THE HEAT IS ON!

Thanks to a very detailed, factual, citizen-submitted Situation Report outlining what precisely was achieved from last March's boundary decision, the fires are crackling once again under the school board.

"I feel the heat on me right now."

- school board member Caren Diedrich

The only question is, if Town of Bristol resident (and situation report author) John Welke saw so crystally clear that the actions taken by the board accomplished little--if not nothing, then why didn't the board? Why did it take a resident, instead of a board member, to raise this issue?

Mr. Welke's well-researched situation report identified the following problems resulting from the boundary decisions made last March:

• Only 17 Students of the District Office’s projected 53 students actually transferred from CH Bird to Westside.


• There was no significant reduction in F\R lunch percentages or balance in socio-economics at Westside as a result of the student movement from CH Bird to Westside.


• There was no significant space created at CHB to get below the schools capacity and create a long term solution to the schools attendance numbers and projected growth.


• The total number of “instructional classrooms” at CHB currently being used this school year has not been reduced.


• The District office, based on their policies and the lack of reasonable interpretation of their policies, forced younger siblings of "grandfathered" students to be separated even though there was room for them at CH Bird.


• The Free and Reduced (F&R) Lunch percentage increased at CH Bird School.


• The description of the affected area in the Town of Bristol is flawed.


• The affected area has created an island without what most people would consider a “neighborhood school”.


• Area developers report that new construction in Bristol Gardens has been slowed primarily due to the instability of the school boundaries and the lack of a true neighborhood school...NOT the economic slump that is currently occurring.


• Loss of public trust in the school district/school board and increased open- enrollments out of the school district

---

After hearing from a number of residents who supplemented Mr. Welke's facts with anecdotal evidence, the board unanimously approved the following motions:

1. Require the Policy and Education Committee to review Voluntary Placement and Extreme Circumstances policies and practices so that they are in line with the spirit of “Connectedness” and are sympathetic to student and family needs.

2. Convene a special school board work session to discuss approaches that might ensure a more permanent, successful resolution to overcrowding of particular schools.


Read the full text of Mr. Welke's Situation report in the Board package for 11-10-08.

Principal injured in accident?

Sadly, during Monday night's (Nov. 10) school board meeting, CH Bird Elementary principal Chad Wiedmeyer was tossed under the bus by Tim Culver and Phil Frei. Early reports did not indicate the extent of injuries Mr. Wiedmeyer received.

During the boundaries discussion prompted by a Situation Report offerred by Town of Bristol resident John Welke, Mr. Welke asked why a designated science room was still being used as a classroom. This had been a point of contention during the recent boundaries fiasco.

Last March, the overcrowded state of Bird elementary was emphasized by district staff statements that designated specific areas for specialized curriculum, such as the "science" room, had to be used for classrooms. The school board and district staff both favored boundary changes that would reduce overcrowding at Bird allowing these specialized instruction areas to be used for their intended purposes. Mr. Welke pointed out that the science room continues to be requisitioned for classroom space as Bird is STILL over-capacity. Mr. Welke asked who made the decision to use these specialized instruction areas for classrooms.

Tim Culver turned to Phil Frei and asked Mr. Frei for an answer. Frei then stated loudly and clearly that, "it's the principal's decision to use the science room for regular classroom space".

At that moment, Culver and Frei, who both have waxed prophetically about the importance of caring and support for their employees during discussions about spending tax dollars on flowers and memorials, carelessly tossed principal Wiedmeyer under the bus.

Gee....so THAT's how we show that we care about the district employees? Isn't Culver the one who's ultimately responsible for all district decisions? If Culver and Frei disagreed with Mr. Wiedmeyer's decision to use the science room as needed classroom space, why didn't they direct him not to do so? If Culver and Frei were unaware of the situation, shouldn't they have simply said, "We'll have to check into that and get back to you" (as is usually the case)? Couldn't they have simply taken Mr. Wiedmeyer (if allegations are tue) to the woodshed privately? Or were they more interested in saving their own derrieres in front of the school board? As they say in the wastewater treatment business..."stuff" rolls downhill. Guess the hill stopped at Mr. Wiedmeyer.

