!  While the cost is fairly minimal, why do we need FOUR?  Can't the district purchase just ONE membership?  We purchase a "business" membership, which includes, " one Membership for you and one for a household member over 18 years of age.   Business Members also receive a company card that may be used by an employee for business purchases. "   Hmmm...who gets the second membership?  And since we receive a company card that may be used by an employee for purchases, why the need for more than one membership?

The bottom line is that these costs add up to a non-trivial amount.  There's an old adage that reminds us that 100 "1% costs" add up to 100%.  And these dollars can be put to better use paying for direct educational material costs that are being paid out of teachers' pockets at the moment. And need we remind you of the requirement that each middle schooler supply a ream of paper as part of their 'school supply list'?   http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2010/08/even-more-school-supply-shenanigans.html

Other Questions

• Do we need pay for 18 separate AWSA [Association of Wisconsin School Administrators] memberships?
•  Do we need pay for 17 separate Administrator memberships to ASCD [Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development]?
•  Do we need pay for 9 separate NAESP [ National Association of Elementary School Principals] memberships?  We only have 7 elementary schools!  Why are we paying for membership in an ELEMENTARY school organization for two MIDDLE school administrators?  For the half-time principal of SP4K? 
•  Do we need to pay for 4 separate NASSP [ National Association of Secondary School Principals] ?
• Why are we paying for 2 memberships to NCTM  [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics ] for an elementary school principal and  a Staff Development Program Manager?  A math teacher?  Math department head?  Maybe...but two administrators?

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION
Documents we have obtained from the district indicate that most stipends...such as Dr. Culver's $125/month for Dane Co. travel costs and $325/month for "miscellaneous" costs...are paid out along with salary.

So....if we are paying these people a stipend of $1,375-$2,000 per year to cover things such as memberships, why is the district writing so many checks for memberships?  Hmmm?  We didn't see any re-imbursement checks in the Deposit listings to cover these costs Does that mean that, in addition to these memberships, they are paying an additional $1,375 to $2,000 out-of-pocket for others?  Hmmm?  Enquiring minds are interested in knowing.

Wait!  It's all OK.  It's part of an Administrator's Compensation package!
That's right, folks.  It's all above board...right?  After all, the administrators' benefit package (which school board members have voted to approve) includes the following:

C. Professional Development Stipend

1. To promote professional growth each administrator shall be provided with a professional development stipend as follows:

a. $2,000 per year for Building Principals; Assistant and Deputy District  Administrators; and Directors of Student Services or Human Resources.

b. $1,375 per year for all other administrators. 

3. The professional development stipend:

a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals;

b. Will not be subtracted from the administrator's operational or building budget;

c. Will be carried over annually, up to a maximum amount of $4,000 per administrator;

d. May be supplemented by funds from the administrator's operational budget;

YIKES! eh?  Not only do they get up to $2,000 per year ON TOP OF THEIR FAT SALARIES...but

• they get to spend it pretty much anyway they like,
• they get to carry over and "stockpile" up to $4,000 per year,
• they can supplement the money from their own personal department budget,
• and there doesn't appear to be any real oversight.

Is it just us?  Or does anyone else smell at least the potential for shenanigans?


What exactly is a Stipend
(1) a sum of money allotted on a regular basis; usually for some specific purpose
   -- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(2)  a fixed or regular amount of money paid as a salary or allowance, as to a clergyman
[ from Latin stīpendium, from stips (a contribution) + pendere (to pay out)]
-- Free dictionary online

"Same Night" Decision to Finalize the 2010-11 Budget Coming?

The jungle drums tell us that--even though you won't find it listed on the School Board's "BoardDocs" site, that September 13th will be THE night.

Normally, on the 2nd Monday of the month,  there would be an FTT meeting, a Finance Committee meeting, and then a School Board meeting.

We hear that the FTT meeting has been postponed and it will be just be Finance followed by the School Board.  The Finance agenda will be to "approve" and forward the budget to the full school Board, who will take it up and vote for final "approval" of the budget virtually minutes later at it's own meeting.

Whatever happened to letting a pot simmer to infuse flavor before serving a dish?  Or the krausening process for a fine beer?
The school board used to call these actions "same night decisions" and, while never formally banned, the board's "practice" has been that "same night decisions" are only made in "emergency situations" where immediate action is required.

