Retiring from the Sun Prairie School District

[pt 4. in a series exploring the contractual differences between Administrators, teachers (SPEA) and support staff (AFSCME Local 60)]

Retirement. It's what we all look forward to as age creeps up on us. For most folks, the nagging question, "Will I have enough money to live comfortably in retirement?" is overshadowed by the larger question: "How will I pay for my health insurance premiums when I retire."

If you can stave off retirement until age 65, you'll be eligible for Medicare (of course that's not exactly free is it?). But what if you've worked hard from a young age and would like to truly enjoy retirement? What if you want to punch out at say age 55 or age 60? In this part of our series on contractual equity, we look at how the contracts for these 3 groups of District employees factor into the retirement equation.

Health Insurance Premiums

The table at right compares retirement benefits for the 3 groups.

First stop is the Local 60 group. These folks are awarded a whopping $3,600 to be placed in a fund to pay for health insurance premiums. At today's district rates for monthly premiums for a family,at todays rates, at best that buys them 3-4 months of health insurance before they have to pony up the full $1200-1400/month. Better wait till age 65 to retire and roll the dice with Medicare.

Next stop is the SPEA (teachers) 60 group. These folks are funded according to a more generous system that, with only 20 years in and with the contract maximum accrued leave, pays them t least 10 TIMES what the Local 60 folks get, or $36,000 for health insurance premiums. At today's district rates for monthly premiums for a family, that buys them about 3 years of health insurance before they have to pony up the full $1200-1400/month. These folks could easily retire at 62 and pay not a dime until Medicare kicks in. Noteworthy as well is that, in addition to the health insurance funding, an additional $9,600 is placed in a retirement annuity account.

Last stop: Administrators. All these folks have to do is work at least 12 years and their health care account is funded with 100% of their salary at retirement. Right now these folks average about $90,000/year. That's nearly 3x what SPEA gets and over 25 times what Local 60 gets. At today's district rates for monthly premiums for a family, that buys them about 8 years of health insurance before they have to pony up the full $1200-1400/month. These folks could easily retire at 58 and pay not a dime until Medicare kicks in.

That's the story on retirement benefits. Some have a very sweet deal; others definitely do not fare so well. The only thing that is equal for all 3 groups is that they are part of the Wisconsin Retirement system. That's definitely a nice perk...depending on your salary at retirement and years of service.

Bray & Sun Prairie - Just how cozy are we?

Cozy enough that we buy THEM lunch...not vice versa! Imagine that. WE (the taxpayers) buy the architect (who we payed over $3M just for their work on the new high school) lunch!

That's right. Buried within pages and pages of checks written by the school district is one to Milio's. Thanks to the questioning of a detailed community member, an inquiry was made regarding check number 855855 in the amount of $209.11 to Milio's for the dreaded "Multiple Invoices".


What does "Multiple Invoices mean? Well it means you have go to another file "the Check Detail for 04-14-08". From this we get the information at right. That this is actually THREE checks made out to Milio's (SP-EYE: see the BAFFLE report for more info on that subject).
http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-pizza-and-subs-for-district.html

Step 3 of the convoluted process is that someone has to make an inquiry to find out exactly what $44.70 for "HS Office Supplies" really means. Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei explained,

"Bray and Paul Keats met with staff regarding the new high school. In the past Paul Keats (via the district) would pick-up the bill for subs for the architect for one lunch and then Bray would pick-up the next bill."

The good news is that Frei added, "In the future all parties will pay for themselves each time."

The not-so-good news is that how did we come to this decision ONLY after an inquiry from a resident? Why isn't the Finance Committee looking into these expenditures? No one on Finance or the School Board even batted an eye, let alone asked a question. For new board member Terry Shimek, this is just one of those little expenses that he doesn't worry about. Who cares about $45 of taxpayer dollars? Who cares about a $300+ steak dinner for school board members? [SP-EYE note...why does it always seem to involve food???] As he indicated during his campaign, he's only concerned about the really big expenses. Newsflash, Terry. The little ones add up. And abuse is abuse. whether its a "small" one or a mega-scale one. And...shouldn't we be addressing the small abuses BEFORE they become large ones? You think former Governor Spitzer started out with $4500 call girls? Or did it start with something innocent like a lunch on the taxpayers?

Is this really only the tip of the iceberg? What other cozy arrangements are hidden inside our $65M annual budget.

What really should get one to wondering is how at Monday night's school board meeting, it was announced (with pride I might add) that it is anticipated that the new high school project will be under budget by....get this....about enough to build that pool (and operate it!) that got voted down in the recent referendum.

Many of us are not opposed to a pool, but, as Chris Mertes says, "This one doesn't pass the smell test".

Ok...so $45 lunches that we buy for the architect don't cause you any heartburn? Fine. Then how about this:

Despite School Board Policy DJ (Purchasing) which states,

Because the Board cannot relinquish its responsibility and accountability as an agent of the state and to the citizenry of the district, the following guidelines are established with regard to purchasing:
1. Bidding Approval
The Board shall approve any bids or quotations as required by state or federal law, and all quotations and/or bids greater than $25,000, except as otherwise provided. Any bid needing Board approval will first go to a Board sub-committee, when practical, for approval and then to the Board, unless it is an emergency purchase.

and in Procedure DJ-R(1) (Purchasing Procedures)

2. Except as provided in sub-section 1 (see below), no purchases shall be made for supplies, services, or equipment costing $25,000 or more unless competitive quotations or bids for those items are obtained, provided the purchase is a budgeted item and the purchase is approved by the Board.

1. Bids are not required for:
a. Instructional materials
b. Miscellaneous and operational supplies less than $5,000 or replacement parts
c. Prices from single source vendors.
d. Municipal/government/state or federal contracts.
e. Maintenance contracts of one year or less duration and less than $25,000
f. Used equipment ...
g. Negotiated purchases. ....where multiple bidders are not available

See anything there which suggests that the board isn't required to bid the architect out?