Poor form, Misters Culver and Frei.


Oh, yeah...and Mr. Wiedmeyer turned 40 last weekend! Happy Birthday, Mr. Wiedmeyer. We hope you got a "Get Out of the Woodshed Free" card as a gift.

See? Sometimes the board/district CAN listen and act quickly!!!

Rick Mealy reports receiving this invoice (see below)in Thursday's mail. Mealy has waged a battle against the forces of fiscal irresponsibility for sometime. First at the Finance Committee and then at the October 27th school board meeting, Mealy implored the board to cease using taxpayer dollars to pay for memorials/floral arrangements when a family member of a school district employee passes.

Seeing the board about to adopt its usual attituide towards anyone that challenges it, Mealy threw up a Hail Mary and asked that if the board was "hell bent to spend the taxpayers' money uinappropriately", then Mealy offerred to pay for the memorials out of his own pocket.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have a first. The board/district acted both quickly and decisively, and proceeded to send the following invoice to Mealy.



SP-EYE caught up with Mealy, who had the following to say about the whole sordid affair,

"Al Slane talked about how he contacted the WASB [WI Association of School Boards] and WASB indicated that memorials could certainly be considered costs associated with operating schools. Good one, Al! That's like asking John McCain if he thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. Geeez....what's next? Asking the students if they think they should be given homework?"


For pity sake...stop trying so hard to justify a bad decision. Two weeks ago, Business Services Manager Rhonda Page said that if the taxpayers want to stop using tax funds for memorials then the school board needs to change the policy. HELLO! I see that the lights are on, but is anybody really home?? The policy says that the District Administrator MAY purchase flowers or memorials. It doesnt say he HAS to. It's a choice.

They say it's only a small amount of money, but you know what? What REALLY does sending a $30 plant do for someone that's lost a loved one? If it's the thought that counts, then send a personal note and skip the plant. Use the money to pay for books or something that will DIRECTLY aid in the education of our kids.

Is this retribution? Mealy was asked.

"Several people have suggested that it might be, but I'd like to think the board and district administration are above that kind of behavior. But who knows?" I said I'd pay for them and I will....better me than the entire community have to be part of this mess. Gee...now not only do I get to pay my own taxes, but parts of other people's as well!", Mealy responded.

Sometimes it has to be done.

Former NFL MVP and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had to do it. And may have to do it gain. According to reports, Colts QB Peyton Manning also had to do it....several times. Neither one of them really wanted to do it. But it had to be done. What did they do? Why did they do it? And what in tarnation does this have to do with the Sun Prairie School Board?

What both QBs had to do was undergo surgery to clean out an infection that developed following recent surgical procedures on their knees. Their doctors were the highest paid and most qualified in their field. Yet, infection developed nonetheless. Failure to go back in and clear the infection could have led to permanent damage to their knees.

As Hawkeye Pierce would say, the Sun Prairie school board performed the equivalent of meatball surgery using a rusty machete when they implemented boundary changes this past spring. Infection is running rampant, and the whole goal of performing the surgery has not and will not be achieved. It's time that our school board of boundary surgeons gets back into the OR and perform corrective surgery to address the situation. We're afraid that the patient's "finger" needs to be amputated.

1. Only about 19 Students of the District Office’s projected 53 students transferred from CH Bird to Westside.

2. There was no significant space created at CHB to get below the schools capacity and create a long term solution to the schools attendance numbers and projected growth. Bird remains OVERcapacity. To compound this issue there are currently at least 4 elementary shuttles that transfer students from school to school because their home school did not have room for them.