There is no emergency here.  THREE WEEKS will have passed since the last school board meeting.  Surely an impromptu meeting could have been called to discuss the budget.  After all...a lot of new money has come into the equation.  Or does the district just want to continue to stash the cash and work within the shadows?  We've even heard from citizens who have requested additional budget hearings, yet those requests have not even been given the courtesy of a response.

Clearly the plan is not to incorporate any feedback from the Sept.13th Finance Committee in the "final" budget.  How could they possibly make changes in the scant minutes between the end of the Finance Committee meeting and the start of the School Board meeting?

Why can't the board hear comments at the Finance meeting, and then allow some time to make changes and bring it before the board for approval on September 27?  That would still provide two weeks before the annual meeting.

Talk about tossing open government and transparency out the window.
Shame on the school board, YET again.
All we can say is...
Beware the Ides of October!

Even MORE School Supply Shenanigans

We received this from a concerned parent:

"I’ve heard over the years that a teacher at PMMS requires each kid to bring a ream of copy paper that he collects and squirrels away, and makes grades dependent on it. When I pushed for a name, the parent clammed up and stated that they feared retaliation if I raised a stink."

...so we zoomed out from the elementary school supply lists view and focused on the middle schools

There indeed was the ream of copy paper..."required" of each PMMS 6th grader.

We checked...And it's not just one teacher....it's the WHOLE SCHOOL! 7th graders at PMMs are also "required" to bring in a ream of copy paper.

WTF?!!!

But not PVMS (Prairie View Middle School) students. No "ream of copy paper" on their supply lists. It's something different at PVMS. At PVMS, 6th grade students in the "A" house are each "required" to bring in "3 packages of looseleaf paper", while the "B" house students only have to bring in " 2 packages of looseleaf paper". Hmmm....is that because the "A" kids are more studious than the "B" kids? Do they therefore use more paper? WTF!

And what exactly do they mean by a "package" of looseleaf paper? A package consists of anywhere from 100 to 500 individual sheets. Let's just go the small route...100 sheets. So...each PVMS 6A house kid is "required" to bring in 3 packages? 300 sheets? That's 300 pages times about 250 kids per house. That's 75,000 sheets of paper! And if they mean the 250 sheet packs, that number jumps to 187,500 sheets. Let's see....180 days of school. That comes to over ONE THOUSAND sheets of looseleaf paper consumed per school day. Honey...get the Department of the Interior on the phone...we have a stage 5 forestry threat.

The least of several issues?

And let's not focus too heavily on the de-forested area resulting from the copy paper and looseleaf paper. What about the scotch tape? 4 BOXES of clear "refill Scotch tape" for the classroom dispenser? Hey...McFly! If it's for the classroom dispenser...then why do the KIDS have to provide it? And let's get back to the "boxes" issue. How many rolls of refill tape are we "requiring" per kid? And who uses tape these days?

And...what about the TWO hand-held pencil sharpeners required per child? Um...we know we have talented kids in Sun Prairie, but unless their toes act like opposable thumbs, there's not one in the lot of them that can use two pencil sharpeners at the same time. And...don't most kids opt for those mechanical pencils nowadays...that don't need sharpening because the lead is always fine? Oh...and perhaps a silly question....but didn't every classroom used to come equipped with a serious pencil sharpener? Of wait...those used to be attached to the blackboards...and we've traded all those in for (Smart) whiteboards.

It's not the cost that's the issue here

Yeah...Yeah...we know...a ream of paper costs about $3.50. Big hairy deal...right?

WRONG.

It's the principle here.

Parents should NOT be required to provide basic school classroom supplies.

Yes...Johnny needs a backpack....and writing utensils of sorts. And some folders.

But copy paper? Please. THAT, mes amis...is something that the teachers need to do their job and thus should be purchased and paid for by the school district as part of the general budget. Oh, some might disagree. Some LOVE the fact that ill-informed community residents will blindly open their wallets and fund the school district, because it keeps property taxes down. And that is a good thing...right?

We beg to disagree. SP-EYE is and always will be quick to address the school board when the district is spending frivolously and unnecessarily. But we will just as staunchly support the need for the school district to provide the necessary supplies for the education of our kids. You need copy paper for your lesson plans. Fine...that's a school expense that should be paid for out of the general fund.