When asked, Caren Diedrich's response was that because Bray is the only architect "that really knows the school district's buildings" (gee...that's not because they built them all, is it?) then Bray qualifies as an exemption from bidding as a "sole source vendor" under 2.c above.

The school board did not put the architect out for bids. The jobs were handed to Bray without even thinking about getting a better price through a policy-mandated (never mind common sense fiscal responsibility!) competitive bid project .

...and THAT is what a $45 lunch of Milio's subs gets you.

Re-vote on Boundary Issue Coming????

Even before last night's school board meeting, several individuals reported that they had discussions with officials. Word is that the board will be re-considering the boundary issue during the May 12, 2008 school board meeting.

That may bode well as a sign that the remnants of the school board's "old guard" are finally listening to the public. Beyond the issue of WHAT decisions were made, HOW those decisions were made raised a stench within the community.

Unfortunately, this news raises further questions about the inner workings of the school board. How is the agenda for a meeting set? Who decides what gets on the agenda? How can someone know what will be on the agenda before the agenda is made public? Isn't this dangerously close to a "walking quorum"?

#2 Rewarding Career that Lets You Have a Life...

From Yahoo ...

While many Americans enjoy a mere one or two weeks of vacation time each year, some professionals spend two to three months of each year away from the job.
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that the following five careers will experience some of the fastest job growth of all careers over the next decade. Each one of these career paths offers its own set of perks in addition to seasonal scheduling:

"2. Teacher K-12
Many teachers use the summer to catch up with family, enjoy long vacations, and complete additional online education courses. Even with three months off, many K-12 teachers earn over $41,000 per year. [SP-EYE: and that's just salary; it doesn't consider benefits, including "supplemental pay more. More on that to come.]

Changes in recruitment policies now mean that you can start a teaching job in many places before completing a degree in education.

New state and federal mandates require job applicants to complete at least a few online education courses before beginning their teaching careers. Many school districts have even invested in dedicated recruitment programs designed to help professionals from other fields earn education degrees. For retirees, a teaching career offers the chance to stay active while earning an income and enjoying summers off."

Read the full article:
http://education.yahoo.net/degrees/articles/featured_top_5_extra_time_off_careers.html

Contract Parity - Salary & Health Insurance

(pt. 3 in a series)

Union contracts frequently get glossed over by the school board, and certainly are nearly invisible when buried amid the annual budget voted on at the annual elector's meeting. SP-EYE wonders if anyone is really looking at this information to see how our district employees are compensated.

After reviewing the current contracts for supports staff (Local 60), teachers (SPEA) and administrators, a table has been prepared which attempts to capture the nuances of each of these contracts. Presented in this format, it allows one to also compare certain contract aspects across the unions.

Salary comparison

Support staff, which are certainly mission critical to the success of teaching staff and administrators are clearly paid on a significantly lower scale. Did anyone see them picket a school board meeting crying out for a "fair contract"?

The broad salary range is somewhat deceptive; only 3 classifications (representing a handful of positions) earn an entry salary more than $15.00/hr.

Note also that while teachers' unions across the nation always present their case for poor wages in terms of average or base salaries, there are a preponderance of options available to them in terms of "supplemental" or extra/co-curricular pay. Lastly, and it is not presented here, teaching staff may also add to their salaries by serving as summer school teaching staff.

Local 60 members are eligible for longevity pay, but only initially get 3% of their 39 month salary (not their CURRENT salary) after 4.5 years. Meanwhile, teachers receive a "step" increase of 3% every year.

Health Insurance comparison
The most obvious question to ask is how fair is it to expect the lowest paid staff to pay for 9% of health insurance benefits when teachers and administrators generally will pay for 2% or less. The cost of the premium does not change between groups; it's merely the dollar share that one group pays vs. another. Similarly, Local 60 members pay just under 15% of the cost of their dental premiums, while these plans are paid 100% by taxpayers for administrators and for single SPEA members. SPEA members only pay 5% of the family dental premium.

Why do we pay for life insurance premiums at 4 times the administrators salaries, while only at 1X for SPEA and Local 60? That's 1/2 million dollars of insurance for the top administrators! How many taxpayers have life insurance policies worth $500K...and pay nothing for them????

The Hidden Paycheck (pt. 2 in a series)

How much are your benefits worth? How much do you pay for your benefits...particularly your health insurance premiums?

At right is data for the 2005-school year, for area school districts, along with averages statewide. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards, of which Sun Prairie--as is true for most districts--is a member, USED to publish salary and compensation data reported by districts statewide on their website. Interestingly enough, that data is now only available to "members" who can log-in and obtain the data.

Historically, Sun Prairie teachers have paid NOTHING toward the cost of their health insurance premiums. [SP-EYE note: Beginning July 1, 2008, teachers will pay about 1% of the cost; 2% if they choose not to participate in a health risk assessment monitoring program.]

As the data shows, Sun Prairie teachers contribute far less than the average of both area schools and statewide towards their health insurance premiums. In the Madison teachers' union current contract, teachers pay 10% of their premiums. Most state employees, who historically paid nothing towards their health insurance benefits (in lieu of lower salaries relative to the private sector) now are paying between 6 and 10% of the costs. And that percentage has increased with each new biennial contract.

Are teachers underpaid? Perhaps a case could be made, particularly for new (1st year) teachers. Are teachers under-compensated? That is the real question to be asking. We really can't fully answer the first question without considering all the pieces of the pie.

A good article, published in 2001, addresses the compensation issue. It may be a few years dated, but conceptually the points raised remain valid.

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol10No3/Hruz10.3.pdf

A few key excerpts from this article are provided below:

"Teachers earn considerably more than most workers in the state, and do so for a job that only involves, at most, ten months of full-time employment."

"It is only to salaries that proponents of higher teacher compensation draw attention, while they remain silent on the value of the benefits that public school teachers are afforded. This focus is deceptive but necessary if the teachers’ union is to be able to convince anyone of the claim that its teachers are not remunerated well."

