The Facility Calendar Exposed

So this is what came out of our inquiry into the sudden opacity of the Facilities Use Calendar:

We have finally determined what happened with the ability to review contracts for the facility use calendar via the district web site.  It had nothing to do with the implementation of the new web site as we suspected.  Instead, the program managers at rSchoolToday.com made an internal decision to eliminate the option system wide.  It was their belief that the information being provided should not be accessible to the general public, that there were likely some privacy issues that needed to be respected.  So they removed the option without telling anyone and SPASD is the only district to ask about the change.  It was just coincidence that the change occurred about the same time we changed our website.

 

So ....   are we OK with a software vendor that unilaterally makes decisions for us regarding transparency?  Without even informing us?

Mybe it's time to ditch this wonderful software that Jimmy Mac found for us.

rSchoolToday.com has identified a couple of options for the contract viewing feature to be returned to our website. 

 The first is to provide custom programming for the SPASD site that allows the contract observation feature to be returned to the previous level of accessibility.  This option can be provided at an undisclosed cost per month (to be determined if we want to explore the option more).  My concern here is that we then incur additional expense for the facility use program, an expense that is continuous into the future.

 

So ....   we get it...Option 1 is to get back the original functionality we purchased for an additional--an undisclosed--monthly charge.

So if we understand this correctly, rSchoolToday kidnapped our transparency, and is ransoming its return for a monthly price.

The second option is to set up a process that allows people wanting to see the contracts to access the facility use program as a limited administrator - they can only view the contracts as they did before via the facility use calendar.  The process is a bit tedious to the user in that they would need to first use the district web site to access the calendar, then modify the url address to go to the rSchoolToday.com (or those regularly reviewing the contracts could go directly to the website and by-pass the district web site) and then use the calendar found there to review the contracts as they have in the past.  There would be a one-time effort to set the "public access administrator access".

...or anyone wishing to view the details could be logged in as a limited Administrator.

Hmmmm...might work, but does the district want to give SP-EYE (amng others) "limited" Admin privileges?  We think not.

 

The third option not provided by rSchoolToday.com is to leave the current access is as it is and require anyone wishing to review contracts to submit an open-records request.  While there would be no up-front effort with this option, there would be a continuing effort to respond to each request for information.

OK...so after complaining about all the open records request it has to deal with NOW, the district wants to add more?   And...newsflash...until Policy KG is fixed, we can guarantee that you'll see a ton of these requests!

I have copied the School Board on this e-mail for their edification.  At this time the system will stay as is unless I hear from the School Board that they want me to pursue another option.

How about a 4th option?   How's about our Technology Manager get on the horn with rSchoolToday and ask, "WTF?"   How about we "school" rSchoolToday about customer service?   How about we cancel the contract if they aren't willing to restore what we paid for?  Along with the many problems identified post-construction, we seem to be the cowardly lion school district that doesn't push for quality service to go along with all the money we've paid.   We doubt Dr. Culver et al would be so forgiving if they experienced the same problems with work on the private residences.

One Step Forward...TWO Steps Back

OK...so we're doing better with the district's Facilities Use calendar...

But..... now the transparency has been removed. One USED to be able to click on any reservation and view the "permit" information including who the "client" is, any charges which will be assessed and whether or not the user's insurance is up-to-date.

Geee....and coincidentally when things are starting to heat up regarding "Policy KG" (Use of District Fields/Facilities).

Now that Jimmy Mac is gone....who will we blame for this "unintended error"?

Shame, Shame, SHAME!

How Does One Make a Decision Without New Information?

Tomorrow night's agenda for the School Board's HR Committee included the following agenda item:

Sound of Sun Prairie Stipends

But....there are no documents attached. This is basically EXACTLY what was presented previously when the item was tabled.

RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive Director of Human Resources recommends that the Sound of Sun Prairie stipends as stated above, be approved and forwarded to the full board.
ATTACHMENTS:
None

HR Committee Minutes from 8-6-12

Caren Diedrich moved to approve and forward to the full board the 2012-2013 Athletic/Activity Payment Schedule with noted changes except for the Sound of Sun Prairie payment stipends.

Why is it that we have to look to the Sun Prairie STAR to learn WHY this item was tabled--an unusual move?  Shouldn't this have been included in the HR minutes?

Stipends were not approved for the Sound of Sun Prairie Marching Band, as a full report on the program is due to come before the board at a later date.-- SP Star 8-15-12

OK...so if a full report was requested and there is no such report attached to the agenda item, what specific new information will the committee now use to make a decision which they did not have previously?  What's the point of even having the discussion.