3. The total number of "instructional classrooms" at CHB currently being used this school year has not been reduced. The DO staff indicated in a presentation to the board and the community that CHB was only designed and built for 24 "instructional classrooms". The DO asserted negatively that "rooms originally designed for Science (Room #21) and Special Ed (Room #38) have been converted to instructional classrooms". Despite this stated concern Room #21 is still being used as an instructional classroom housing a 2nd grade class and Room #38 is also still being used as an instructional classroom housing a 3rd grade class. Meanwhile instructional classroom #15, one of the largest and newest classrooms in the building, is only being used intermittently for specialized classes and instruction. Eastside elementary ALSO continues to use non-instructional space for classrooms.

Meanwhile....

• at least 8 classrooms at the lovely new Creekside elementary sit gathering dust. There is only a single 5th grade class!
• Creekside is barely half full and somehow is being allowed to operate as if it were a 3rd SAGE school with less than 15 students per class on average in grades K-2.
• Northside, Eastside and Bird schools are either over capacity or within a handful of students of being at capacity.
• Westside sits at 70% capacity.
• the socio-economic balance between schools has not changed.
• a neighborhood had been torn apart...despite rallying cries of the school board that all their boundary decisions are made to retain "neighborhood" schools
• the approval rating of the school board is lower that President Bush's

With the economic slow-down, projected to last through 2009, it's clear that the build-out of Smith's Crossing is not going to populate Creekside significantly for years.

School Board members, take a memo: It's long past time to prep the patient for another surgery on the boundaries. Don't let this infection fester any further. Prep "the finger" for amputation.

Kids being shuttled OUT of brand new school?

This is a tale of two lists. One list was provided with the school board packets for 10-27-08. The other was requested of the District on 10/24/08.

The reason for the request was that several individuals reported to SP-EYE that students were being shuttled OUT of the brand new Creekside elementary.

Ludicrous, you say! Creekside is a brand new school that is barely half-full! There's no WAY the district would be shuttling students OUT of Creekside. Or is there? Stranger things have happened in this school district. When you get less than 40 residents of voting age to attend the annual elector's meeting, it can look pretty easy to slide one by the goalie.

That sounds like one of those political ads that can only be deciphered after a visit to FactCheck.org.

The list below is taken directly from the "Sun Prairie Area School District Enrollment Breakdown" Reported dated 10-1-08:

THEN, we have the OTHER list received on 11-1-08 in response to an open records request:

---

Can't you just see Tom Cruise grilling Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men",

"Why the two lists, colonel?"

Simple error? Sure. Could be. But the list actually gives bus names associated for the Creekside to Westside run. That seems a tad less error-y, doesn't it?

Conspiracy theorists might suggest that there is some value in trucking kids over to Westside because it is a SAGE school. For every child (as of the 3rd Friday count), grades K-3, in a SAGE school that is eligible for free or reduced price lunch ("F/R"), the school district receives $2,250 in state aids. But no one would actually believe such a thing. We're just sayin'.

Whatever the reasons, be this a simple error....or something else, do you hear something? That voice coming from the other room? "Luuuuuccccyyyyy...you have some 'splainin' to do!"

Gathering dust?

The Sun Prairie school board and district made a significant technological leap with the completion of Creekside elementary. Each of 24 classrooms was equipped with "Smartboards", electronic blackboards that facilitate learning.

Smartboards are part of the district's "Classroom 2010" plan. The plan is to eventually install Smartboards into every classroom.



The question of the day is:
Why do we have 8 empty classrooms at Creekside where this great technology sits and gathers dust?

What did the boundary changes accomplish?

A great letter in the the October 30th edition of the STAR asks the Sun Prairie School Board the question,

"What did you accomplish with the March 2008 Boundary changes?"

We have ONE answer ladies and gentlemen:

A number of Bird parents got "the finger"!!!!

The facts are simple:
1. The board's boundary decision was designed to reduce overcrowding at Bird.
FACT: As of this year's 3rd Friday count, Bird remains 1 over capacity. Since then, MORE students have been added.

