School Board Decides to Eliminate Math!

Well....at least as it pertains to determining an objective score for the annual performance review (and did we mention raise?) for the District Administrator.

This past Monday's "special" school board working session began with about a 90-minute discussion of the process for evaluation the District Administrator, Tim Culver. It started off well with even Jim McCourt blasting out of the gate with his grave concerns that the "math" behind the scoring (as discussed in previous posts here). McCourt's sentiments were both echoed and expanded upon by most members, notably Al Slane and Terry Shimek.

Despite all the discussion and concern for an effective, equitable means of evaluating the District Administrator, the final decision was to simply abandon the existing process and replace it with a completely subjective scoring mechanism. Each board member will review Dr. Culver's performance against the 1,400 page "Monitoring Report" (OK...we exaggerate on the number of pages...but not by much). They will then come up with an individual score (out of 10 points). Then all board members will meet in closed session, discuss their individual scores and come up with a final "one voice" score.

So...there you have it, ladies and gentlemen....exposed for establishing and unanimously approving a scoring system that violated at least five basic math concepts, the board simply chose to eliminate the math---and objectivity---and go with a subjective evaluation system which better shields the board from accountability. And the vote was unanimous.

Yet another nice lesson for Sun Prairie's kids. Rather than correct a problem that you created, just switch to something different behind which you can easily hide.

School Board 3 - Citizens 2

...And you thought school board members were elected to represent YOU! HA! Yup...and Lehman Bros. were working for the people too.

At the Sept. 22 Finance Committee meeting, Board Policy GBJA (who names these things????) - Memorials was finally opened for discussion. The policy isn't a lengthy one; it says, in its entirety:

" The Sun Prairie Area School District may provide an acknowledgment at the time of a death of an employee or of a death in the immediate family of a district employee. The district administrator may use his/her discretion in determining whether to send a memorial or flowers. For purposes of this policy, "immediate family" includes parent, spouse, child, stepchild, and grandchild. "

This is really a simple issue that has nothing to do with sentiment or the amount of money involved. [SP-EYE note: Business Services Manager Rhonda Page indicates that only $308 was spent last years, yet checks totalling over $650 for flowers have been identified in check runs. And this doe not include "memorials" that may have been issued.] The reality is that the Wisconsin Statutes clearly state,

• On or before November 1, determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools of the school district and public library facilities operated by the school district under s. 43.52, if the annual meeting has not voted a tax sufficient for such purposes for the school year. s. 120.12(3) (a), Stats.


• Powers of [electors at] the annual meeting...vote a tax for operation of schools. s. 120.10(8), Stats.

Flowers and memorials, while without question a wonderful sentiment upon the passing of a loved one, have nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of schools. These "little" examples of inappropriate spending continue to add up to questionable fiscal management.

As expected, Finance Chair Jim McCourt was fully behind the memorials, saying that the school district is an employer and an employee has to take care of its people. Right behind him were Terry Shimek and Caren Diedrich. Diedrich provided another one of her classic commentaries noting that her two cents was that she insisted that the policy continue to provide for flowers in the event of the passing of a grandchild of a District employee. She added that the loss of a grandchild would be devastating...more so than even the loss of one of her own grown children.

:/

Mr. McCourt...now could you explain to the members of Local 60 how you and the board stiffed them for raises so they could give Admin and Tim Culver big fat juicy raises? Oh, and while you're at it, could you please explain exactly how your "we care about our employees" drivel meshes with how the local 60 staff are the only ones whose raise ---bottom of the barrel though it is---gets further cut if health insurance costs rise above a certain amount?

And while we have your attention, maybe you could explain how you're "caring for the employees" when the Local 60 pay 15% of their dental premiums, while other staff get theirs on the taxpayers' dime???

Stop hiding behind those tired messages of, "It's only a small amount..." and "As an employer we care about our people...". Maybe you should give some thought to the fact that the citizen portion of the Finance Committee voted to eliminate or significantly change the policy. But you and the other board members voted to keep things status quo. Can't wait to see how the full board will vote on this issue at the next meeting.

It's inappropriate. Period. Co-workers by all means should take up a collection and send flowers. Or better yet...you really want to show that the district cares? Have Tim Culver open up his wallet and use some of that $425.00 per month "walking around money" we pay him--on top of over $140K in salary-- to buy those flowers or memorials as the "CEO" of the school district business!

Read here about a recent Massachusetts Inspector General investigation into school district financial mismanagement.

When the fiscal managers adopt a lackadaisical attitude towards district finances (an $80M budget), these types of things can--and do-- happen!

School Board to buy more land??

On Monday Sept. 22 at 6:00 pm, the school board will convene a closed session to deliberate the purchase of additional land associated with the high school project.

Undoubtedly, any purchase will only add to the $965M tab. We have no other details, so we don't have any information as to how much the land would cost, how it will be paid for, or why it is needed.

It would seem that any additional land needed would/should have been identified during the exhausting high school planning process.

All land acquisitions must be approved by electors at either the annual meeting (October 13) or at a special elector's meeting.

Appearances are everything

At the September 8th meeting of the School Board's Finance Committee, citizen representative Rick Mealy requested more information about check number 88669 to a local lawn care firm. Getting insufficient answers to his questions from Business Services Manager Rhonda Page, Mealy contacted Tom Brooks, the District Buildings and Grounds Manager. Brooks indicated,

"We called them for a quote and the quote seemed very reasonable for the removal and stump grinding. We were happy with the way they performed at SOAR, so when we needed two more removed at Ashley we called them again. They again responded quickly and cleaned up after themselves. I would anticipate calling them again if the need arises. "

Again, Mealy's questions were not completely answered. So...on to a little detective work. There was no website for the firm, but there was a yellow page ad in the Sun Prairie phone book. A Google search of the company's phone number revealed that the phone number was also the home phone number of someone with the same unusual name as a certain member of the SPASD District Administration.

In a pre-Finance Committee meeting discussion with board member Terry Shimek, Shimek understood the underlying concern about the district contracting out for business with family members. But he seemed to be the only one who knew of the situation and understood the potential gravity. Interestingly enough, Phil Frei, Rhonda Page, and school board member/ Finance Committee chair, Jim McCourt all indicated that they had no idea that a familial relationship existed between a school district administrator and the local lawn care firm.

What is at issue here is not the quality of the work performed or even the price of the work performed. The underlying theme that the school board and district do not seem to understand is the need to conduct business in a manner which ensures against any potential conflicts of interest.

Even for such a small amount ($1450), if the district even considered having the firm in question perform the work, they SHOULD have accepted at least two other bids and gone with the most competitive bid. Only doing business in that manner could the board and the district escape the questions that continually gnaw at the root of trust. The fact that other district staff presumably had no knowledge of any relationship only adds further fuel to a smoldering fire.

Fuzzy Math and Fudging = a B- for Culver

The school board gave Dr. Culver his annual performance review recently...to which his raise is tied. He ended up with a score of 8.0 out of 10...or a B-...and a 4.4% increase, much larger than the teachers (SPEA) or support staff (Local 60) received.