Or...did the HR Committee members --but NOT the general public--get a copy of the aforementioned report?
If that's the case, then double dog shame on the district for once again avoiding the light of day.  Who needs Twilight when we have our very own daylight shunning vampires here in SPASD?

Or has the sacred cow used its powers to sweep information that it does not wish to see the light of day underneath the rug?

Oh, so very many questions.  At first glance, [withholding information] is not something we would expect from Ms. Mikula.  So one big question is: if documents were withheld from the public eye, WHO ORDERED THE CODE RED?

The very simplest question we have is this:

How come we pay the SOSP folks MORE than athletics coaches, MORE than activity advisors...and most egregiously...almost 3 times MORE than we pay those teachers who are working on new curriculum????

Please, please tell us that there's a rationale we can support for this apparent nonsense.

Sacred Cow Tipping

Oh we defy the very gods on this one... but here goes...

First, and foremost, let us be perfectly clear:  we believe that the Sound of Sun Prairie (SOSP) provides an incredible experience for kids in terms of self discovery, discipline, teamwork, and musical performance.

The purpose of this post is not to point fingers or knee cap The Sound.  Rather, some disconcerting information has come to light following recent school board discussions regarding athletics and activities.  These discussions provide us with a rare window of opportunity in which we can publicly discuss how the Sound meshes with the school district in terms of an educational component and an extra or co-curricular activity.

Is it a candy mint?  A breath mint? Or is it two...two mints in one?

The Certs twins.  Two...two mints in one

Those graying at the temples likely recall the old Certs jingle.  But it's all too fitting here.  Those at the School Board work-study session on July 30 heard that SOSP is a summer school course, and subsequently, we receive state aid because the kids in SOSP "count" towards the summer school enrollment.

What we find interesting, however, is that it seems to be an activity in two parts. It sounds as if the MORNING sessions (8-12) are the "summer school" segment.  After lunch, those kids that return are part of the "extra-curricular activity component".  BUT there is a "pay to play" clause.   In order to participate in the afternoon session, kids must pay a membership fee to the SOSP...a "sliding scale", as told by John Whalen, ranging from $650 to $1,000 or even more.  Ninth graders pay the low part of the sliding scale.  Kinda like marketing a new street high at a discount to hook newcomers.  Once they're hooked, the price goes up.

But...fees are not allowed for summer school classes!

Can a school district charge students for summer school?There shall be no cost to the resident student or parent beyond incidental supplies, textbook or similar items (workbooks) if the district claims state aid under s. 121.14 [State Aid for Summer Classes]. Additionally, if the student is a resident of the district and the class is necessary for a grade promotion, high school graduation, or is given credit toward graduation, the district may not charge for the instruction, building costs or apparatus. If the class is not required, credited or aided, the fees must be based upon the actual cost of the class. 

Ahhhh...see the problem...and the way around it?  The district does not charge a fee for ITS portion, but SOSP does for the OTHER portion.

Is it summer school?
Or is it something masked to LOOK like summer school?  The kids don't get grades or credits.  On its website, SOSP is billed as, "The Sound of Sun Prairie is a voluntary, extra-curricular marching band. "  So does SOSP know its a summer school "course".

So...it's an extracurricular activity?
That's what Jim McClowry labeled it...as a school sponsored "club or activity".  That's what SOSP calls itself.  And fees CAN be charged for activities.  But do we? Consistently?  For all activities?  And if it's an activity--not a summer school course--we shouldn't be receiving any state aid as a result of it (yet we do).  Confused yet?

How come they say the "fee" covers transportation
when the district pays for that???  And what's this about the fee
"covering" the SPASD activity fee?  We looked and couldn't find
ANY deposits to cover this. Hmmmm.

Why so secretive about the "membership fees"?
We searched mightily and could only find an outdated "estimate" of membership fees for 2011.

Well...it's kind of understandable, when they charge that much.  Yes...it's an awesome experience...but isn't it a bit north of the Have/Have Not line?   You know...in the Entitlements subdivision?

Oh...and it covers their "activity" fee too? Can anyone show us where the SPASD summer activity fee has been credited to SPASD?  We could find no such evidence looking at monthly deposits.

And if the school district pays at least $23,000 annually to cover SOSP costs that SOSP says are PART of the membership fee paid by kids, shouldn't those costs be subtracted from the membership fee?  There's roughly 100 SOSP kids.That means their membership fee should be reduced by $230 each (and we haven't even talked about an activity fee yet).  OR...the school district should be receiving a check for $23,000 PLUS an activity fee.  Hello!  Jim McClowry went to great lengths to explain why hockey kids should be gouged to the tune of $550 each because of less than $20,000 in ice time costs.  Here's a group that costs that much AND uses our facilities without paying a rental fee (hey...we charge the Special Olympics for Pete's sake!).....and the district gets NOTHING in return.