- WISCONSIN TEACHER COMPENSATION: A Bum Deal or a Plum Deal?
Thomas Hruz - Wisconsin Interest Fall 2001

"It is within the realm of employee benefit compensation that public school teachers, like most public employees, own the privilege of being some of the highest compensated. Put simply, the financial benefits that flow to public school teachers are very nice both in absolute terms and — to play the teachers’ unions game — in relative terms. Public school teachers in Wisconsin receive some of the best health care coverage experienced by workers in the state, and are they are also welcomed into the generous pension payments of the Wisconsin Retirement System for government employees."

Are Sun Prairie teachers underpaid? (part 1 of a series)

The Jeopardy answer is: "Teacher pay".

The question is: "What is it that no one wants to talk about?"

Ever since the teachers' union (SPEA) picketed a school board meeting en masse this past January, the question has lingered. Now that a contract has been signed, it's time people did talk about it. It's like one of those dark family secrets that no one ever wants to be the first to discuss. The result? It festers like an untreated infection.

We now have two new school board members, both of which have served on the Finance Committee, and one of which works for a major financial institution. Maybe we'll finally have fresh eyes to review the financial picture.

According to the 2007-2008 Annual Meeting Report, [SP-EYE note: try to find THAT document on the district website!] the total budget for Sun Prairie schools is $61.9M. $37.3M of that goes to salaries, and another $17.3M goes to benefits. That's a combined $54.6M -- 88.1% ---of the District budget that goes directly to salaries and benefits.

According to the City of Sun Prairie's website, the median income for Sun Prairie households is $51,345. The average salary of all teachers in Sun Prairie is about $ 46,400. That means that a single teacher in a SP household represents 90% of the MEDIAN (not the mean; the median means 50% of salaries are greater and 50% are lower ) household income!

If one takes the time to look at biweekly "school board packets" on the District website, and specifically peruses the "Personnel" information, they would see that in the past several weeks, seven (7) teachers have announced their plans to retire. Their salaries are presented at right. Now, an average salary for ONE person, of $70,000, is 36% higher than the median household income in the city. Those are damn fine salaries at which to retire, particularly if you have an understanding of the Wisconsin Retirement System.

SP-EYE is not opposed to a fair wage for our teachers. Educating our children is an important function. But at the same time, let's not be naive. Teacher's contracts call for 190 days of work per year. The average worker works 260 days per year. Do the math. That means that teachers' salaries should really be multiplied by 36% to adjust them for comparison with other workers.

What many point to is the low pay for entry level teachers. According to the contract just signed, that pay is $29,706 for the 2008-09 school year. Adjusted for 190 days and 8 hours per day, that comes to $19.54/hour. That average salary at retirement of $70,000 clocks in at just over $46/hour.

It has been argued that teachers deserve better salaries because of the critical role they play. We find that logic to be borderline offensive, because it comes dangerously close to a "we're more important than other occupations" mentality. What about our police force, who make far less than teachers? What about the Local 60 union folks that provide "support services" for the District? Could the teachers and administration function without them? What about public works staff that clean the wastewater that you flush away each day without a thought? If they didn't do their job, our rivers and streams would be a toxic dump. What about those that ensure we have clean water to drink? How about the farmers that grow or raise the food we eat? The question of who deserves more is a slippery slope indeed that quickly becomes offensive to all, and amounts little to a "chicken before the egg" argument.

How many of you make even close to $46/hour? Do YOU think teachers are underpaid? Since teacher salaries alone account for 40% of our $62M district budget, is it time our school board paid closer attention to these contracts?

In our upcoming parts of this series, we'll talk about the other big issues: benefits (including health insurance), extracurricular pay, and parity of contracts between Local 60 (support staff, SPEA (Teachers), and administrators.

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

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

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


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


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


• Should this notice have been posted publicly?


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


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

Expulsions up 400%

OK. Elections are over. It's time to get down to brass tacks (maybe). Here's a subject we've been wondering about, but about which we've heard very little. Sure, expulsion hearings are "posted", but certainly not printed in the paper. You would only know about them if you watch the school board's "Upcoming School Board Meetings" page: http://www.spasd.k12.wi.us/web/glking/stories/storyReader$26
(SP-EYE question for another day: How can the public ever find out about these things if they have names like "storyReader$26" anyway? Maybe the Task Force for community engagement could answer that? Oh...wait...THAT committee is on hold for now...but you weren't told about THAT decision either).

Following an open records request for information related to expulsions over the past 2 school years (Grade level and reason for expulsion), we learned the following:

2006-07 school year
4 expulsions
- 3 for fighting/violence
- 1 for insubordination/threats

1 expulsion in each of grades 9-12

2007-08 school year
15 expulsions (1 more scheduled this week)
- 7 for drugs (possession and/or sale)
- 7 for weapons (2 knives; 5 BB guns)
- 1 for violence/threats

1 expulsion in elementary school (grade 5)
6 expulsions in middle school (1 in grade 6, 5 in grade 8)
8 expulsions in high school (2 in Gr. 9; 3 in Gr.10; 1 in Gr. 11; 2 in Gr. 12)

Why isn't the school board talking bout this?

Our board fought hard at several school board and finance committee meetings, essentially stalemating any agreement on limiting reimbursement expenses for school board members' meals while at conferences. How shameful that the board is willing to expend such time and effort defending something as ludicrous as their right to a $42 steak dinner but then avoid discussing the rise in expulsions at the board table.

This is the heart of what's wrong with the school board, the district, and to some extent, the city as a whole. It's time we stopped stuffing these things in the closet and started talking about them. It's time our school board came up with something other than Dr. FeelGood, plain vanilla agenda items.

Ding Dong! Havel-Lang rejected by voters.

It was no April Fool's joke. Sun Prairie voters made a firm statement for change on our school board, voting out 4-term incumbent Mary Ellen Havel-Lang.