2. The board's boundary decision was designed to populate the new Creekside Elementary.
FACT: As of this year's 3rd Friday count, Creekside has 273 students with a capacity for 516. Why are we allowing a brand new school to be HALF FULL when Bird, Eastside, and Northside elementary are each at 98% capacity or MORE? You'll be told that the projected complete Smith's crossing Development calls for 357 students in the neighborhood. HELLO! Can you say economic downturn? And the PLANNED build out was for 10 years from now! And even with 357 neighborhood students, that's still only 70-75% of capacity.

3. The board's boundary decision was designed to make the "socio-economic balance" (READ: number of students eligible for free/reduced lunch) more equitable between schools.
FACT: The number students eligible for free/reduced price has changed from:
------Westside: 44% (48% last fall)
------Bird: 28% (27% last fall)
------Royal Oaks: 11% (10% last fall)
------Creekside: 32%

All this heartache results in the move of just 19 students (not 53, as projected) from Bird to Westside.

As Jeff Probst would say, "Worth playing for?"

The 'Naming Rights' fiasco

[ SP-EYE note: The thoughts and commentary presented here are not intended to cast any aspersions on the Sun Prairie Education Foundation (SPEF) . We find the SPEF to be a group of higher profile, reputable civic and business leaders. However, SPEF has to understand how appearances can be perceived as people dissect the guts of the school district's "Naming Rights" proposals. The concerns presented herein are concerns that exist for ANY 3rd party that would be eligible for significant finder's fees related to Naming Rights.

Section 2 of the SPEF bylaws states that:" The Corporation shall seek gifts, contributions, donations and bequests ("gifts") for the purposes of the Corporation, and all assets received shall be dedicated to and invested solely for such purposes. The Corporation may accept unrestricted gifts, whose principal and/or income may be used for the Corporation’s purposes in the discretion of the Board of Directors." ]

We got a live one folks! We actually found an issue that polarized the usual lock-step, unanimous voting school board.

On the agenda for "Action" at the October 13, 2008 school board meeting was the 'Naming Rights' committee recommendation to make changes to policy KH (Public Gifts, Donations, and Grants to the School) and Procedure KH-R. It will be up for discussion...and a vote...this coming Monday, October 27.

So...what's the big hairy deal? Why would the SPEF ask for 50%? It's ludicrous, right? And the school board members of the "Naming Rights" subcommittee (McCourt, Shimek, and Whalen) all say that THEY didn't name the 50% figure. OK. So where did it come from? Another one of those Engaged & Enraged Community Members offered a very plausible explanation: perhaps the dealio is that the SPEF has already identified a major donor, and the donor is insisting that 50% of their donation go to the SPEF. THAT would fit not only the standard school board/district way of doing business, but easily explains why the 50% was "tossed" out there in the draft policy. Thanks for the valuable insight, Engaged & Enraged Community Member!

It was clear that Jill Camber-Davidson, Caren Diedrich, and Al Slane were opposed to the proposal in its current form, while it was equally clear that Jim McCourt and John Whalen supported it. Terry Shimek appeared to be on the fence, and David Stackhouse said very little. In the end, President Stackhouse made a motion to table any action until the next school board meeting (Monday 10/27/08). Voting in favor of the motion to table were: Camber-Davidson, Diedrich, Slane, and Stackhouse. Voting against were: McCourt, Shimek, and Whalen.

The elements of these changes are as follows:

• Raise the dollar limit above which any "donation" must be approved by the school board from $3,000 to $25,000.
• Naming rights (improvements/additions funded by referendum) - must be for 1/3 (33%) of the original cost.
• Naming rights (improvements/additions funded by referendum) - Only 50% of the naming rights "donation" goes back to the district (i.e., taxpayers). The other 50% goes to the Sun Prairie Education Foundation.
• Naming rights (future (unplanned) improvements/additions funded by referendum) - must be for 1/3 (33%) of the original cost.
• Naming rights (future (unplanned) improvements/additions NOT funded by referendum) - 100% of the naming rights "donation" goes back to the district (i.e., taxpayers).
• No advertising for alcoholic beverages or tobacco may be accepted or any school purpose.