We just hope this doesn't jeopardize our state aid funding.  Does DPI REALLY know how this all works?  How could they...when WE don't even know how it works?

If SOSP is charging a whopper membership and the district does not receive a penny, why are taxpayers footing the bill for SOSP costs ?

Just looking at school district check registers over the past year (and we may have missed some) we came up with just under $23,000 in SOSP costs that the taxpayers/school district funded.  Why are we paying for these things when SOSP collects between $70,000 and $100,000 in membership fees annually?

Wait...isn't that MORE than we pay in ice time for hockey?  You know...hockey...as in the ones we were trying to gouge with a 275% fee increase to re-coup our costs?  Oh...that's right, there is no activity for for SOSP.

Perhaps there's an explanation, but without transparency in accounting, we won't have it.

Check run  Check#  Vendor              Inv. Date   Amount       Purpose

8/8/2011  109652  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL  07/08/2011  $55.00    SOSP SKYJACK PICK UP

8/8/2011  109652  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL  07/14/2011  $400.00   SOSP SKYJACK RENTAL

9/12/2011  110111  KOBUSSEN BUSES     07/31/2011  $4,669.59 PUPIL TRANS SOSP JULY

10/10/2011  110634  COLTS DRUM & BUGLE  08/31/2011  $12,655.00 SOSP EQUIP REPLACE

1/23/2012  112790  WARD BRODT MUSIC CO  12/31/2011  $330.00   SOSP EQUIP REPLACE 

6/11/2012  115768  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL   05/15/2012  $455.00   SOSP SKYJACK RENTAL

6/25/2012  115981  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL   05/21/2012  $55.00    SOSP SKYJACK PICKUP

6/25/2012  115981  IDEAL CRANE RENTAL   05/31/2012  $120.00   SOPS SKYJACK RENTAL

7/23/2012  116256  KOBUSSEN BUSES     06/30/2012  $3,926.35 PUPIL TRANS SOSP JUNE

7/23/2012  116327  FRED RENTS LLC     06/29/2012  $300.00     BG SOSP LIFT RENTAL

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

                                                 $22,965.94

And then there are the "stipends" we pay the SOSP leaders
Are you kidding us?  We pay the SOSP director (assuming 10 yrs experience) $8,700 but building leadership council members only a flat $500?  Or how about Curriculum Leadership Council members?  These are the teachers building the curriculum for...oh...you know...the actual education of our students?
And the most they get is $2,030...or less than what the SOSP "Assistant" receives?

And we also here that the band boosters or SOSP actually pay and additional stipend to the SOSP leaders.

Anything wrong with this picture?

What about kids that want the experience but cannot afford the membership fee?
It is Sun Prairie policy (and DPI rule) that economically disadvantaged kids shall not be charged extracurricular fees.  Since SOSP seems to operate outside of SPASD policies, we need to ask: are these same opportunities afforded for kids wishing to partake of the SOSP experience?  In his inimitable style, John Whalen attempted to put this to rest.  He stammered something like, "um...The Sound can offer scholarships...".  Great!  But having the ability to do something and actually doing something are horses of very different colors, Mr. Whalen?  Do you happen to know if any scholarships have actually been awarded?  Are they full scholarships (like SPASD) or do they just subsidize a few bucks?  What IS the policy?

What's all that spell?
We think it spells something like "needs further review".  Here's hoping the school board looks at this with as keen an eye as they did hockey fees.  And we better make DARN sure that DPI (A) knows the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and (B) there is no monkey business  that jeopardizes our receiving state aid for summer school.

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.

Who ordered the 10% budget cuts?

Last night's (6-11-12) school board meeting was an eye opener on many levels.  We have so much to share.  But the big revelation came from Athletic Director Jim McClowry.  McClowry was trying to rationalize his plan to raise hockey fees by 275% (from $200/per athlete to $550) by presenting a chaotic jumble of numbers and percentages.  It was incredibly difficult to follow McClowry through all of his, "Wait...let me back up a bit..."s.  But that may have been all part of the plan...you know...remain purposefully obtuse when discussing anything budgetary in public.  But then, when explaining why he needed to raise hockey fees by 275%, McClowry let it slip (?) that his--and all departments'--- budget had been cut by 10% per Business Manager Phil Frei.  Of course, there was also the interesting piece that board VP John Welke coaxed out of McClowry that McClowry also needed money to cover his plans to add freshmen boys and girls soccer teams next spring.  Hmmm...was the added cost put on the hockey folks' shoulders to cover the 10% budget gap?  Or was it to pay for two new soccer teams???  More on that to come.  For now...let's get back to the 10% budget cut.