Hidden Agenda

Parents...why do you suppose they want YOU to provide classroom supplies, huh?

For those of you that haven't followed the scent trail...

If the district buys all these school supplies out of the general budget, then

(A) the budget grows, which makes the taxpayers grumpy, and

(B) there's less room in the budget for things like RAISES...and Kit Kat bars, and restroom newspaper subscriptions, and bottled water, and pizza lunches.

Parents...you need to speak up. We haven't even addressed the initial concern about not wanting to speak up for fear of retaliation against your children That is simply unconscionable. But your silence is being viewed as tacit approval of what the district is doing. And that's a wrong you must correct.

It's time for you to speak up....tell the school board at a meeting. Or..if you still fear retaliation, create an anonymous e-mail account (ask your child how) and send an e-mail to all school board members.

Oops, They Did It Again...

So many possibilities for title to this entry:

• WTF!
• Here They Go (Yet) Again
• Everybody (Back) Into the Pool (Manager)

What's the hub you ask bub?
How could anyone forget the shenanigans associated with the hiring/compensation of the Aquatics Facility [Pool] Manager?

Well...after the board met in closed session Monday night...and presumably came to some conclusion...they're doing it all over again tomorrow (Thurs May 27) nite!



So...what happened Monday? It has been eerily quiet.
We know the board met. We suspect decisions were made and actions taken.
Then why the need for ANOTHER closed session for the SAME purpose as Monday night?

Do they just enjoy those backroom, closed sessions so much that they're doing it all over again?
Did the person they tried to hire decline the job?
Was it STILL not enough money (after they presumably upped the ante)?

We can't wait to hear the results of all this.
You just KNOW it's gonna be a gigglefest.
Perhaps the Dark Forces of Mordor should hang out for this session tomorrow night...

Did anyone notice...
That the "Notice" was sent by Culver for "psoting" on Tuesday...but wasn't sent to Key Communicators until 24 hours later? WTF!
And what that means is whatever happened Monday night...they knew fairly quickly Tuesday that something else had to happen and another meeting was needed.

Ours's a tale that can't be told,
Open government we hold dear;
How years ago in days of old
Since shenanigans filled the air,
T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor
we cherished transparency so fair.
But Seabass, and the evil one crept up
And slipped away with her.
---all apologies to Led Zeppelin for fracturing their classic "Ramble On"

Readers Write: The Pool Manager Shenanigans

From a reader who wishes to remain confidential...

People may not understand why someone would be so worked up over a small salary increase for an aquatic center manager. After all, it is $5,000.00 out of a $75,000,000 budget, so what's the big deal? A couple of observations:

1) That extra $5,000 does not include the extra FICA, workers comp, and other expenses that go along with a raise every time someone gets one. Then, every year in the future that a (for example) 2% raise is given, that is 2% of a larger number. In just a few years, the $5,000.00 has grown by half, and keeps growing. It also applies upward pressure to similar positions in the district. If a pool manager is worth $45k, then MY job is worth...

2) Notwithstanding #1 (since even if the $5k climbs a substantial amount it is not a huge deal considering the size of the budget), there is an unwritten, unspoken social compact between the community and the school district that has been broken. The community pledges (albeit under threat of seizure of their property) to support the education of the students in the district. Smart kids make good citizens and good communities (for the compassionate and altruistic), and good communities help property values (for the more cynical). The district's end of the bargain is to spend the community's money in a responsible, open, and accountable manner. The board, in open session, assigned the administration the task of finding a pool manager and gave them $40k/yr with which to do it. The administration held a search, identified (a) candidate(s), and is now wanting to go into closed session to up the salary. The justification finally given is that they have somebody they reeeeealllly like.