Election Results

Sun Prairie School Board (3 Seats)

Jill Davidson......................2,259.......24%....- 3 yr term
(I) David Stackhouse.........2,232.......24%....- 3 yr term
Terry Shimek.....................2,041.......22%......1 yr term
(I) Mary Havel-Lang.................1,481..........16%
Al Slane........................................1,326..........14%

Election '08: Is Havel-Lang vulnerable?

Conversation in Sun Prairie suggests that 13 (as in a 13th year on the school board) may prove to be an unlucky number for Mary Ellen Havel-Lang. Her recent positions regarding Boundary changes, the high school issue, open meetings concerns, and community engagement have raised the hackles of a growing number of folks. The overwhelming comments being heard include such things as:

• "12 years is too long."
• "Havel-Lang is all about writing policy, yet doesn't follow policy."
• "Too many personal attacks."
• "A master in the art of deception and controlling the information the public receives."
• "Havel-Lang is too controlling; she has to have her fingers in every pie."
• "It's Mary Ellen's way or no way"
• "The Sun Prairie school board needs a change in management."

Whether you support Mary Ellen, or support change, PLEASE get out and vote this Tuesday, April 1.

Havel-Lang controls Community Engagement Task Force

SP-EYE: Monte Couch, a member of the Sun Prairie school board's Community Engagement Task Force offered the following comments on this week's meeting

The question on the meeting notice handed out at the start of 3-25-08 the meeting of the Community Engagement Task Force was:

"What can the School Board do to better communicate with the community?"

Ignoring the question on the meeting agenda, the chair (Mary Ellen Havel-Lang) suddenly adopted a members' interpretation of the basic question. The objective before the committee did not state "help the school board to do a better job of communicating." BUT the chair suddenly adopted that phrase, which was offered by one committee member. This then served as justification to avoid a logical step by step analysis and allowed the chair to make unilateral decisions.

As the meeting continued, the chair stated that "they" [the School Board] follow Robert's Rules Modified. That is not correct. There is no such publication. The district policies state, "Robert's Rules of Order will be observed except when modified by the board"--which means an individual chair or board member cannot deviate from Robert's Rules, without the board voting to do so. [SP-EYE Note: THAT never happens!!!]

"It seems the chair of these communication meetings, Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, has adopted the ideas in the book, "BREAKING ROBERT'S RULES" by Lawrence E. Susskind and Jeffrey L. Cruikshank, Oxford University Press, copyright 2006."

How else to explain the chair's actions? Rather than hand the gavel over to someone else, the chair offered her opinion, direction, and conclusions on communication subjects being discussed. That violated Robert's Rules of Order, big time. It also raises the issue of conflict of interest?

The chair inserted her opinions and conclusions, attempting to release the board of their specific responsibilities defined in State Statutes, DPI Administrative codes etc. It seemed to me, as a board member she should have been listening, not trying to lead to pre-determined conclusions.

No wonder her ground rules for this committee on communication between the board and the community included no discussion. She could start any discussion she wanted to, and cut it off once she offered her conclusions.

I can accept rulings of a majority, but I do not accept conclusions based on changing the objective the committee is being asked to address without a discussion and taking a vote.

Unless the board adopts and follows required procedures, there will be no clear communication.

Read the recent minutes of this group at:
http://lms.spasd.k12.wi.us/gems/home/Minutes21908.pdf

"Superintendent" Tim Culver stayed awake...

...at Monday's School Board meeting--but maybe that's because his own wallet was under attack.

Culver tends to slump down in his chair, and was observed to nod off at recent meetings related to Boundary Task Force issues (let's hope it was from lack of sleep. The alternative--that he might find the voices of concerned residents and parents to be tedious monotony--- doesn't sit well.). Personal anecdotes from some current school board members also indicate that Culver can drift off at long meetings. Perhaps he should be sitting at the side table, where his nodding off would be less of a distraction. Oh, wait...that's a whole separate issue.

When the issue of exceeding Culver's contract for paid memberships was AGAIN raised at the school board meeting, Culver chose his "District Administrator's Report" as a forum to refute the allegations....weak that it was. Of course the school board does nothing. Off the record, one current school board member has at least acknowledged the issue warrants resolution... suggesting that the board simply amend the contract to allow the 3rd membership.



Let us be perfectly clear. SP-EYE has no objection to Culver's Rotary Club membership. In fact, it's a good thing for Sun Prairie and the school district. But his contract states that the District will pay for TWO memberships (see contract excerpt)...not three. The Rotary Club also does not meet the specifications of memberships outlined in the contract either. The Rotary---while an excellent service organization--does not fit the contract requirements of an association "whose primary missions are to improve education and the professional competence of District Administrator".

The state association we pay for is: the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators. The national association is: the American Association of School Administrators

At Monday's meeting, Culver offered a very weak rebuttal, suggesting something along the lines of "my contract doesn't say exactly two". Once again, here is a purported role model, who is only serving to teach students that it's acceptable to try to weasel out of a tough situation.

Man up, Tim! You're clearing over $145,000 from district residents. We already pay you $325/mo for travel and $125/month for misc meals and expenses! Your contract is clear. Until it changes, open up your wallet...let the presidents see the light of day. Do the right thing. Or...are we going to spend another $1,000 on legal fees as you consult with Mike Julka who'll undoubtedly offer his legal opinion that it's all good.

See previous post for further detail:

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-anyone-watching-books.html

Let them eat steak!

From an interested resident who reviewed District credit card receipts recently:

The total M&I (SP-EYE note: the bank for which candidate Terry Shimek works) credit card bill for January was $6,097.31. Except for a very small amount, it was for travel to conventions (hotels, food and parking). The Westin Hotel in Boston billed the district on January 17 (which was paided in the January bill) for a stay on April 2nd. Why would we pay that far in advance?