In the final scoring against 5 goals, Culver received 7.4 out of 10 points....which is clearly a "C" grade. But then under the guise of ,"Adjustment to points(+/-)[Yeah...right...like the board would ever subtract points!] by the School Board based on job description evaluation and other factors explained in the summary of that tool.", the Board added 0.6 points to Culver's evaluation to get him to 8.0 out of 10, and also pushing him up into the next tier of salary increases. This is how Culver got his 4.4%.

But...instead of accepting their "assessment" of Culver, let's look a little more closely. Yes, you would have to have taken the time to read through the whole package to obtain this perspective, but it serves to show how far the board goes to paint Dr. Culver in a positive light.

Fuzzy Math Part I: Subtract 1 from the total # of benchmarks.
Notice how the scoring for each "goal" subtracts one from the total number of benchmarks. Ancient math rule #1, kids: When you divide by a smaller number, the decimal percentage INCREASES. Nice fuzzy math way to improve the score. Why not just a simple, "# of benchmarks met divided by # of benchmarks not met"?

Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired: 8 "benchmarks. 1 "S", 3 "I", 3 "D", and 1 "U". The school board added the S+ I (4) and used 7 instead of 8 for the total. That lead to a score of 0.67, rather than a score of 0.57.

Fuzzy Math Part II: Don't count performance benchmarks that show no change (U) from the previous year.
When you reduce the denominator by removing things that are unchanged...especially when the benchmark is not met in either year(!), you INCREASE the goal score. Refer to ancient math rule #1.

Here's a great example of a benchmark from Goal 1- Improve Reading Achievement: 90% or more of SPASD 3rd-5th graders score as proficient or advanced on the WKCE. Last year: 87%. This year: 87%. Didn't meet the goal either year. Let's not count it.

Fuzzy Math Part III: Even marginal improvement (I) over last year on a benchmark is scored the same as a "success" (S), or actually meeting/exceeding the benchmark.
Note that the numerator always weights any increase over last year the same as meeting a benchmark. We could maybe see giving "half credit"...but giving full credit when the gioal isn't met doesn't make much sense, does it? Perhaps this logic is at the root of grader inflation within the school district.


Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired.: The benchmark is that 90% or more of SPASD graduating seniors respond positively to the exit survey statement, " I feel fully prepared to pursue any option after high school". In 2007, 72% responded "Yes"; in 2008, 75% responded "Yes". Yet, this was scored as a "Success" because it increased by 3%.

Fuzzy Math Part IV: Regardless of how many benchmarks per goal, average all goal scores.
This has to do with weighting certain criteria...or NOT weighting, in this case. Basically this review says that improvement in Reading and Math--the top 2 goals of the school district-- are weighted as being equally important as having "Prepared & Inspired" students? "Connectedness"? How about classroom space, which Culver has NO ABILITY to impact. It's the ELECTORS who approve building referenda that should be reviewed here...not Culver.

Fuzzy Math Part V: Add a "Booster" adjustment score to improve Culver's final grade.
Last, and perhaps the most important, is the "fudge factor" applied by the school board to boost Culver's overall grade. What kind of hooey is involved with adding 0.6 "points" to raise Culver's score from an average "74" to a more proper looking "80"? This is clearly a number that the board pulled out of its collective buttocks (with proper decorum, of course!). One school board member admitted, off the record, that the adjustment was exactly what it looks like on paper...a fictitious adjustment, made arbitrarily and capriciously, with the sole purposes of looking good for appearances sake AND ensuring that Culver would reach the "80" mark, which provided him with a sweeter raise.

---

SP-EYE: If this is the kind of fuzzy logic and math that we're teaching our children, no wonder why they don't view themselves as being properly prepared for post-high school life. The lesson that the school board is presenting to the children of Sun Prairie is that the ends--regardless of how ludicrous or improper-- justify the means. Nice. How does THAT affect student achievement?

---

School Board Rubber Stamp Begins with Checks

Checks written by the school district are reviewed twice monthly at the school board's Finance Committee.

On average, 300 checks are issued and reviewed at each meeting. The number of checks ranges from 175 to 450.

Check totals average about $1,700,000 each meeting. Since January, nearly $30,000,000 of checks have been written.

The school board's Finance Committee is charged with reviewing these expenditures and approving them to be forwarded to the school board for approval and release to vendors. The school board president historically even goes so far as to place the check run under the "Consent Items" portion of the full school board agenda. "Consent Items" are deemed to be those assumed to have unanimous school board approval. This clearly indicates that the intent is to simply rubber stamp the checks.

Every other meeting, the Finance Committee meets for only 15 minutes, from 7:15 to 7:30. That means an average of 20 checks are reviewed and "approved" every minute. On average, $100,000 of school district expenditures is "reviewed and approved" per minute."

Wait! Did we say approve? Silly us! One would assume that during this "review", checks written for questionable expenditures would be "denied"....right? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

According to school board member Caren Diedrich, neither the Finance Committee nor the School Board is in a position to "deny" approval of any checks because, "...the vendor has already provided a service or goods [SP-EYE: or pizza!] to the District and we can't deny payment for something we've already received."

Using that logic, what value added benefit does either the Finance Committee or the school board provide in even looking at the checks??? Why not just let' em fly??? Why even bother putting them on an agenda and meeting to discuss them...because no matter what is brought up during the discussion, approved the checks are (as Yoda would say).

Hello! I hate to break this to you, school board members, but there have been NUMEROUS cases of misappropriation and plain abuse of taxpayer funded school district monies. This is just more of the same inane reasoning that was used to make the ludicrous boundary decision.

When are we going to have a school board member that will stand up and say, "This is not right!"?

We haven't had an advocate for such common sense since several years ago when Jim Gibbs successfully convinced the rest of the school board members that paying Bray Associates before receiving money from bonds issued for construction of Horizon elementary made absolutely NO SENSE. He successfully argued that architects are used to having to wait for payment until after the bonds have been issued and the school district actually has received referendum funds for construction of a particular project.

We need to define what constitutes an appropriate expenditure, and actually AUDIT the checks being written. In the event of an inappropriate expenditure, the district employee who authorized the purchase should be made to reimburse the taxpayers. Do you seriously think that in the real business world, you can just take the company checkbook and purchase pizza for lunch or flowers for an ill co-worker? In many (but, no, not all) businesses, that would be grounds for termination. Instead, our school board...with Caren Diedrich leading the charge...feels that there rejecting any check or checks for payment is not an option.

It's plain and simply poor fiscal management practice to take the attitude that all checks must be approved for release because the "goods have been received". We're not saying that the vendors shouldn't be paid...we're saying that it's a question of WHO should be responsible for paying the vendor....and it may not be the taxpayers.

We also need accountability at the district administration level. Instead of loosey goosey policies with bigger loopholes than Dumbo's ears, we need clear written policy outlining what constitutes an appropriate purchase and the consequences associated with a district employee making an inappropriate purchase on behalf of the district.

There's Partial Truths and Then There's...

At the September 8th school board meeting, during the public input portion of the pool referendum discussion---which was approved, by the way---the issue of school board president David Stackhouse's tax delinquency earlier this summer came up once again.

Roger Fetterly had just finished trying to get the board to understand that these are difficult times in which to ask residents for more money. Fetterly commented the following:

"I don't think you realize the financial pain you're causing to the residents of the school district. We answered this question not that long ago. You had a referendum, and it failed. No swimming pool and no increase to the revenue limits. You want to increase borrowing by $3.9 million. We are already overtaxed."