At this point, the right way to do things is to go into open session and the administration should explain in front of Mr. Whalen and everybody why they have failed in their quest to find a qualified $40k pool manager. After outlining the unsuccessful efforts and explaining why they were unsuccessful, they need to make a case that the board was short-sighted in giving them so little money. They need to point out that an aquatic center manager in Virginia with 3 pools and 64 employees makes $38,800, but that this is not a good comparison. They need to run down a few more examples of places that were able to find sub-$40k aquatic center managers for facilities and situations much more demanding than we have and explain why they don't apply either. If the primary reason is that they really like a particular guy/gal for the job, then AND ONLY THEN should they retire to the smokefilled backrooms to make the deal that they will consummate after emerging from behind the curtain. I can appreciate that Dr. Culver has found his Speedo-clad soulmate, but if he wants the board to reconsider a thoughtful and reasoned decision on the salary for the position he had better bring more to the table than than love-at-first-interview. And he should make his case to the community as well. I would like to get Pamela Anderson and David Hasselhoff to co-manage the pool (pretty good swimmers and people like them), but we won't because they won't work for what the position pays. The alternative is to find someone who will. If we fail in our quest, we ask the personnel committee to help with recruiting suitable candidates, and if that doesn't work we put on our best Oliver Twist face and THEN give 'em the ol' "please Sir, might I have some more???"

That's not what happened here. The entire process looks like someone was trying to accomplish something without the community being fully aware of the situation. Only after realizing they had a pathetically inadequate notice given for the closed session did the notice of the hearing change to something that would almost pass for an appropriate use of closed session (still no mention in it of a plan to increase the salary for the position). Note to the board: Discussion of upgrading the position is open session talk; discussion of a particular candidate is closed session talk. Keep that in mind when you start pulling the levers behind the curtain.

Maybe the candidate they have identified is worth the money, and maybe the position justifies a higher salary (in spite of the fact that everyone else seems to get by for less), but this case needs to be made to the board in the daylight to the extent that respect for that individual's privacy will allow. Who knows, the Taj Mahighschool is the most expensive school in Wisconsin, maybe it needs the most expensive pool manager. Convince us.

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!

Same Old Story...

Funny how many Aerosmith song titles seem eerily appropriate when describing the school district and its budget process.

Same Old Story (Same Old Song and Dance)
Train Kept A Rollin'
S.O.S (Too Bad)
Cryin'
Crazy
Just Push Play

There's a million of em'. All great classic rock n' roll tuneage. Too bad we can't say the same for the district budget process.

So here we are...admittedly earlier than last year's August 13th date for a public hearing on the budget....but then again, we have no significant contract issues this year.

More importantly, it's T Minus 48 hours till the budget hearing and there are NO BUDGET MATERIALS for the community to review prior to the meeting. And who's to say there WILL be anything until just prior to...or even at....the meeting.

Rewind to last year (which was itself a repeat of the prior year):

Public Hearing on the Budget this Week (Aug 9, 2009)
08/12/2009 SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 p.m., at the District Office, Yep....at long last there will be a public hearing on the budget. However,...just like last year...there's no information for you to review. Can you say "SHENANIGANS"? What a great game plan: if the district doesn't make all these numbers available to the public until just before the meeting, then there's no way the public can make enough sense of them to formulate an opinion. Therefore, the District can march ahead and do what they want and say, "Well, we held a public hearing and received no comments".


How is the community supposed to provide input on the budget if they don't have anytime to REVIEW the budget?

Or is it that we just talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk?

Is it too much to ask to give the community information and time to digest it and formulate questions? [We guess it must be]. How would the school board like it if their board packets weren't made available until the day before a board meeting. Scratch that....we know at least some of them wouldn't care because it's clear they don't read them beforehand anyway.

And while we're at it....how about a change in format? How about we truly hold a HEARING....you know which implies that the community talks and the Finance Committee listens (hears)?

Ahhh...never mind, as that other Aerosmith tune goes,
DREAM ON.

[P.S. we bet a buck that after they read this, information gets posted to the website by noon tomorrow]

Oh Yeah! Even MORE Shenanigans!

A funny thing happened on the way to hiring the Aquatics Facility Manager....

First of all...the district pushed hard (and of course the school board agreed) to running parallel processes: the district would recruit for an Aquatics Facility Manager (aka Pool Manager) even while the job description was still being formulated.
That's right....the district was trying to hire someone for a job description that was still very draft. Oh...and no salary had been discussed. Well aren't they just the models of efficiency!

Act 1 - the OPEN meeting agenda
On Monday May 10, the school board had as an agenda item, the finalized job description and salary for said Pool Manager:

7.10 Aquatics Program and Facility Manager Job Description
Meeting: 05/10/2010 REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised)

The proposed starting pay is $21.78 per hour or $45,302 per year.