So...what's at issue here?

1. A 50% 'finder's fee' is nuts.
Giving 50% of any funds associated with naming rights to anyone as a 'finder's fee' is simply outrageous. This is not about the SPEF, which we believe is an excellent service organization. Giving 50% of funds donated for naming rights to ANYONE is simply an out-of-touch idea. Board members indicated that SPEF made no demands for any particular percentage, yet discussions ranged from 5% to 98%, and the committee recommended 50%.

How about 5-10%? More importantly...how about a dollar limit for ANY finder's fee. Or perhaps deal with it like an auction: if naming rights costs a donor $1.0M, then perhaps an additional 5-10% would be due the finder (SPEF). Let's say the new high school auditorium costs $3,000,000. That means 'naming rights for the auditorium would have to mean a minimum $1,000,000 donation. At 50%, that means the SPEF gets $$500K and only $500 goes back to the taxpayers who paid for the auditorium. Even at 10% , the finder's fee would be $100K....a VERY sizable infusion of money for the SPEF. The SPEF can do some great things with even $$10-25,000. So why not establish a cap for "finder's fees" at 10% of the donation or $10-25,000, whichever is less? Remember...we're all working for education, right? Paying back the taxpayers for funding the schools to-date, will only improve the likelihood of success of future referenda.

2. Who's in charge here?
While we swallow with difficulty anytime the school board votes on an issue with any significance, the school board IS the definitive bursar for school district monies. Allowing ANY finder's fee to go to even an organization such as the SPEF poses problems. What if the board votes to increase the "gift" limit to $25,000 and then the SPEF makes a donation in the form of a grant for a program or activity which is questioned within the community.


How does the language work if a "number" of grants just under the $25,000 mark are made? What if the SPEF obtains $200,000 as finder fees and issues grants of $20,000 to each of the 10 district schools for their use? Would that count as a single $200,000 grant requiring board approval? or 10 separate grants each of which falls under the board approval limit?
We can't have TWO separate entities responsible for education funding.

3. Open Records?
Will all the SPEF records be subject to the same open records laws as school district records? Presumably, naming rights donations are made to offset taxpayer cost of building additions/improvements. So...what if the taxpayers want to obtain a full accounting of how SPEF funds accumulated through Naming Rights donations? Will SPEF financial records be readily available for Joe the Public to inspect? We think not. Stranger things have happened. Remember what AIG executives with a significant portion of the recent bailout monies?

4. Ensure that any donations mesh with the District's wellness mission.
The language in the draft policy and procedure needs hardening.

5. Why does the SPEF want a 'finders fee', when according to their bylaws, their mission is to seek gifts, contributions, donations and bequests ("gifts") "?
Is this really the way it's supposed to work? If it's the mission of the SPEF to seek these gifts/donations, then why would they be asking for a fee to do what it is they do? Isn't it usually the donor who decides what they want done with their donation? ( e.g., Business X offers $1.0M to go to the theater arts program in exchange for naming the auditorium the "Business X auditorium".

6. The taxpayers paid for these buildings/additions, so any "naming rights" donations should go to repay the taxpayers.
We--the taxpayers-- are shouldering a HUGE debt load. We paid for these buildings with our property taxes. Shouldn't any revenue the district obtains to "name" these buildings/additions therefore be used to pay down the debt and reduce our future property taxes?

---

Check out the Sun Prairie Education Foundation's website

The mission of the SPEF is:
- Provide funds for enrichment activities
- Encourage excellence through creative teaching
- Support professional growth of teachers
- Provide grants for creative ideas and programs
- Facilitate community/school partnerships
- Promote community awareness of school programs
- Develop enrichment programs to address the needs of Sun Prairie’s community schools and the community it serves
- Provide a vehicle for individuals, businesses and organizations to share resources and gifts with the Sun Prairie school community

The biggest secret in Sun Prairie...