Fetterly added that the Sun Prairie Area School District has a debt ($170M) higher than any other district in Wisconsin, except Milwaukee. "And you want to add more to it....You're overtaxing us." Fetterly said.

Fetterly reminded the board of the number of Sun Prairie Business that closed recently, including Herman's and Heckels. Noting that these businesses pay property taxes that the schools depend on, Fetterly commented to Stackhouse, "You understand about not paying taxes, right Dave?"

Stackhouse responded angrily that he "...had some financial difficulties but I corrected [the tax delinquency] as soon as I learned of it."

Actually, Mr. Stackhouse, that's not true...and you know it. SP-EYE received copies of Stackhouse's delinquent taxes on June 20, 2008. This information, secured directly from the Dane County Treasurer's office, shows a 3 year delinquency, with accumulated penalties and interest.

Certainly, Mr. Stackhouse knew about the tax delinquency LONG before he paid the full amount due in two installments this past July. I mean...seriously, folks....like it or not we all get in line to pay our property taxes every December. And NOT paying them means you don't get a tax credit on your income taxes, so it's not something one would just forget to do for 3 years.

It's exactly this kind of inaccuracy in public statements that underscores the lack of trust the public has for the school board. You want to get a referendum passed? You might want to start by telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

$1,500,000 Surplus in 2007-08 Budget!!!!

Whether it be by over-budgeting, or underspending, the proposed budget presented to the school board on Monday September 8, 2008 shows that just under $1.5M is in "Un-Designated" Fund Balance account 933 000.

Funny this figure has not been widely publicized. In fact, at the August 25 Finance Committee meeting, Phil Frei announced that $500,000 was "leftover" from "dock days and utilities savings. He never indicated that the TOTAL surplus was 3 times as much.

Neither did board member/Finance committee chair Jim McCourt:

"There is one item in here that is very good news. We didn't use all of last year's funds, and there's about a half a million dollars that's left that we are going to be taking as an advisory item at the annual meeting and asking at the annual meeting if we want to use it to pay down the debt or use it to reduce the tax levy, or some combination there of."

[SP-EYE: Are you looking at the same "budget" sheet as us, Jim? Because we see $1.5M...not just $500K.]

Roger Fetterly commented that DPI rules and opinion offered by the Attorney General do not allow a school district to plan on (and includes as a line budget item) a surplus in the Ending Fund Balance, Unappropriated (Acct. 933 000).

Stackhouse Steams

Fetterly exceeded his 3-minute time limit and thus quickly summarized: "I think you get the message: your budget isn't very good." Before Fetterly returned to his seat, board president David Stackhouse asked Frei point-blank, "Mr. Frei, has the district violated the law?" Fetterly remained at the podium in order to hear Frei's response even after being told several times by Stackhouse to take a seat. "You don't tell me when to stand and when to sit down," Fetterly said." After a very pregnant pause, Phil Frei gave the classic defendant's response to Stackhouse's question: "Not to my knowledge."

So what about that $$500K??

District Administration and the school board would LIKE to apply that $500,000 against future Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) loan payments. However, Finance Committee citizen representative Rick Mealy suggested that the $500K should be used to reduce the tax levy and the mill rate, and that the decision should be made by the electors at the annual meeting.

Now Jim McCourt is says that while the board may ask the electors what their preference is for the $500K, that is advisory only...and the board can do whatever it chooses.

What about the other $1M surplus???
When asked about the other $1M in surplus, Phil Frei indicated that it would be used for "cash flow" during the 2008-09 school year. Cash Flow Accounts are kind of like a home equity loan...you use them as you need them but the intent is to return the money to where it came from. Note however that in the budget, the $1.5M disappears. The only thing projected to be left at the end of the 2008-09 school year is $100,000...the intent of which is to add that to the existing "Fund Balance". (Think of it as a "rainy day" fund).

Since that $1M never reappears as an addition to the fund balance, that means that it is intended to be consumed/spent during the 2008-09 school year. And that means that the amount of money needed for the 2008-09 budget is really $1M higher than it appears to be.

Banks have to follow "truth in lending" rules. Why don't school districts have to follow "truth in budgeting" rules???

THIS is what it's all about...

In the end, folks, this is what it's all about:

Patrick Marsh Middle School reading specialist Sandra Kowalczyk has been named Wisconsin’s Middle School Teacher of the Year. Only 100 Wisconsin teachers received the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Fellowship Award for 2008. But only ONE of those 100, Ms. Kowalczyk ,was named Wisconsin’s Middle School Teacher of the Year. She is indeed the best of the best.

...and she did it by teaching.
Congratulations to Ms. Kowalczyk for just doing it.

Some of the highlights of her work:

• Her inclusion of international experiences in the curriculum has excited and engaged students in reading as well as in global literacy.
• Her “Wear in the World,” program , combining art, reading, writing, and geography, received a Bridge to Understanding Award from the United States Board on Books for Young People.
• Her “Breakfast with Books” program, supported by the Sun Prairie Education Foundation focused on reading achievement of at-risk students and students of color by involving them in book talks and other literature-related activities while enjoying nutritious breakfasts.

How Does This Affect Student Achievement?

...is on the back of each school board member's nameplate at each school board meeting. They like to think that it is THEIR actions that affect student outcomes. But they're wrong. Quietly, without fanfare, Ms. Kowalczyk delivered. She didn't pontificate. She did it without a soapbox. She used her own creativity to inspire kids to read and learn. We are correct to focus on reading, because reading opens so many doors to learning. But talking about it and doing it are quite different things. While others "talked the talk", Sandra Kowalczyk has been walking the walk.

Our hats are off to Ms. Kowalczyk. Many schools and schools districts produce educational "buds", but Ms. Kowalczyk nurtured her "buds" until they blossomed brilliantly. And for that she has earned this most distinctive honor. Her efforts are a shining bright light on Sun Prairie, and serve as a model for what can be achieved.

School board members....get your pens and pencils out and take note. THIS is how you affect student achievement. In the trenches. Working directly with the students. In a classroom, not a board room. Using innovation, creativity, and thinking outside the box. You could learn a lesson here.

Its not about constructing palatial buildings, or arranging administrative meetings over lunch so you can buy pizza on the taxpayer's dime. It's not about boondoggle retreats. It's not about boneheaded boundary decisions. It's not about $400 steak dinners (although Dr. Culver should use some of his $425/month "miscellaneous income" and buy Ms. Kowalczyk a $50 steak dinner--this one is worth it).

It's about good teachers. And this one is a gem.

Sun Prairie Today.com article

On the Sun Prairie Area School District website

Don't sweat the small stuff, eh???

How many times has the board been told to crack down on abusive expensives on things such as flowers, pizza, abd sub sandwiches? And each time, board members remind us that even spending $5,000 per year on pizza and subs represents a miniscule amount relative to a $65M (general fund only) budget.

They try to make the taxpayers that point these out look like penny pinching rabid dogs.

Well, maybe they need to think again. The Milwaukee Public School District has a budget that far eclipses ours, but that district currently has a school distritc employee under DA investiogation for illegitimnate expenses and possible fraud charges. The amount? $2,000.