Act 2 - the OPEN meeting decision

During the school board meeting, the board voted 5-2 (Whalen and McCourt voting "NO", i.e. wanting the higher salary) to approve the job description for the aquatics program and facility manager, but lowered the salary to $19.23 per hour, or $40,000 per year .

Act 3 - the CLOSED meeting Shenanigans

Now fast forward to Thursday May 13.

Suddenly a "Special" school board meeting is announced for next Wednesday, May 19, only this time the meeting is closed to the public.

Agenda for 05/19/2010

SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING,

8:00 p.m. at the High School, 888 Grove St., Sun Prairie.

3. Closed Session
3.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of considering the employment and compensation of an Aquatics Facility Manager [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c)].

So clearly they had/have a fish on the line, so to speak, all along. 'Cause we KNOW they didn't just recruit, interview and decide to make an offer between Monday and Thursday...right?

So...what happens when NORMALLY makes a new hire. You know...that is all dealt with by the Director of Human Resources...right. They type up an offer letter, and welcome the person on board...right?

Not so fast, Everlast! Why on earth would the school board have to have any meeting at all--let alone a closed session---to discuss the hiring of a new staff member? What exactly is there to "discuss" about the compensation? Perhaps we could see that some concerns may have been raised regarding the potential candidate...concerns which should appropriately be aired only behind closed doors. But "compensation"? Those are OUR tax dollars you're playing with. And the only reason for closed doors when discussing compensation is...well...shenanigans.

Oh...golly gee...you don't suppose that the "fish on the line" noticed that the salary was reduced and has said, "Thanks, but I wanted the $45K"...do you? What does that tell you about this wonderful "parallel process" idea? Perhaps in the future, you don't even POST a position until the job description is complete and the salary is cast in stone.

And so, the school board has to have a closed session, so the public can't make any comments when they completely reverse their decision of May 10, and re-up the offer to 45K.

And who decided that this salary was even negotiable? It's not like we're making a pitch to hire Steve Jobs! We're hiring a Pool Manager.

Consider Captain Picard's take...

Operation "End Around": 1st Impressions, 2nd Thoughts, 3rd Degree

The more we think about Stackhouse's little shenanigans--we'll call it "Operation End Around", the more we think it stinks on multiple levels.

SP-EYE post: "Referendum shenanigans Afoot?"

Stackhouse's plan
It's pretty clear that Stackhouse is interested in emptying the piggy bank of leftover funds from the referendum. Assuming that's not enough, he's looking at a one-time special levy to fund his soggy reverie. How much is he looking for? Well...his plan for a $12.00 tax on a 200,000 home translates to a mill rate of $0.06. 6 cents....that's pretty harmless...right? Wouldn't you pay 6 cents per $1,000 for football? Hmmm? Assuming an equalized value of $3.9B for the tax base, a mill rate of 6 cents translates to about $235,000.

Board of 7 or Board of 1?
Stackhouse's e-mail is clearly directing Culver to take some action. Giving Stackhouse the benefit of the doubt, SOME of what he asks for could be considered an "Open Records request", which can be made by any citizen. Of course, what he's asking for could involve a lot of paper...and we don't see any offer to PAY for his request, as other citizens are required to do.

On the other hand, unless legal opinions already exist, Stackhouse is requesting that the district consult with legal...at a cost to the taxpayer of $250 per hour. Certainly, a legal opinion must be sought regarding whether or not the district MUST use Findorff.

More importantly, shouldn't such a directive come for the board itself? Wouldn't this have to be a specific board agenda item...open for discussion...and then a vote by the SEVEN board members regarding whether or not to direct administration to do anything?

Culver covers his bee-you-tox
You gotta love Culver's "Get Out of Jail Free" respond. By copying all 7 board members on his directive to McLowry/Frei, he is essentially telling the board to "speak now or forever hold your peace". That is...if no board member says, "Wait a minute, Tim...", and only LATER questions Culver....then Culver can say..."but...but... I alerted you to what I was doing. If only you had said something, I would have stopped." This is the old "It's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission" philosophy.

But...he's brilliant...because NONE of the board members will actually take issue with this and call Culver out on it. And Culver knows it.

Culver SHOULD have said, "Mr. Stackhouse, I'd be happy to do what you request, but I really need you to get this on the board agenda and have the full board make a motion".