The joint WASB convention in Milwaukee, January 22 to January 24 (2008), was the real party at a total cost of $4,676.25 to the district. The attendees were school board members Tim Boylen, Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, David Stackhouse, Caren Diedrich, Jim Carrel, and John Whalen. (SP-EYE note: only Jim McCourt was absent; in the past they have limited attendance to only 2 board members). In addition, District Administration was represented by Tim Culver, Phil Frei, and Rhonda Page.

The room rate was $137/night for single rooms and Whalen had a room for 2 adults at $154/night. (SP-EYE hopes the taxpayers didnt pay for two!). I didn't ask and I don't know who his roommate was, but I don't think it was a school board member because the rest all had single rooms. On January 24th they all, except Phil) went to Butch's Old Casino Steakhouse, where most of them had 12 ounce steaks. The bill for dinner was $339, including a $45 tip, which turns out to be more than $42 per person, which I assume they would claim was reasonable and necessary.

(SP-EYE note: The school board recently revised a policy setting maximum amounts for meals and per diems for Local 60 and SPEA (teachers) unions. When asked to impose the same restrictions on themselves, most refused and gave excuses such as "we don't get paid enough for what we do", or "we have to use personal vacation time to attend conferences". Both are pretty much "do what we say, not as we do" arguments. In the end they felt that they would all be responsible enough to spend only what is "reasonable and customary". It is noted that Caren Diedrich was one of the lone board members who stated that board members should be held to the same standards. Wonder what she had???. )



See Butch's Old Casin &amp $teakhouse menu (and pricing) at: http://www.butchssteakhouse.com/files/28289950.pdf

School Board candidiates - Summary

Here is SP-EYE's perhaps overly simplified summary of the 5 candidates' perceived strengths and weaknesses. Summaries are offere here in ballot order. The election is April 1, 2008. Don't be a fool, VOTE!


JILL CAMBER-DAVIDSON
Positives:

• Experience: served on Finance and now Education & Policy Committees


• Fiscal awareness demonstrated during Finance committee tenure


• Not a member of the Board-Admin "club"

Concerns:

• Can appear shy and reserved.

---

AL SLANE
Positives:

• Brings a fresh perspective


• Engineering & technology skills a plus

Concerns:

• A little too much of a Jim Carrel groupie


• No committee experience; lacks knowledge of board operations

---

TERRY SHIMEK
Positives:

• Familiarity with district operations


• Financial knowledge

Concerns:

• Professionalism a question mark. Seen on numerous occasions laughing AT fellow committee members' sincere comments


• Interest in the board seems to come and go. Ran 3 years ago


• Wife is a teacher...a potential conflict of interest?


• Too familiar with the District Administration?


• No response to League of Women Voters' candidate questionnaire

---

DAVID STACKHOUSE (I)

Positives:

• Experienced (3 yrs)


• Keeps a level head

Concerns:

• Tends to pontificate at times


• Have seen some vote reversals

---

MARY ELLEN HAVEL-LANG (I)


Positives:

• The school board is her life


• Experienced (12 yrs)


• Charming... if you agree with her


• Uses Roberts' Rules as her personal weapon

Concerns:

• The school board is her life


• Tone turns nasty...if you dont agree with her


• Too cozy with administration


• 12 years is too much; 15 years would be WAY too much

---

Sun Prairie School Boundaries Finalized

The hearings and meetings are finally over. So why are we left with a bad taste in our mouths? Is it because the finally decision was made at a meeting in which 2 school board members (Caren Diedrich, Tim Boylen) were not even present? Is it because it was only a 3-2 vote? Or was it the entire process? As the wounds from this ordeal begin to heal, a "post-mortem" needs to be initiated to determine the cause of demise of the process.

A decision made by only 5 of 7 school board members
Hell, this issue has been tabled so many times, that this process may have been a better primer on Roberts Rule of Order than the District spending almost $1000 to get a lesson from the attorney for the district, Mike Julka. It just seems to be in incredibly poor taste to make a final decision when nearly 30% of the board is absent.

3-2 is better than 10-8
There were complaints that the original Boundary Task Force's decision was problematic because it stemmed from a 10-8 vote. A majority is a majority, but changes were made and more hearing held BECAUSE of the 10-8 vote. Yet, if I do my math right...10/18 comes to about 56%. But 3/5 comes to only 60%...not a hell of a lot better. Claims were made back then that the 10-8 vote was indicative that the process wasn't complete. But now it is? By merely increasing the percentage of agreement by 4%. Where's the logic? To an observer of the whole sordid process, it seems that the board voted just be done with the issue. That's what we get with our elected "leaders". You may want to consider that when you go to the ballot box in 3 weeks.

The process is flawed
As a follower of school board activities, SP-EYE understand that boundary changes are and always will be a source of stress. What has become crystal clear through this current action is that the board's process has to change. Historically, we have convened a Boundary Task Force of citizens, school administration, and school board members. You cannot hope to improve citizen involvement in the school board's activities when the product of such a Task Force is labelled as "inferior". As a resident, SP-EYE is ashamed of having a school board that would allow such a slight to a VOLUNTEER effort.

We've also seen a series of wheels put in motion as boundary change "ideas" are
tossed out. The squeaky wheel does get the grease in this city. But more importantly, it's absolutely mind boggling to see a sudden shift to target a new neighborhood that was never up for discussion previously. If a move is appropriate for the schools, the teachers, and the affected students, then it is your job as elected leaders to stand firm. You cannot simply re-target someone else for the sake of "numbers".

As a proposed solution, SP-EYE suggests the following:

1. Convene no Boundary Task Force.
There is no need, as public hearings allow for citizen input.

2. Put the responsibility for designating DRAFT boundary change suggestions where it logically belongs: Administration.
We pay these folks hefty salaries and they retain ALL the information necessary to make informed decisions. They also will be less biased and more focused towards meshing student needs with schools, teachers, and bus routes.

3. Use real, live data. Include maps of population/neighborhood counts. Construct draft boundaries in open working meetings.