WISN News: DA To Investigate Milwaukee School Board Member
$2,000 Philadelphia Trip Prompts Investigation

A summary of the case is provided below:

On August 26, 2008, the district attorney decided to move ahead with an investigation into Milwaukee School Board Member Charlene Hardin's trip to a three-day Philadelphia conference last month.

Hardin and another Milwaukee Public Schools employee spent an estimated $2,000 of the district’s and taxpayers' money to go, but organizers of the conference said Hardin spent only a few minutes there.

Peter Pochowski, executive director of the conference and head for security for MPS, said, “This is corruption. This is abuse of power. I've seen this from her before, and it has to end.”

Pochowski alleges that Hardin only went to the conference on the second day, but he says she didn't attend any sessions; she just picked up refreshments.

“I think in Milwaukee sometimes we have to accept incompetence from our elected officials, but we will never accept corruption. Never." Pochowski said.

Alderman Bob Donovan said she needs to account for her time, and the money spent.
“We've got accusations that a public official essentially was ripping-off the taxpayers,” Donovan said. “As far as I'm concerned, that needs to be looked into.” [ SP-EYE: Geee...do you think OUR aldermen would even blink an eye???? ]

Donovan formally requested an investigation from the district attorney on Tuesday, and the deputy DA has confirmed that they are gathering information and plan to see if this rises to the level of criminal wrongdoing.

District Policy DUM-B

Have you ever looked at the district Policy naming structure? Does it drive you to drink? OK, that's fodder for an entirely different blog post. We have other business to attend to.

On the verge of another school year, a number of parents have been struggling to make sense of the board's decision on boundaries and try to reconcile it with policies and goals related to connectedness. This is their story.

Bird Elementary has space available. There are at least 21 spaces out of 436 total. That is a fact.

4 parents applied to allow their younger child, sibling of their child (who was grandfathered to stay at Bird due to their entry into 5th grade). TWO (2) were approved. TWO (2) others were not. This is also a fact.

We can't place these TWO kids at Bird Elementary????
This reeks of retribution an inconsistency.

Parents were told they have to ask Alice Murphy who then told them Culver makes the decision and then Culver tells them the Board makes those decisions and then back to Culver who says his staff makes those decisions. Conceptually this is how everything works, and its also how the district sweeps things under the carpet. People with a legitimate concern (like the Cardinal Parents group who were appalled at the graduation fiasco and requested action) keep shopping for answers or a response and they keep getting shuttled to someone else. You'll notice that that issue withered on the vine over the summer...just how the district likes it.

One parent summed it up as follows:

"Each party tells the complainant to contact the other to resolve it and the other refers them back to the original person. Pretty soon the complainant gets so frustrated they drop the whole issue and "go away" just like the district wants them to."

Oh, the district will tell you that their hands are tied, because SAGE rules require mandatory class sizes not to exceed 15 students per class in grades K-3. Of course, the REST of the story...what they don't tell you is that:
(A) The district has exceeded SAGE limits in each of the last 3 years, and
(B) The Department of Public Instruction is either asleep at the switch on the issue or is incorporating it's own version of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The bottom line (as is frequently the case with this district) is that they cite rules and policy when the rules and policies even remotely support their actions, but otherwise, it's Policies be Damned.

Did you get your "Thank-You" notes?

We didn't.

What 'Thank You' notes, you ask?
The ones that should have come from 16 separate purchases of flower arrangements for district employees or their families in the past year paid for with taxpayer dollars.

That's right. 16 separate purchases plus $120 for graduation flowers for a total of $617.21.

I can hear Jim McCourt, David Stackhouse, and Caren Diedrich now: "That's a very small amount of money for an employee at trying time."

Right. And I'm having a trying time right now. I'm having a trying time as I TRY to understand how on earth the taxpayer should be paying for these. I'm also having a trying time paying for gas. How about you skip the flowers and fill my gas tank on the taxpayers' dime?

Someone passes away? Yes, it can be heart-wrenching. But open up your well-padded wallets and take up a collection of your OWN money...just like the rest of the people who work in the public service sector (and many of those in the private sector) do.

And I'm SO tired of hearing the winner of the lamest excuse/rationale contest: It's a tiny sum when you consider that this is a $65M budget. Actually, it's about $80M, but I digress. So the fact that it amounts to petty (vs. grand) larceny means that we should ignore it?

The school Board even has a policy which justifies the practice (Policy GBJA):

"The Sun Prairie Area School District may provide an acknowledgment at the time of a death of an employee or of a death in the immediate family of a district employee. The district administrator may use his/her discretion in determining whether to send a memorial or flowers. For purposes of this policy, "immediate family" includes parent, spouse, child, stepchild, and grandchild."

Hmmmm...that really doesn't cover illnesses, childbirth, or general, "Don't you think the office needs some flowers" whims. Violation of policy. Par for the course in our fair school district....until enough people stand up at school board meetings, send e-mails or call school board members, or write to the STAR.

And...did anyone notice that the main offenders seem to be Horizon Elementary (HE), the High School (I see a movie in the works, " Mr. Keats Buys Flowers"), and the District Office. Are those just unlucky places to be an employee? Or are those just the places where our overpaid administrators feel free to spend the taxpayers' money????

Interesting side observation: all the purchases came from Sentry Floral Shoppe, except for the graduation flowers, which were purchased from The Flower Shop. What? Sentry is good enough for deaths and illnesses, but not good enough for televised activities????

Who thinks that District "Supplies" accounts need to be reduced in the upcoming budget?

Welcome to "Dis-connectedness"

Letters! We get letters!
SP-EYE: We received an open letter to the school board/district administration/community pointing out once again the complete lack of common sense of the school board's boundary decision.

In this follow-up, we learn that there are at least 15 open seat at Bird school. 4 parents applied to allow their younger child to stay at Bird with their older sibling who was "grandfathered". 1 was accepted. 3 were denied. THIS is connectedness?

Back in March the school board made a decision to change a school boundary that affected about 38 children attending CH Bird Elementary. This was a very contentious issue that created a significant amount of stress on the affected parties and created distrust in the school board and school district.

Recently interviews were conducted with a number of candidates to fill a vacated School Board Position. During the interview process the School Board President asked each candidate “Is the school boundary issue over?” All of the candidates responded, “Yes”.

Now as the school year approaches and the student’s class assignments have been made a spin off of the school boundary change has come to light and it has re-opened the wound and should leave anyone with school aged children in a state of
disbelief.

As part of the Boundary change the District has appropriately allowed students that will be entering 5th grade to remain at their former school. That makes sense since who would want any student to have three different schools in three years if you could reasonably avoid it. But what about the younger siblings of these students? Well the district has decided that these younger siblings need to go to their new school and not where their grandfathered sibling is going! Apparently this is the district’s “policy” yet no such policy exists anywhere in writing.

In the case of the students affected by the recent boundary change well, there are four grandfathered 5th grade students returning to CH Bird who have younger siblings. One of the younger siblings was allowed to return to CH Bird under the Voluntary Placement process while the other three were told that they had to go to their new school because there was room for them there. Voluntary placement requires that the “home school” be full at the needed grade before the district will consider the request. Parents of the remaining three students tried several different approaches to get the District to understand their concerns and even though there were over 15 empty classroom seats that could accommodate these three children, their requests were denied. The district defended these denials based on “policy” yet no policy exists on Grandfathered students and their siblings.