Conflict of Interest?

"I have been approached by the football community to
spearhead a campaign to upgrade the facilities for Ashley field. "
--(Schoolboard member) David Stackhouse

Whoa! Since ultimately Stackhouse, as a board member will vote on this issue, won't he have to recuse himself?

" [The football community] will present at Monday's board meeting and I will follow-up with
a situation report for the April 26 meeting. "
--(Schoolboard member) David Stackhouse

Isn't this a tad presumptuous? We all remember board President telling us that the board cannot discuss, respond to, or take any action on anything raised via community resident comments. Yet Stackhouse seems to imply that the board will add this as an agenda item for its April 26th meeting. Oh wait....the board doesn't vote or discuss future agenda items publicly, does it? The board president (which mean Culver) sets the board agenda. Hmmmm.

Seabass, the athletic supporter?
This is "where the rubber meets the road" as Caren Diedrich likes to say. So...will she continue to vote as a fiscal conservative [as she professed during the elections] and vote this down? Will Seabass McCourt, now that he's been re-elected, vote like the budget conscious guy he claims to be? Or like the athletic supporter we all know him to be? Being decidedly sans cojones, we know that Whalen will vote to support Stackhouse's proposal. Hmmm...does Stackhouse have 4 votes?

This just smells increasingly rank the more we think about it.

Referendum Shenanigans Afoot?

Such questions!
A school board member SPEARHEADING a campaign to wrestle referendum dollars? Is that something an elected official WHO WILL VOTE ON ANY SUBSEQUENT NMOTION should be doing? Or worse yet...to create ANOTHER referendum? Here we go again...quiet Monday night shenanigans, hoping that only those voices "in the know" and who will support this movement will be in attendance.

Concerned Taxpayer has a valid point. Perhaps it was NOT a good idea in the first place. Why did we build a high school with new sports fields with the intention of playing football on Ashley Field? And more importantly...who declared this recession over with? Are people in any better financial shape to be spending MORE money? And why is it that---without community pressure---the music people would have had to pay 100% of the cost for a concert grand piano, yet Stackhouse wants to spend MORE tax dollars on sports?

It is time to blow the dust and cobwebs off of the mystery behind Ashley field. During the high school planning phases, several times comments from the school board table indicated that, as part of the Asley family agreement, something along the lines of "If the SPASD varsity football does not hold its home games at Ashley Field, then the school district loses the ownership of the land". It's time to tell the truth and tell it publicly. What legal holds are there on Ashley Field?

---

Here is something that needs to be blogged and squashed IMO. The football people made a decision to use Ashley field, and now they want to upgrade it when there is some extra money laying around. There is no way we get that money back just so the players can dress at the stadium. I think the original decision was dumb, but I don't think this is something that we should be dropping $600K+ on!

Concerned Tax Payer
.....................................................
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Tim Culver"
Date: April 10, 2010 8:09:39 AM CDT ......on a Saturday, no less!
Subject: Re: Ashley Field/ Football questions

Phil [Frei] & Jim [McClowry]:
Please prepare the response to David's request. Please put together and deliver your report to him (and the whole Board) by Friday April 16.

Thank you,

Tim

"DAVID STACKHOUSE" 4/9/2010 1:50 PM >>>
Tim, Phil and Jim,

I have been approached by the football community to spearhead a campaign to upgrade the facilities for Ashley field.
They will present at Monday's board meeting and I will follow-up with a situation report for the April 26 meeting.

Information that I am looking for:

Referendum presentation material for the new high school.

Bond counsel's opinion on using referendum dollars for improvements to Ashley Field.

Attendance at home football games for a typical season:
1. Number of paid attendees.
2. Dollar amount of admission receipts.

How much does the district anticipate it will cost annually to transport athletes from the new high school to Ashley field for games?

How much does it cost the district annually for maintenance and preparation at Ashley field?

How much revenue can be generated by a one year levy based on $12 increase to a house valued at $200,000.
I.E.: If a referendum was offered for a one year period that the average house paid $12, how much total dollars would we receive?

On construction at Ashley:
1. If we use referendum dollars, are we locked in to using Findorff?

2. If the funds are generated separately, are we locked in with Findorff or is another contractor acceptable?

I believe I will most likely have additional questions, but this should get me started.