4. Once a draft is established, hold public hearings.
Based on comments received decide whether or not changes are needed. Draft a final plan.

5. Take the final plan directly to the full school board, not through the FTT Committee. The committee is composed of 3 school board members (who will have their say later) and 2 citizen reps. It's ludicrous to think that these folks would have any better ideas. It just becomes a breeding ground for radical plans to emerge.

The board's mantra through the high school process was that decisions should be driven by data. What happened here? Data doesn't change; opinions do. Did the many residents' voices sway the board, or was the incorrect data being used.

Answering that is your charge as we move forward.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

HOUSEKEEPING???

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

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

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

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

Carrel admits deceit; ashamed to be a board member

Jim Carrel finally stripped off his sheep clothing and exposed his true persona at the February 11th school board meeting. First, Carrel admitted that his motion to table the Boundary Task Force vote at the previous meeting was a deceptive tactic at best designed to give him time to rally his supporters. Then on Monday night he tossed aside the Boundary Task Force's recommendations, offered his own plan, and then exploded when school board members rejected his plan. Perhaps his most important statement was publicly announcing that he was "ashamed to be a part of" the school board. You know, Mr. Carrel, you can step down.

The community deserves an opportunity to fully appreciate what Mr. Carrel is really all about, as evidenced by the following quotes:

On a deceitful tactic to delay the vote of the Boundary Task Force recommendations:

[his motion to table boundary discussion pending evaluation of removing SAGE from the Bird school] "was just a parliamentary move to stop a moving train."

"It just seemed like the only thing to say to get it to stop because you cant table a recommendation for no reason."

"We're not going to move SAGE from Bird, we just needed some parliamentary procedure to stop what I considered an inferior project"

"I didnt have any intention of removing SAGE from Bird. It was just a stalling tactic because the project on the table is flawed and we have to fix it."

First of all, Mr. Carrel is not as "in the know" as he likes people to think he is, because Robert's Rules of Order do not require any reason to be offered to table ("lay on the table") a motion. Want the facts? Read about these motions here:
http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-05.htm

So...what Carrel really meant to say was that he needed to come up with a plausible excuse--in his mind--to delay a vote. Mr. Carrel has been very quick to point the finger at citizens costing the taxpayers money associated with complaints regarding [alleged] violations of open meetings laws. Has anybody asked what costs were incurred as school district staff spent time reviewing the SAGE program to prepare to a response about SAGE at Bird? A response that was never needed once Carrel admitted that the whole "get rid of SAGE at Bird" was a clever ruse to delay a vote. Carrel apparently used his time to meet with affected parents from Bird. Don't even think about telling us that part of his discussions did not include ideas to push his "grand plan".


To the other school board members after his motion was doomed to fail:

"Because you've all stated your opinions and are going to vote my proposal down, I'm ashamed to be part of this group."

"I cant imagine how the rest of you can look yourselves in the mirror and accept
inferiority."

If Carrel is so "ashamed" to be a board member, then perhaps he should step down. This is a guy that preached the need for "decorum" at board meetings and to eliminate personal attacks. Carrel was out of line Monday night, and is clearly not what this community needs. He is a maverick. He also waxed poetically during the elections last year about being a "consensus builder". He didnt build any consensus Monday night. The wolf (coyote???) has been exposed for what he truly is. This is clearly a perfect example, of "if I can't play, I'm taking my basketball and going home".

Hot issues in the Sun Prairie School District

Here are some of the key issues happening in the Sun Prairie School District as well as our thoughts on each.

• Boundary Task Force - On the agenda for Monday 2/11/08. At the 1/28/08 meeting of the school board, a number of residents appeared to take issue with some of the Boundary Task Force's recommendations. Following Jim Carrel's "Hail Mary" motion to evaluate discontinuing SAGE at Bird Elementary to free up space, the school board decided to table the issue. Was discretion the better part of valor? Or are elections getting close and incumbents Stackhouse and Havel-Lang wanting to step carefully around a hot-button issue?

SP-EYE says: that if there were better options, the Task Force would have looked at them. No boundary changes ever occur without fear, or frustration. That's what happens when you live in a growing city. Arguments that folks moved to a specific neighborhood for a specific school are weak at best. We cannot afford a school for every neighborhood, and we have to address over-crowding as well as school equity as it relates to children of low income families.

• Teacher Contracts - Teachers want raises that are well above the consumer price index (3.0%). They also like the current practice of having taxpayers fund 100% of the cost of their health benefits. The teacher's union wants a higher average teacher wage. They want an increase in total package (salary + benefits) of 5.2% in 2007-08 and 5.4% in 2008-09. The District is offering total package increases of 4.0% and 4.2% for the two years. That package includes raise of 3.7% (QEO minimum is 2.1%). Teachers want over a 5.2% salary increase. The District (i.e., the school board) wants teachers to pay a percentage (2-4%) of their health benefits as members of Local 60 (support staff) and administration do.

SP-EYE says: The school board has already offered a package that exceeds the QEO. The economy is tight right now, for everyone. Hello! have you looked at the housing market lately? The business climate? No one is getting 5% raises...well...except for Exxon-Mobil execs, that is. State employee union contracts are looking at potential salary increases of up to 2.5-3% for 2007-08, and likely 0% for 2008-09. That's zero...as in goose egg. In addition, state employees will also likely have to pay an even higher percentage of their health insurance premiums. Already, state employees pay 6-8% of the cost of their health insurance. As far as teachers, in Dane county, school district employees pay an average of 5.24% of their health insurance premiums for a single person, and 6.99% of premiums for a family. Our teachers currently pay zip.

• Electronic School Board - Conceptually, Jim Carrel's plan and the board's decision to purchase BoardDocs software has merits. The cost of putting together, making copies , and delivering school board packets to board and committee members is pretty high.