So what does this mean? Whatl I do know that there will be more school boundary changes occurring in the future. I also know that there will likely be grandfathered students who have younger siblings who will be faced with the same dilemma. So in the absence of common sense I guess there needs to be a written policy that spells out specifically how the district should address the placement of grandfathered student’s younger siblings. In the absence of that we will have to rely on the districts judgment which frankly is way off base on this issue.

I have heard the District Administrator tout the benefits of “connectedness” many times. Well, as long as the district is going to have a “policy” of separating siblings how can he ever hope to achieve the level of connectedness that he is striving for? To heck with family and sibling relationships. To heck with showing compassion to parents and children who’s requests are reasonable, attainable and in the spirit of “connectedness.” The school board made a decision and the district administration is going to implement it no matter what the cost!

Now that the school boundary wound has been reopened with this demonstrated lack of compassion I guess it’s fair to say that the “school boundary issue” is not over. This recent decision by the district to separate these three siblings clearly shows that some district officials are living in the state of “Disconnectedness”.

Name Witheld to protect them from retribution

6 Coffee Drinks Per Year, Huh???

In his STAR editorial this week, Chris Mertes says that the school board should go forward with a $3.9M referendum for a pool, equating the $20 per year property tax hike on a $200,000 home to "about six of your favorite coffee drinks".

First---and we have to get this out of the way-- Who in the HELL is buying coffee drinks that cost $3.33 a piece???? Some of have no interest in that mocha venti latte happy crappy. A wise old man, when I asked for cream and sugar for in my coffee asked, "Then why did you order coffee?" Webster's defines coffee as "a beverage made by percolation, infusion, or decoction from the roasted and ground seeds of a coffee plant ". That's it. Boiling water passing over ground coffee beans. And you can get $20 oz. at any Stop N' Go for $1.29 or less.

Chris is a decent guy...but he's either nuts or must make a pretty fat salary to support that kind of coffee jones. SP-EYE spoke frequently with Kaitlin Warriner, who used to write the Lifestyle and school columns. I guarantee you SHE couldn't afford to drink $3.33 cups of coffee. Now the $100K club? They most certainly can afford to drink high priced coffee to wash down their taxpayer funded pizza or Cousins' sub lunches.


Drowning in coffee

So...over the past 10-11 years, the community has gorged on coffees for:

• $ 188,760,000 in total building costs


• That's 216 of "your favorite coffee drinks" per year FOR 20 YEARS


• @3.33 piece = $722 of additional property taxes /year FOR 20 YEARS

...and THAT is why some people aren't jumping for joy about a pool that costs "only $3.9M" or "6 of your favorite coffee drinks per year".

Sure...a pool would be nice. And $20 doesn't seem like all that much...a movie (matinee) for 2 and a small bucket of popcorn. But that's really being disingenuous to the point here isn't it? The point is that for some folks, the camel's back has been broken.

SP-EYE: The school board has been quick to point out whenever they come in under budget on these building projects. Why don't they scale down the pool a little bit (The original Pool Task Force worked out a design with Bray that would meet WIAA standards and only cost $2.4M). Then, they could work with Bray and Findorff to slightly modify the high school design such that a pool could be included and still be UNDER the original $96M. Finally, with that in their pocket, they could go for a referendum to add the pool at NO ADDITIONAL construction cost.

...but THAT would be thinking outside the box.

Culver : The "adults in charge" have spoken

The Boundary Wars began as an attempt to (A) populate the new Creekside Elementary, and then (B) an ancillary concept was to achieve better socioeconomic balance in the elementary schools. This latter objective was later tabled in favor of creating another one of those dreaded Task Forces.

The ultimate game of musical chairs that ensued ended up with identifying 53 children from the northern edge of the district (developments within the town of Bristol) to be relocated from Bird school to Westside. SP-EYE is awaiting final numbers, but all reports indicate that the actual number of students involved is far less than the original number--as little as 8-10 students. Subsequently 4 parents have asked the question, "...if space exists in Bird, and my older child is 'grandfathered' to remain at Bird, could you please allow my child's younger sibling to be with their sibling--at least for this year?" One of these parents, who was told "NO", shared the message that she received from Dr. Culver when she asked how she should explain the rationale for this inexplicable ruling to her younger child. Dr. Culver responded:

The parent responds
Excerpts from the parent's response to this extremely frustrating and inconceivable nonsense are provided below:
I think I will tell my daughter that sometimes there are circumstances in which people make rules and policies in life that do nothing to make positive change. In this case, some adults who forgot they are elected officials, are trying to mask a crisis in our community by randomly busing children all over town.

It is easier for [the school board/district] to ignore the true issues of the district and separate you from your family and middle school peers. I will encourage her to deal with this change by reassuring that no one in the community will allow for such incompetence to continue.

One important skill my children will learn is to have integrity. I will teach them to hold true to their principles and values. I will tell her how many adults would rather hide behind inaccurate data and incomplete information than admit when they have made a mistake. I will tell her to never be afraid to admit if you are wrong.

Finally, I reminded her that if the school board/district thinks this is over, they have under estimated the people of Sun Prairie. Thanks for your suggestions but I prefer to be honest with my children.

---

SP-EYE: The board loves to prattle on about the importance of "neighborhood schools" and connectedness. How connected can you be if your older sibling is allowed to stay at one school whole the younger ones are left to try to make sense out of being carted away past not one, but TWO elementary schools to their new 'home'? Is that any way to emphasize family? Culver and others have been quick to offer, "well....you could have your 5th grade student choose to move to Westside with their younger sibling."

Once again, where is the logic in that? A 5th grader needs to continue to build on connections and relationships with their student support base in preparation for entering middle school next year. This is NOT the time to throw these kids into a new school! It's apparent that the board will not reconsider its bad decision--despite the message about accountability and taking responsibility for one's actions that their decisions have sent across the city. One would hope however, that if space is available, the board demands that the district allow siblings in these cases to remain with their brother/sister at Bird.

Mo' Money! Mo' Money! Mo' Money!

You gotta love the STAR's home delivery. Why? Because that means you get a one day head start on what the school district is up to next. In this evening's STAR, the agenda for the Monday August 25th school board meeting includes:

• The pool referendum (as expected)
• Discussion about creating a "4 year old Kindergarten Task Force"

Note that the agenda item does NOT mean that they will be discussing a task force on kindergarten which has been in operation for 4 years. Rather, this will be the district's foray into developing ANOTHER money pit: kindergarten for 4-year olds (think pre-school on steroids...or maybe preschool in Pull-Ups). Remember that scene in Jurassic Park 2 when Jeff Goldblum's character, noting the group was so awe-stricken by the sight of dinosaurs, said, "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh....that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming." Similarly, everything school board starts with a nice Task Force. Then comes the referendum and we have to empty our wallets.

District Administration and the board (in its various incarnations) have been quietly planning on a 4-yr kindergarten program for a number of years. Let see: 7th elementary school? Check. $100M for a new high school and 8-9 quasi junior high school? Check. Pool? Firmly on the radar; referendum imminent. That must mean its time to focus on the next item on the district wish list: a 4-yr kindergarten (4yrKG) program.

Frankly, SP-EYE sees the potential value in a 4yrKG program, particularly for socioeconomically affected kids. That being said, it always comes down to money....and decisions about what a community needs rather than what a district WANTS.