Thanks,
David

This Smells Funny, and We're Not Eating It

The school board is voting on the grand PC Purchase Plan of 2010 tomorrow evening.

Back in December, the plan (which smelled even funkier back then) called for purchasing 1375 NEW PCs for the combined new high school and upper middle school.

The PCs cost $497.34 each, so the amount of referendum funds budgeted for this action was $683,842.50. That's real money, folks. And keep your eyes on that figure, because as the numbers change, one has to wonder....if that much was budgeted for PCs and it isn't spent on PCs, where does it go???!

Asked for a breakdown of the purchases, we were told, 1100 for the new high school and 275 for the upper middle school. The audience was shocked, knowing that projections call for the high school to open with about 1400 kids. That's darn near ONE PC per kid!!!

High School Hijinx

The school board will tell you that administration revised it's plan and now plans to buy 884 PCs for the 1400 kids at the new high school and only 251 PCs (to go with the existing 528) for the upper middle school. That comes to a total of 1135 PCs to purchase for a total of $564,480.90.

Where's the $120K?

'member what we said? OK...since they budgeted like $680K and now plan to spend $560K....what happens to the $120,000 that will now be "surplus"? Hey! That's about the cost of a Steinway "D" concert grand!

Upper Middle School Madness

Funnier still is the Upper Middle School. The number of PCs currently at the high school is sufficient for the 1750 kids currently there. Next year there will be nearly 50% FEWER kids, yet they want to INCREASE the number of PCs by about 50%.

That's gotta be that new Math stuff we keep hearing about!

as great Aunt Gert says, "This smells funny, and I'm not eating it!"

PC Equity?

Look across the district, and you see PC inequity throughout.

As the graphic indicates, the elementary schools average 1 PC for every 2.7 kids.

The current middle school is at 1 PC per 2.5 kids, and the high school is at 3.3 kids for every PC.

The proposal calls for the Upper middle school to have a district low 1.2 kids per PC while even the new high school will be at 1.6 kids per PC?! What's up with that? How much sense does that make?

Ya know...we hear whispers that the plan is to buy all these PCs with revenue money and then spread them through the district like veritable Dell Santas. Hope that's just a vicious rumor....cuz that absolute reeks of shenanigans.

What the Board SHOULD (but Won't) Do
Logic would suggest that, rather than a building "plan", a goal for the number of kids per PC (or vice versa). And let's not be funny and suggest a goal of 1 PC per child. Then we might as well just buy a PC for every kind in the district every 5 years. Think of the software licensing issues!

At 1 PC for every 2.5 kids, that would be 800 maximum for a high school with its full capacity of 2000 kids.
For the upper middle school, with an expected maximum capacity of 1000 kids, the number of PCs would be 400....which means they wouldn't have to buy ANY for the upper middle school.

What say we cut the number down to a nice round 1000 PCs to purchase. That would make yet anouther...oh...hey $67,000 with which a class piano could be purchased.

As Aerosmith sang, Dream On!

Pop Quiz, Hotshot!

If the Sun Prairie Area School District was an appetizer from a national chain restaurant's menu, what would it be?

Some might answer: "Hot Wings".

Others might suggest, "Fried Cheese Curds" or "Cheese Sticks."

We're certain that a few might quietly chuckle and suggest some type of dip.

And we have to admit that a case could easily be made for that old staple of our youth from a Chinese restaurant --the "Poo Poo Platter".

But there's something even more fitting. We've got it.

The SPASD is like...

a "Bloomin' Onion"!

A "Bloomin Onion", you ask?

Yep. Because the more you dig at it, the more layers there seem to be. And the deeper you get towards the core, the greater the impact on your social graces--if you catch our drift.

The Computer Purchase Example

To illustrate the many layers of the district that one must peel to get at the "core", look no further than the recent announcement regarding computer purchases for the new High School (HS) and Upper Middle School (UMS). It's unfortunate that the Sun Prairie Star failed to cover ANY of this discussion from last Monday's school board meeting, because the more you know, the more you get ticked off.

The District initially announced plans to purchase 1375 computers. No...that's not a typo. At about $500 each, that amounts to a sizable chunk of referendum dollars. So you ask a few questions. How many for the new high school: 1100. 275 for the UMS. Whoa! you plan on opening the doors with 1400 kids and you want to buy 1100 computers????!!!