The school board was unaware of and did not direct administration to reduce budgets by 10%.  So...who ordered the budget cut...and why....and when?

After this revelation started igniting, Dr. Culver stepped in and clarified that it was not a 10% budget cut....but rather...that he and Frei had directed all administrators to only spend up to 90% of their budgets in order to keep the tax levy increase under 2.5%.

REALLY!  So limiting spending to 90% does not equal a 10% budget cut?  If THAT is not being purposefully obtuse, what is?

Why did Culver initiate a ...sorry, Tim...10% cut for all departments without consulting the schools board?  When were they going to be told?

THIS is what happens when you keep the budget behind Oz' curtain until July 30th.  C'mon, people...this is not transparency.  It's what gives the school district and school board a bad rap.  When are we going to find four board members willing to say, "ENOUGH!"?

Stay tuned, we have more questions than we have answers.  Meanwhile, we suspect someone has been summoned to the woodshed.

Purposefully Opaque?

Sun Prairie STAR Editor Chris Mertes appears to have his undies in a bunch about what he perceives as a lack of transparency in the development of options for dealing with pending elementary space needs (Read: Elementary Task Force).

Perhaps Mr. Mertes needs to remove his head from his assertions and consider the real lack of transparency:  the 2012-13 budget.  

The district already moved the budget process way back.  Normally we see a draft of the budget, or at the bare minimum some assumptions at the first Finance Committee meeting in January.  Here we are halfway through February and not a peep.  In fact, the first glimpse of the General Fund budget is not projected to be revealed until March.

Mr. Mertes, who seems so concerned about spending, might also consider that the district has already deviated from the budget calendar it presented on December 19th, 2011.  According to that calendar, the FTT Committee, which meets monthly, was supposed to review the Transportation Budget in January.

Didn't happen.  In fact, tomorrow (2/13/12) is the February meeting of the FTT Committee, and there is no mention of the Transportation Budget on the agenda.  So the earliest we'll see that is...March.

The 2012-13 school year has already been discussed as being a very difficult budget.  Without batting an eye, we need to absorb more than $1 MILLION that was covered by the dried up Ed. Jobs Act Funding in this year's budget.  And that's just the beginning of the not-so-good news.  The district would appear to be pinning their hopes on the additional Equalized Value stemming from the new Woodman's and other construction.  Is that really enough to cover the school district's structural deficit?  Instead of chasing ghosts, we suggest that Mertes focus on real issues.

2012-13 BUDGET PLANNING CALENDAR

January
 Facilities, Technology & Transportation reviews transportation budget.

Cackle Fruit! Annacannatuna!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRONG!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Award Would Be Nice to Have...Dream On!

BUDGET AWARD

The Howard-Suamico School District has received the Meritorious Budget Award for its 2010-11 budget from the Association of School Business Officials International for the 13th consecutive year.The District is one of two districts in the state to receive the award.   [SP-EYE note:  the other is DC Everest, also a district in our size-class] The award recognizes high standards in the preparation and presentation of school-system budgets and is only conferred to school systems who have met or exceeded the program criteria.  No other organization or award program is specifically designed to enhance school budgeting and honor a school system for a job well done.
See how Howard-Suamico (a district in our size class) gets it done

The Meritorious Budget Awards Program (MBA):

• Provides clear budget presentation guidelines 
• Defines up to date budget practices 
• Encourages both short- and long-range budget goals 
• Promotes sound fiscal management practices 
• Promotes effective use of educational resources 
• Facilitates professional growth and development for the budget staff 
• Helps build solid development, analytical, and presentation budget skills

Yes, it costs about $1,000 to apply, for ASBO members.  But we certainly have a few of those.  Wouldn't it be worth $1,000 to force us to have a clear, accurate budget that projects for upcoming fiscal years as well?

Oh....wait...nevermind...we forgot...district administration tells us..

• It's too difficult to project a budget for a future year...
• That we need to trust that they're doing really, really well (everyone ELSE is messed up!)
• that people just don't understand this stuff.

Opacity

“We want to make this as transparent as possible. We want people to understand our parameters and assumptions when developing the budget, discuss the budget and have you give us feedback.”

---Sun Prairie School Board member and Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt speaking about the school district budget for 2010-11

What Do We Mean By Transparency?

"...when budgets and financial statements are clearly defined and all assumptions are disclosed they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest."

OK...so...if they want things to be so "transparent", why is it that when a resident asks a question about the amount of the budget reserved for raises (???), the questioner was told that "legal counsel advised against revealing that information"?