You'll hear the words, "amazing"and "wonderful" to describe the many benefits that 4yrKG programs POTENTIALLY offer kids. School board members will practice their speeches about what an incredible opportunity this is for kids.

But, you should also know that many people refer to 4yrKG programs as taxpayer funded daycare. And isn't the goal of 4yrKG what HeadStart is all about? And don't we have that already? Many other people feel that kids have enough of school to look forward to: 13 years from KG through high school. Add another 4 years for college, which many feel jobs of the future will absolutely require. That's 17 years. Do we REALLY need to add an 18th? Is there some benefit to letting a kid be a kid for a few years? And how many 4 year olds are really socially mature enough for a school environment? Yet state rules don't provide an option for which kids are or are not ready for 4yrKG. If you're 4 on or before September 1, you're in.

The "experts" talk about the potential for 4yrKG to improve learning. Sure. And a rock poised on the edge of a cliff is loaded wth potential energy....but it has to actually be set in motion for that energy to be realized. We have a SAGE program here at 2 schools already, and the WKCE scores don't indicate significant improvement from it. In fact, eliminating the SAGE program at Bird elementary would have opened up the spaces to accommodate that handful of kids from the Bristol neighborhood. You want to improve connectedness? Then focus your energies on keeping siblings and neighborhoods together rather than making boneheaded decisions that ultimately that don't meet the original goals of the Boundary Task Force yet create gaping wounds and polarize a community.

Ladies & Gentlemen, place your wallets on the table and step back.

What does all this cost?
In 2006, districts reported setting aside between $4,000 to $10,000 per room for purchasing classroom materials and equipment. Elmbrook is considering 4yrKG, and recently estimated costs for the 2011-'12 school year would mean a tax levy of 22 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or an additional $44 a year for the owner of a $200,000 house.

That's double the amount of coffee drinks Chris Mertes says the pool referendum will cost you in his latest editorial. You know? You CAN drink too much coffee.

Read more about 4yrKG:
Tomah Journal article, December 2007

Wisconsin DPI 4yrKG page
Does Wisconsin's 4K program positively impact children's development? Yes. Wisconsin does not have data to correlate student performance on statewide tests with past 4K participation. We can, however, explore the impact by reviewing data from the National SWEEP study and from several Wisconsin school districts.

DPI Factsheet

$50K to move board meetings?

The Sun Prairie school board is inching ever closer to its targeted goal line - to move the location of its meetings from the City Municipal building to the District Office.

Of course, making such a move is going to cost money: at least $45-50,000.

Alternative 1: Cost: $50,,000 + Cable connection to library for TV broadcasting. Move School Board meetings to Room 100 at the District Office, and duplicate the equipment at City Hall

Alternative 2: Cost: $34,000 + Cable connection to library for TV broadcasting. Move School Board meetings to Room 100 at the District Office, but with less equipment than is at City Hall.

Alternative 3: Cost: $ 350. Install wireless network access at City Hall for School Board meetings.

Why they'll tell you it won't cost this much.
The Partial Truth police are on full alert. The costs of various items are not all incorporated into the original figures on the FTT Situation report.

Concerns that neither the board nor the FTT committee has adequately addressed.

• Given the economy and the projected rise in budget as is, why move meetings from City Hall? $50,000 would pay for a position or a lot of textbooks.


• Aren't we supposed to have a "partnering relationship" with the City and City Council? Why would we NOT want to share a facility?


• The board keeps preaching streaming video over the Internet for its meetings rather than cable, and the fact that many residents don't have access to KSUN-TV. Great. But how many people have a slower Internet connection...like, say, a phone modem...and will never be able to watch streaming video coherently.


• This whole proposal is linked to the board's previous purchase of BoardDocs software and laptop computers for all board members. The school district has demonstrated a less than stellar comprehension of Internet technology. Do we REALLY want to sink more $$$ into this project before we really see how it works?


• District staff lack technological savvy. The District currently pays someone to scan existing documents (which are nearly always created with Microsoft Office software) and put them into an Adobe Acrobat Reader file (PDF) as IMAGES..rather than searchable test. Not only does this make board packages phenomenally large ( have you tried to download one?) but it is completely user UNfriendly because one cannot search through the documents to find the information one seeks.


• The BoardDocs software is only a tool. The end user has to make the tool effective. Currently the School Board's website lacks any sense of organization. Sure...you can find minutes from school board meeting from the 1990's. But how does one find contracts like those for to find out what we are paying personnel? How does one find information associated with past decisions...particularly contentious ones? If we can't organize files on the existing website, it won't happen with BoardDocs either.
• Has anyone given any thought to how this BoardDocs and meetings over the web will work for people with accessibility problems: hearing impaired? visual impaired?

Technology is great. But technology opens up a whole new set of doors behind which are a whole host of issues that need to be addressed. All that costs more money.

Is Anyone Watching our Long Term Debt?

The long-term debt (LTD) picture is not the easiest figure to discern from either a school district or the DPI. One can, however, come up with a pretty accurate picture by looking at the most recent report of Long Term Debt for all districts and then factoring in any new successful debt referenda plus any payments made against a district's LTD balance.

District Long-Term Debt Calculation (% of Legal Limit)

History of School District Referenda Results

If one goes through this exercise for Sun Prairie, one would find that:
♦ Sun Prairie, with $170M in LTD ranks 2nd only to Milwaukee ($390M), coming in 3rd with $149M is Kenosha.

♦ Sun Prairie is one of only 3 districts statewide with LTD exceeding $100M.

♦ With LTD at just under 48% of the legal maximum, Sun Prairie ranks 10th in terms of the %age of legal debt limit. Of course, we are the only district in the top 10 with debt in excess of $28M.

♦ Sun Prairie ranks 20th of all districts statewide in terms of the legal debt maximum $356M).

♦ Statewide, of over 400 school districts, the mean district LTD as a %age of the legal maximum is 14.5%.

♦ Statewide, of over 400 school districts, the median district LTD as a %age of the legal maximum is 12.0%.

Mom? Dad? Is it time to take Junior's credit card away?

---

*** SP-EYE: This marks the 100th post on this blog! Thanks to the many readers who come here to get the cold hard facts the school board and administration would prefer that you not know. ***

---

Pool Referendum for November?

The school board is edging ever closer to setting up a November 4, 2008 referendum to add a pool to the high school construction project. The FTT discussed the project at its Monday August 11 meeting, and an informational update was provided during the full school board meeting.

Fast Facts on the Pool, Take 2.



The projected cost is $3,892,500.

Annual operating costs (1st year only) are projected to be an additional $397,000.

It is estimated that $96,000 of annual operating costs could be offset by public user fees.

Estimates assume 51,750 public "user visits" per year.

Initial estimates suggest that a referendum to exceed the annual Revenue Cap of $288,205 is required.

For a Nov. 4 2008 referendum, school board must vote to go to referendum by 9/8/08. That leaves 2 school board meetings (where the public may comment on the idea): 8/25/08 and 9/8/08.

Partial Truths - The Root of the Problem

Having both observed and participated in the "Recess for Citizen Presentations" segment of school board meetings for some time now, here are our observations:

1. If you praise the board or the district, they'll beam at you and give you extra time to speak.


2. If you are raising a concern or discussing something on which the board didn't quite get an "A" for effort, they time you, and prompt you to hurry up. While you speak they either glower at you or stare off as if they are seriously contemplating your issue, while actually filtering you out like white noise.