You ask a few more questions...like how many computers are at the existing HS (which will become the UMS). The answer is quite foggy...something along the lines of the fact that they don't really know exactly which computers are where. They have tag numbers, and when they have to be replaced, a technician just kind of hunts through the school till they find the computer? You mean a $68M "business" cannot track copmputers better than that? Wouldn't that facilitate quiet "movement" of computers from place to another? What about those purchased with referendum dollars? WTF?!

And then you get some information from a district insider and find that they want to have 779 computers in the UMS--for about 900-950 kids. And then they want to have 884 computers in the new HS--for 1400 kids. Do a little math, folks. Of course THIS information hasn't been shared with the community--or even the FTT.

Then they come out and REVISE the proposed purchase and want to buy MORE than 1100 computers for the new HS. What?! And then, you read a little further and see that....

" We estimate that 120 computers will be needed for adding classrooms in the next five years. We propose using these computers to create two additional computer labs at both the 8/9 school and the new high school. As computers are needed in the classrooms, they would be transferred from the computer labs."

WHAT!? You want to buy PCs for FIVE years in advance, when you KNOW district policy is to replace PCs every 5 years? Huh?

Anyone else smellin' what we're smellin'? It's kind of foul, innit?

Shenanigans Alert!

The school board voted last Monday to take $183,060---the cost to borrow the last installment for the new high school construction--out of "fund balance".

That move effectively removes $183K of costs associated with the new school construction OFF of that particular balance sheet.
It's like paying for something from someone else's account. In this case--the taxpayers.
The net effect is for the district to now be able to spend $100.2M on the construction and still say they are "under" budget.

Do you suppose they're getting a little sweaty on their brows that they'll be OVER budget? Or is that dripping sensation just more egg on their collective faces?

" The proposed budget the board approved to be presented to district residents at the annual meeting had one new addition to it on Monday: use $183,060 from the fund balance to pay the issuance cost of the Qualified Construction Bond dated Sept. 28."
- Sun Prairie Star 9-17-09

Newspapergate?

Letters...we get letters...

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Meet the new "Weaz"...

Same as the old "Weaz"?

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss ...

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
-the Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"

The comic and actor Pauly Shore has long been known as "the Weaz", short for "Weasel". Move over Pauly, John Whalen is stepping up to take that moniker. It seems that after being re-elected in a landslide and then elected board president by his flock, Whalen is feeling saucy. So saucy in fact, that he's stepped right up to the plate and taken the school board down a whole new path of shenanigans and weaseling.

Did you known that the etymology of the term "weasel words" stems from the manner in which weasels eat the eggs of birds? Weasels actually suck the contents out of an egg, leaving the shell--for appearances sake--intact. In fact, the term "egg sucker" was coined for the same rationale. Similarly, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon further review have come to be known as "weasel words".

So too did Whalen stammer and stumble and reach for words to defend his actions that violated board policy to keep a Bristol resident from being appointed to the school board's Finance Committee.

Policy requires applicants to submit a letter of application for each committee they are interested in. The Weaz stated, and as reported by the STAR, that he subsequently asked a candidate who had NOT demonstrated interest in the Finance committee to submit a second letter of interest AFTER THE INTERVIEWS WERE COMPLETED.

Then Whalen weaseled further by indicating that board policy does not specify a deadline for applications.

HELLO! Were other candidates offered the same opportunity--to basically ignore the application deadline which was published in the newspaper, on the website, and sent to "Key Communicators"?

Geee...if we got another application for a school position after the deadline for applications had passed would we accept it?

Geee...if a citizen submits candidacy papers for the school board after the deadline, do they get their name on the ballot?

We don't think so. Shame on Whalen for clearly violating policy...the law of the board.

Shame on Whalen for leaving Pastor Harold Rayford holding the bag. It's Pastor Rayford who Whalen coaxed into submitting the second letter to "justify" his selection. We're betting that Rayford had no idea what policy stated. Nevertheless, he's now stuck sitting in a seat that the public knows should have been someone else's. We wouldn't blame the Pastor if he opted step down, leaving Whalen with rotten egg alll over his face as he deals with cleaning THAT mess.

Our only question is...would Whalen prefer to be "the Weaz"? Or the Egg-Sucker?