How "transparent" is that?

Fly into the Danger Zone

One of two things can happen in this scenario; neither of which is good.

1. The electors approve a tax levy without ever knowing how much was hidden in the budget for raises to Tim Culver, Administrators, Admin Support staff, and the perennially screwed Local 60. In this scenario, it's tough tooties for we the people. District Admin will cry "naaah naaah", and declare that we were foolish to approve a levy without knowing how it would be spent.

2. The alternative would be for the school board to settle these contracts and raises BEFORE the annual electors meeting. In this scenario, they can then build the increases into the budget and declare transparency. Should any elector motion to reduce the levy, the board can then say that they need the full levy to cover the magnanimous raises they approved.

A third option would be for the school board to make a very bold move--much like the state--and declare up front the entire "purse" available for raises (if any). Keeping in mind that many districts are freezing all salaries, our school board could opt to do the same. Then, during negotiations, all they need to do is just say, "It is what it is...even if it ain't much". This strategy, of course depends on two things: (1) NO contract is settle or raises administered until AFTER the elector's meeting, and (2) the board be 100% above board and declare up front the total dollar amount being allocated for raises.

In fact, if they do it in this manner (rather than declaring a percentage), then no union or group of employees can use said "percentage" as a basis for their negotiations. But...what do we know? Newsflash. When state employee unions "negotiate" their contracts with the state, there is no real negotiation...not for money, anyway. The state dictates what is --or is not--available. That's it. There is no give and take. The unions simply take what is available to them. The only real "negotiation" involves changes to contract language or other non-monetary benefits.

Our View

We find Frei and McCourt's collective rallying cry of "Transparency!", while shielding the very monies they are allocating to the 800 lb gorilla to be nothing more than a version of "do as I say, not as I do".

Rather than transparency, they effectively created a budget which is perhaps translucent to the optimist, yet quite opaque for the seasoned realist.

Opacity

Etymology: Middle French opacité shadiness, from Latin opacitat-, opacitas, from opacus shaded, dark

1 a : obscurity of sense : unintelligibleness

b : the quality or state of being mentally obtuse : dullness
2 : the quality or state of a body that makes it impervious to the rays of light; broadly : the relative capacity of matter to obstruct the transmission of radiant energy

SP-EYE NOTE: We find the definition "state of being mentally obtuse" to be rather fitting.

Tarnished Deeds: When SCOs Go Wild

The 2009-10 school year began this week. Eastside elementary kids were greeted by wonderful new playground equipment, funded by "ESCO", the Eastside School-Community Organization. That's a great thing....right? A success story? Sadly, there's more here than what you hear from the school district. And when you dig a little bit, things really begin to stink.

There is a LOT of detail to this story, so let's start you off with the summary of our findings.

► There is no evidence to refute that the new Eastside playground equipment was at least in part financed by inappropriate "class fees".

► Class fees represent a double tax for parents. The school district budget, which is paid by state aids and property taxes, should cover ALL classroom/student needs.

► Class fees represent an inequitable financial advantage for a school. We could only find evidence of this practice at Eastside.

►The school district and school board SHOULD have been aware of this situation (were they?)and nipped it in the bud.

►There is crystal clear evidence that principal Coulthart, deputy district administrator Phil Frei, and 3 school board members (McCourt, Shimek , and Slane) SHOULD (arguably MUST) have been aware of these class fees--and done something about them.

►The transparency of government becomes clouded-- to say the least-- when SCOs do not have to provide financial accountability for their revenues.

►Board member Jim McCourt is constantly prattling on that teachers who are not getting things they need should speak to school board members--and that such a need doesn't exist. They shouldn't HAVE to, Jim. You were present at the ESCO meeting last fall when class fees were discussed: how much, and the fact that they paid for things teachers need but don't get.

---

SP-EYE: Ponder that for a bit. We'll be presenting all of the DOCUMENTED FACTs on this issue a followup. There are some many layers to this issue that it needs to be peeled slowly...like an onion.

Take out all the subplots and it boils down to 3 main issues:

1. The idea of "voluntary" class fees to supplement teachers in their classrooms is fundamentally a bad idea. The school board needs to take action to stop this practice permanently.

2. Too many administration and board members had to have their heads in the sand to NOT know this was going on. This is one of those "Have you stopped beating your spouse" questions. No matter how you slice it, it comes down to, "Were you that clueless? Or did you look the other way?" And, if it was the latter, then did you pull a Pinocchio when asked directly about the fees?

3. The perceived need for class fees to purchase things which teachers need to do their jobs, passively supported by administration, lends credence to arguments that the 2009-10 budget should not target classrooms for 5% cuts.