3. If you say something nice, your comments will be printed in full in the meeting minutes.


4. If you address a real concern, like say, you point out flaws in the budget process, then the minutes will reflect only that "Joe Blow spoke about the budget".


5. Last, but, most important. If you speak about something which casts aspersions on the board or their actions, one or more board members --or Tim Culver--will rebut your statements with one or more partial truths that, taken as complete fact, appear to cut your presentation off at the knees. Of course, you NEVER get a chance to respond to their rebuttal. Heaven forbid that the school board actually engage the public in dialog.

The rules of the school board are quite simple: "Speak only when spoken to" and "The school board shall always have the last word".

Let's look at a prime example of partial truths in rebuttal comments board member Caren Diedrich made at the Monday August 11 school board meeting in response to comments about the sizable administration raises relative to those of Local 60 support staff.

Rick Mealy pointed out that while the Local 60 folks got 3.25% raises, Administrative Support staff got 3.6% and Dr. Culver got 3.7%. In addition, they were proposing a $5.00 per hour raise for the Business Services Manager position, which is currently paid over $30.00 per hour. He went on to point out that the Local 60 contracts included a "poison pill"provision that if health insurance costs rise by 10% or more, their raises would drop to 2.75%. That provision was NOT put into either the Admin Support or Tim Culver's contracts.

Partial Truth #1

Caren Diedrich wanted to make it clear that the Local 60 folks were a pleasure to work with and that the Local 60 folks were very happy with the agreement.

Reality Bites
Mealy asked the sequence of contract negotiations. Of course, we learn that the negotiations were simultaneous, and the Local 60 team was not aware when they reached their agreement that they ---the lowest paid employees--received the lowest raises. We wonder how happy the Local 60 people are now that they see what the other groups received.


Partial Truth #2
Caren Diedrich also wanted to clarify that the reason why the Local 60 people got a lower raise is that they weren't asked to pay more of their health insurance.

Reality Bites
On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable explanation---until you get the rest of the story. The local 60 folks are already paying at least TRIPLE what the other groups pay. for health insurance. In addition, Local 60 pays just under 15% of the cost of dental insurance, while the taxpayers foot 100% of the cost for the other groups. See the contract excerpts below.

Culver earns more than Governor Doyle!

At the Monday, August 11, school board meeting, the school board is anticipated to unanimously approve a new 2-year contract extension for District Administrator Tim Culver. The new agreement gives Culver a total salary and benefit increase of 4.4%. 3.7% of that 4.4% raise is in salary alone or $4,957 per year. This raises Culver's salary to $140,786. On top of this, Culver is paid an additional $450/month to cover out of pocket expenses and travel within Dane County. That brings his total pay to $146,186, not including benefits.

Governor Doyle makes $136,268.

See the School Board Package for 8-11-08 (Refer to Appendix "F")

Economy Down but Admin Salaries Soar!

Ever notice that no public official will ever declare that we're in the "R" word...recession....until after the economy gets back on its feet? Well...many believe we are in a recession. Jobs are being lost (Janesville, Wausau); paper mills are closing--among others. But in the Sun Prairie School District, life is good if you're in the "Administrator" classification.

In light of the $5.00/hr raise being proposed for the "Business Services Manager", we thought we'd review Administration pay progression over the past 5 years. We've subsequently decided that we're in the wrong line of work.


The 6-Figure Salary Club
In the 2002-03 school year, only one administrator (Tim Culver) earned a "6 figure salary". That number climbed to 4 in the 2006-07 year, and then shot to 9 in 2007-08. That's 9 administrators EACH making over $100,000 per year in salary alone! What will that number be in 2008-09??? Giving the Business Services manager a $10,400 annual increase should get that position primed for the 100K club as well.



We looked closely at the salaries of 8 administrators who have been with the District for the past 5 years. Tim Culver's salary increased 18% over those 5 years, but his contract is separate from the other administrators. The salaries for the other 7 administrators ON AVERAGE have increased by 29% over the past 5 years. That represents an average increase---salary alone---of 5.2% per year. We're not even talking the added value of benefits!!! For comparison, the salary for an average state employee, who typically sees raises of 0-3% per year, raised about 13-15% over the same time period.


Increase in administrator pay from the 2002-03 school year to the 2007-08 school year
Culver up 18% Frei up 25% Mikula up 35%
Dawes up 26% Luessman up 32% Klaas up 25%
Ackley up 28%

No wonder why no one has a problem increasing the Business Services Manager's salary by $10,400 for next year. Gotta get the Business Services Manager in to the club!


Dealing with the rising cost of living
We always hear complaints that salaries are not rising as fast as inflation or the cost of living. Well...first of all, the cost of living has certainly not risen at a 5.2% per year pace. Second, all 5.2% raises are not created equally. Let's say groceries cost your family $500 per month. If the cost of groceries increases by 20%, your family grocery budget now costs $600/mo. or an extra $1,200 per year.


The struggling single parent
Let's say you're a single parent earning a decent (but not great) wage of $33,333 per year (or 1/3 of $100K). You are thrilled to have your boss award you a 5% raise. That translates to an addition $1,667 of gross earnings to cover the added $1,200 cost of groceries. Oh...wait...we have to consider taxes. About 1/3 of that raise goes to taxes. That actually leaves our struggling single parent with only a net increase in pocket pay of about $1117, or not enough to even cover the increased cost of groceries.


The well-compensated school administrator
Now let's look at the impact of our $1,200 increased grocery bill on our administrator, earning a nice, fat $100,000 per year. You too are thrilled to have your the school board award you a 5% raise. That translates to an addition $5,000 of gross earnings to cover the added $1,200 cost of groceries. Even after losing 1/3 to taxes, you're still left with a net increase in pocket pay of about $3,300. Not only does that cover the increased cost of groceries, but you can still afford that week-long vacation at a northern Wisconsin resort.

Our school board needs to start considering that giving administrators a smaller percentage increase still leaves them with plenty of money in their pocket to cover cost of living adjustments. In fact, using our examples above, in order to feel the same pain as our struggling single parent, the raise for our $100K administrator would have had to have been only 1.67%

Funny thing about how math works. Our administrator makes 3 times what our struggling single parent does. In order to give them each a raise to cover the cost of groceries, the percentage increase given to the $33,000 worker needs to be THREE TIMES the increase given to our $100K Club administrator! Any of you get a 15% raise this year? That, ladies and gentlemen, is how the rich get richer. In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that the Sun Prairie School District doesn't fare as well as other area districts in WKCE Math scores. If the school board doesn't understand basic math...how will they ever pass it on to students?

The following are graphs of the meteoric salary rise experienced by top administrators over the past 5 years:


Browse the DPI website area that reports school district pay and see for yourself: DPI School Staff and Salary Data Page

$5 Footlongs? How about a $5.00/hour raise??!!

How many of you received a $5.00/hr raise? How many received $5.00/hr raise TOTAL over the past 10 years??? State employees got a whopping 2.5% for FY2007 and a 1% raise for FY2008.