SP-EYE says: Time for a reality check. The FTT was never provided final analysis comparison cost figures. The software costs $$ initially and at least $5,000 per year. In addition, the district is has to purchase at least 7 laptop computers-one for each board member. BoardDocs really is, at best, an electronic organizer. You tell it where to provide situation reports and attachments, and it assembles a board package. Where the rubber meets the road, however, is in the claims for searchability. In order for anything to be searchable electronically, the documents must be text-based. Despite availability of high-tech optical character recognition software such as Adobe Acrobat, board packages are always prepared by scanning numerous pages...and saving them as image-PDF files. These files are not only unwieldy in size, but they are not searchable. So neither board members nor the public will have any less difficult a time finding critical information. This seems pretty incredulous for a district that prides itself on its technology.

• 
  Engaging the Public - On February 18th, the first meeting of the "Community Engagement Task Force" will be held. The school board appears to be interested in how it can better engage the public.

SP-EYE says: Yeah...RIGHT! This from the same group of people that have attacked citizens like Roger Fetterly, who keeps trying to correct the board on financial matters. You may not like Roger's delivery, but it's easy to understand if you ever watch how he and others are treated by thge board. Tim Boylen gets downright nasty. Board candidate Terry Shimek is constantly outright laughing at comments. Why WOULD anyone want to speak before the board. Speak with your votes in April.

• Taxpayer funded "Memorials": Did you know that ---when a District employee is ill, has a child, or sadly passess away--- the District purchases flowers for the employee with OUR tax dollars? True story. Check out the check details. Last year over $500 was spent on flowers.

SP-EYE says: While this is a wondeful practice, these flowers should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. We've never received a "thank you" from a diostrict employee or employee family member who recieved flowrs that we paid for! The heart of this issue is that in each of our jobs, these situations arise and we all take out our wallets and chip in to provide card/gifts/flowers, depending on the occasion. We dont expect our employer to cover these costs...and certainly this is an abuse of the system --and our hard earned tax dollars that the school board and Finance Committee need to stop. It may seem like a small--even petty-- amount, but these things add up, and ethically it's plain wrong.

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

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

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

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

School Board tables boundary recommendation

25 members
4 months
7 meetings
2 public hearings
Boundary Task Force approved the final recommendation 10-8-4
School Board's FTT committee voted 4-1 to forward it to the full board

Yet on January 28, the school board voted to table the issue.

Why?
That's a good question.

Certainly numerous parents that would be affected by the changes spoke out against the plan at the board meeting. Their angst and concern over pending school changes were real. But is there ANY boundary change that wouldn't affect SOMEBODY? Change is difficult, but life is a series of changes. There is no perfect solution to boundary issues. Period.

Issues that were cited as being reasons to re-convene the boundary task force:

1. The 50 or so students that would move from Bird elementary would result in a loss of the PTO leadership at the school.
2. The need to re-evaluate Bird's status as a SAGE school.
3. The boundary task force "didn't finish"

We believe that new leadership CAN and WILL emerge at Bird if the original recommendation stands. To believ differently is an arrogant slight against the many other parents, who may have felt intimidated by the existing PTO leadership. We also wonder why now it's acceptable for any school--let alone Bird--be allowed to exceed capavity, when a year ago any such thoughts were unconscionable.

One year ago, Ken Kish (former citizen representative for the Finance committee) made a motion to eliminate the SAGE program (which mandates class size of 15 or fewer for grades K-3)at Bird elementary, thereby increasing the student capacity at Bird. In return, he was treated like the AntiChrist. Now Jim Carrel proposes virtually the same thing and he's viewed as the new Messiah???

How much of this decision to stall board action is due in part to the upcoming elections...and board president David Stackhouse and clerk Mary Ellen Havel-Lang's fates?

Why should citizens get any further involved, when the Boundary Task Force did what it was instructed to do, and now they're told to go back and re-think things? The school board talk a good game of wishing to engage community residents, but when thet DO get involved, they get treated like this.

What exactly IS the point of having a Boundary decision go through a Task Force and then through the FTT committee, only to have the decision of both groups overturned by the school board? If the board values the work of these committees so little, then they should just make all the decisions themselves...after all...it's what they do anyway.

Jim Carrel: Keeping PTO intact trumps over-crowding (at Bird Elementary)!

On Thursday January 17th, a special session of the school board's FTT committee was held to review the Boundary Task Force's (BTF) recommendations. The committee voted 4-1 (Nays: Jim Carrel) to approve recommendations of the Boundary Task Force and forward them on to the full school board for final action. Prior to that motion, Jim Carrel made a motion to amend the BTF recommendation by redrawing lines to eliminate moving 51 students from Northside elementary to Westside elementary. His reasoning: moving 51 children out of Bird to reduce crowding would result in most of the current parent leadership of the PTO being lost to a different building. Carrel stated that he was willing to let C.H. Bird elementary remain over crowded (anticipated by as much as 75 kids by 2010), if the PTO leadership remained intact. Losing the current PTO, Carrel said, would harm children more than being in crowded classrooms.

SP-EYE note: We value the contributions of parents involved in PTO very highly, but to assume that all would go to hell in a hand-basket just because the families moving from Bird represent most/all of the PTO leadership is ludicrous. Frankly, this may give other parents a chance to step forward and offer their contributions, which could be equally--if not valuable.

Other committee members disagreed:
FTT committee member Jan Fournier responded, "I'm confused as to why you don't think 50 additional kids at Bird is not a problem." FTT committee member Rick Mealy disagreed with the motion on a number of levels. "The PTO will rebound; new leaders will emerge", Mealy said. Mealy also stated that while the BTF vote of 10-8 on the new boundaries was not overwhelming, it represented a majority nonetheless. In addition, he felt it was inappropriate to undo decisions of an 18-member Task Force that considered much data and testimony over the course of 7 meetings and 2 public hearings. Mealy said that the final decision rests with the full school board.

SP-EYE note: What ever happened to the concept of "getting behind a decision once it has been made?" Apparently Mr. Carrel only subscribes to that philosophy when we agrees with the decision.