On Monday, the school board's Human Resources committee voted to move a contract package for Administrative Support to the full school board for approval. For all positions, a 3.6% increase was recommended, but one job title, the Business Services Manager, makes out like an NFL 1st round draft pick. Don't get us wrong---Rhonda Page is a great lady---but $5.00 per hour increase for ANYONE is insanity. That's over a 15% raise from a salary of $32.00/hr to $37.00/hr ($77,000/yr).

That $5.00/hr RAISE is 77% of the MINIMUM wage!!! Ms. Page will receive as an hourly RAISE almost as much as some folks get per hour TOTAL!

That's a $10,400 increase per year!

That's 2600 gallons of gas (at $4.00/gal) per year!

That's 2080 foot long subs at Subway.

That's 2080 Pizza Hut Pizza Mias (if bought in threes).

This goes to the full school board for approval this coming Monday, August 11. Wanna bet it's a slam dunk for unanimous approval? Here's the new **proposed ** Administrative Support salary matrix:

Appointment Process Redlines the BS Meter

On Monday night, July 28, 2008, the school board unanimously approved appointments of new citizen representatives to the Finance, FTT, Education & Policy, and Human Resources committees for one-year and two-year terms.

This was subsequently reported by Sun Prairie Today.com, the Sun Prairie STAR, and in a July 30 e-mail sent out to the School District's "Key Communicator" e-mail list.
See the Sun Prairie Today.com report
Read the Sun Prairie STAR article

School Board President Stackhouse commented,

"It's a wonderful thing when people in the community step up and ask to serve in any form," Stackhouse said. "We had some excellent candidates for various positions, they bring great things to the
table."

But...hold on a second....one of those individuals withdrew his application and declined the opportunity to interview...yet he was appointed to a position nonetheless.

How on earth, does one manage to appoint someone to something when the individual has clearly communicated that they are no interested? In the course of appointing citizen representatives for its committees, the board managed to:

• appoint a citizen representative without conducting an interview in direct violation of board policy and procedure BCE-R.
• create a requisite application form which is neither discussed nor referenced in its policy BCE-R.
• inform candidates of interview times without their consultation less than 24 hours prior to making formal appointments (in fact the e-mail message of interview times actually said that the interviews would be conducted on Monday August 28).
• clearly opt NOT to retain Finance Committee citizen representative Dr. James Murray for a 2nd term (which could have been done) and then appoint him to the Education & Policy committee.
• ignore specifics of the application submission process outlined in policy.

The Process
The SPASD website indicated that applicants had to "complete and return an application and a letter of interest" prior to Friday June 27, 2007.

NOTE: Board Policy BCE-R (sect. A.4) says nothing about an "application". Interested citizens are only required to: " All applicants shall mail, e-mail to the District Administrator's secretary and get confirmation of receipt, or deliver to the District Administrator's office a letter containing the applicant's name, address, telephone number and a concise statement not exceeding 500 words of the applicant's qualifications and interest in appointment to a specified committee. "

Applicants received no communication from board President Stackhouse (or any board representative) until an e-mail from Stackhouse was sent Sunday July 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM informing all candidates of their interview time slots.
SP-EYE: Weird? Isn't it common practice to call candidates and offer them several options for an interview time?

Concerted Decision to not retain Murray
Board policy allows the board to re-appoint a current citizen representative to a 2nd 1-year term if that term does not coincide with the other citizen representations term. Dr. James Murray just completed his first year on the Finance committee and clearly indicated his interest in being re-appointed. Board past practice has been to re-appoint these people. Clearly, President Stackhouse made a firm decision NOT to re-appoint Dr,. Murray to the Finance committee. We assume he had reasons.How serious could Stackhouse's concerns have been if he proceeded to nominate Dr. Murray to The Education & Policy committee...despite being told that Murray was no longer interested in serving. Dr. Murray subsequently declined to appear for his interview.

The Applicants
7 people applied to fill 6 empty slots. Clearly this was a game of musical chairs and someone would be sitting out.

Finance: 4 candidates for 2 seats
FTT 2 candidates for 1 seat
E&P 2 candidates for 2 seats
HR 1 candidate for 1 seat


The Interview Process
Interviews were scheduled at 15-minute intervals Monday July 28 from 5:15 to 7:00 pm (despite e-mail message indicating the interview date to be August 28th).
The schedule was as follows:
__5:15: Patrick Anderson, (Finance, FTT)
__5:30: James Murray (Finance, E&P)
__5:45: Rick Mealy (Finance)
__6:00: Tim Boylen (Finance)
__6:15: Scott Sedlacek (FTT)
__6:30: Jan Disch (HR, E&P)
__6:45: Robert Carlson (E&P)

Appointment
Interviews concluded at 7:00 pm

Why did Stackhouse nominate Dr. James Murray to a position direct violation of section A.5. board policy/procedure BCE-R???

"The Board president and/or committee chair will interview each candidate...prior to nominating a candidate to the Board for appointment to any standing committee." ?

Why also would Stackhouse have nominated Murray after he clearly declined consideration? (Murray sent e-mail to Stackhouse and also spoke by phone to board members Stackhouse and McCourt)

Why would the board proceed to make this appointment in light of the facts...something which the board likes to tell the public that they base their decisions on? Did Stackhouse and McCourt not communicate Murray's decision to other board members? If not, why not? They certainly seem to discuss a number of other things between meetings. Certainly, they should have released this information to the media before it was published.

The board likes to talk about "the wonderful things they do for the community's children"....yet they can't get a simply thing like citizen representative assignments right without violating their own policies and making a public mess of things.

So...now what? Does Tim Boylen get offered the Education & Policty seat to minimize the magnitude of this CF? Or do we start all over again looking for a citizen to fill the empty seat? Perhaps, if the board hadn't rushed to so quickly, this mess would not have been created. Don't we counsel our children, "Don't rush...do a quality job in all that you do"???

Read board policy BCE-R

SP-EYE: Be careful! There are multiple versions of this policy out on the district's website...but that's a whole different issue that needs to be addressed!

Check out the "application" form...which does not exist according to policy

What was the hub, bub?

Is the boundary issue dead...or are the embers silently smoldering? During recent interviews for the heir to Jim Carrel's school board seat, board president David Stackhouse asked each candidate a question that wasn't on the prepared question list. Stackhouse asked of each,

"Is the boundary issue resolved?"

Logic would seem to dictate that it is in the board's best interest to keep the dead buried....so why did Stackhouse ask the question? Was he looking for another ally to rally the issue? Or was his intent to exclude from consideration any candidate that indicated the issue was not resolved?

Why were people affected by the decision so distraught? Certainly the board's way of coming to a decision had a lot to do with things, but the map also clearly points out the disconnection in a district that claims to place high value on "connectedness". Take a look at the island the board created (the purple region north of Egre road and west of Bird St). These students were leapfrogged over both Bird and Northside to be placed at Westside. Does this make sense? Shouldn't the primary rule for developing boundaries be to draw lines for any individual school to form a single polygon? Isn't THAT what facilitates development of "neighborhood" schools?

Now consider ...for a minute...just ONE alternate map (at right). Certainly, the numbers of students was not considered in creating this quick version, but logically, does it not make more sense?

This was never about allowing people to stay with a beloved school but rather about making a decision which makes no sense.

Download or view the full-size District elementary boundary maps.


......THIS?...................or THIS?