Some believe it was out of line for Mr. Carrel to use his position as a member of the FTT committee to advance an motion to make a change that was supported by only a minority of the Boundary Task Force, of which Mr. Carrel was also a member. In fact, Carrel stated publicly that he was one of the "8" on the 10-8 vote of the BTF regarding the final recommendations. It's a good bet that Carrel will be making a similar motion to the full board at its next meeting.

During the meeting, the committee heard testimony from 15-20 residents each requesting that an aspect of the Boundary Task Force's plan to redraw elementary school boundaries, be altered.

Common themes included : not moving the 51 students from Northside to Westside, opposition to moving the Parkway Village subdivision from Horizon to Creekside, concerns about moving children from Park Circle to Royal Oaks.

Back to referendum in April for a pool?

At the January 14, 2008 meeting of the school board's FTT Committee, members approved forwarding a recommendation to the full school board to hold a referendum for a pool in conjunction with the upcoming spring elections.

Since the board must vote on such a measure before February 15th, look for very quick action from the board, likely at its January 28th meeting.

School Board starts 2008 off with drama.

After a quiet, post-referendum fall, where it almost seemed as if the Board kept its agendas "vanilla" to limit public interest in their actions, the first committee and full board meetings of 2008 saw sparks and drama.



Disrespect and abdication of fiscal responsibility

At the Finance Committee, citizen representative asked about the qualifications of "trainers" who frequently receive hefty stipends for a day (or less) seminars related to staff development. Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt waived off the question and stated that he is not capable of judging qualifications, and that "we have to trust administration". The other committee citizen representative and School board candidate, Terry Shimek, openly laughed at Murray's questions and follow-up comments.



We believe Dr. Murray is correct to ask these types of questions. With a $65 million dollar budget, this school board needs a "trust but verify" approach to fiscal management. We are also appalled at Mr. Shimek's lack of respect for an other's opinion. With all the fiscal abuse and mismanagement in the news today, we need a school board who asks the tough questions. If spending is justified, why should administration be angry about questions? If citizen representatives are to be ridiculed for asking administration and the school board to provide documentation to substantiate spending, what is the purpose of even having a Finance Committee?



We also find Mr. Shimek's behavior to be in poor taste. Perhaps he just chose poor timing to laugh at some random internal amusing thought, but appearance is everything. We can agree to disagree, people, but laughing at a fellow board member is simply unacceptable behavior--particularly for someone who wishes to serve on the board and be a role model for our students. Later during the meeting of the full board, Mr. Shimek was also excitedly mouthing things to someone at the board table. It appeared that he was trying to communicate with Mary Ellen Havel-Lang, who is up for re-election. If Mr. Shimek wants to be considered seriously as a board candidate, this was not a good start.



Teachers picket School Board meeting.

Anyone driving past the City Municipal building before the start of the January 14 school board meeting was greeted by a huge gathering of Sun Prairie teachers picketing the school board over their lack of a new contract (which expired last summer). Sun Prairie Education Association (SPEA) president Brad Lutes spoke emotional words asking that the school board come back to the negotiation table. In a move to push negotiations forward, Mr. Lutes handed the school board a thick stack of teacher resignations from volunteer positions associated with clubs and extracurricular activities.

Following Mr. Lutes' comments, school board president David Stackhouse gave a brief verbal response highlighting a 2-page written public statement he passed out. The key issues involved are:

• SPEA wants a 5.23% salary increase; the school board has offered 3.72% (The consumer price index--CPI--is 3.03%, and under the QEO, districts must offer at least a 2.1% salary increase to avoid arbitration).
• SPEA wants a 5.20% total compensation package (salary + benefits) for 2007-08 and 5.4% increase for 2008-09; the school board has offered 4.00% for 2007-08 and 4.2% for 2008-09. (Under the QEO, districts must offer at least a 3.8% total compensation package increase increase to avoid arbitration).
• The district (i.e., taxpayers) pay 100% of health insurance for SPEA employees. SPEA wants to continue to pay nothing for insurance. The District proposes that SPEA members pay 2% of their health insurance premiums for those that choose to participate in a Health Risk Assessment program and 4% for those who do not.
• NOTE: In Dane county, school district employees pay an average of 5.24% of their health insurance premiums for a single person, and 6.99% of premiums for a family. State employees also pay 6-8% of the health insurance premiums, and the percentage has increased with each of the past 3 contract years.

What is the "QEO"?

The QEO, or "qualified economic offer" is difficult to explain in all its detail. However, in an article in the Wisconsin State Journal, the QEO is described as : "The QEO law, despised by unions, allows districts to avoid arbitration if they offer teachers an average salary increase of at least 2.1 percent and a benefits increase of at least 1.7 percent [for a total compensation package increase of 3.8%] . Critics say the law unfairly caps teacher salaries. Supporters say it is necessary to curtail property taxes."

5 Candidiates vie for 3 School Board seats

Incumbents Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and David Stackhouse will seek to retain their seats in April. Tim Boylen, who was selected to fill Jim Gibbs' vacant seat for the rest of this year will not seek formal election to the seat for the remainder of the term. That means we will be getting one new face one the board, and hopefully one with a fresh perspective.

Running in addition to Havel-Lang and Stackhouse are:

• Jill Camber-Davidson, former citizen representative on the Finance Committee and current citizen member on the Education & Policy committee.
• Terry Shimek, who took over Camber-Davidson's seat on the Finance committee when her 2-year term expired.
• A relative unknown, Al Slane, of Cottage Grove

There will be no primary. The top two vote-getters will be elected to 3-year terms. The 3rd place finisher will be elected to a 1-yr term which closes out the rest of the seat left vacant when Jim Gibbs resigned.

Here's hoping we get more than one new face on the board. The role of the school board is to weigh the district's educational needs as presented by administration against the fiscal burden absorbed by the taxpaying community. We need a board that works well with the administration without getting overly cozy. We need board members that can exercise fiscal responsibility.