...and perhaps most school districts...

...is that once a year, YOU-- the residents of the Sun Prairie School District (18 yrs or more)-- get to vote on the property tax levy portion of the school district's budget. But you don't. Sadly, it's because the annual electors meeting is one of the best kept secrets in this or any other school district.

What is the annual electors meeting?
The annual electors meeting is statutorily mandated and represents the ONE crystal clear opportunity that school district residents get to determine the tax levy. Certainly, the school board gets to approve a budget, but every annual school district budget rides pretty firmly on the amount of property tax levy voted on at the annual electors meeting. If the electors vote for a lower tax levy than the district wants, then the district and school board will have to sharpen their pencils and re-work their budgeting. Sometimes when this happens, thinly veiled threats of having to cut major programs are heard.

Think the school district is spending (or budgeting) too much (like having a surplus of $1.5M last year that YOU paid for with property taxes!)? Then attend the annual elector's meeting. Sure...the school district does what it minimally must to announce the meeting. But it could do a lot more. Like publish the meeting notice for at least 6-8 weeks prior to the meeting on the website--instead of waiting for some nasty website to alert them to do so. Or perhaps sending a flyer out to all district residents. The annual electors meeting is certainly worthy of the costs for a special flyer.

Twice each month at board meetings, you get to speak your peace and have the school board either force a smile or roll their eyes at your comments before rubber stamping whatever the district wants with their votes. ONCE each year, YOU have the opportunity to take back some control over what the board and district do with your tax dollars.

But...nobody comes. Except of course for the usual suspects [ Who IS Keyser Soze?] : school board members, administrators, and many teachers and a very few residents who are keenly aware of the meeting and do what they can to have their voices heard.

What happened at this year's electors meeting?
On Monday October 13, the annual electors meeting was held at the usual place and time: high school auditorium, 7:00 PM. We get anywhere between 4000 and 8000 voters to come out for spring and fall elections, but, as is usually the case, less than 50 electors attended the meeting.

At this meeting, the electors who were present voted to:

• Freeze school board member annual 'salaries' at $3,500 (president) and $3,200 (others). This motion, interestingly enough, was made by former school board member Mary Ellen Havel Lang.
• Set the date of NEXT year's annual meeting for Monday October 12, 2009. Mark your calendars NOW.
• Voted to approve the purchase of land for the high school's home construction program, and also allow sale of the finished home. This is a great program, and, while other districts have not been so fortunate, Sun Prairie has more than covered its costs each year.
• Set the 2009 tax levy at $41,124,489 by a vote of 26 for, 11 against. This vote came after resident Rick Mealy made a motion to approve a tax levy of $40,424,489 failed by a vote of 10 to 27. Mealy's motion was based on (A) returning $500,000 of this past year's surplus to the taxpayers (instead of using it to pay down future debt) and then (B) reduce the levy by an additional $200,000 to send a message to the District that they need to curb their wasteful spending and reign in their budget in tight economic times.

Culver: Beware! There are 'nasty things' on websites.

During the Monday October 13, 2008 school board meeting held prior to the annual electors meeting, District Administrator Tim Culver gave a little plug for the Sun Prairie Education Foundation's website.

Culver noted that the SPEF was

"...doing positive things... while other people are putting nasty things on the web."

So...surf carefully, folks! Apparently there are are lot of nasty things on the web out there.

Thanks very much to Dr. Culver for his impromptu public service announcement. We'll all sleep better and surf more safely.

YOUR chance to vote!

The annual Sun Prairie Area School District elector's meeting will be held Monday October 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm in the Sun Prairie high school auditorium.

Finally, it's YOUR chance to vote. Items up for vote include:

$41,124,489.00

That's the tax levy the school district would like to set for 2008-09.

$3,500.00 / $3,300.00
That's annual "salary" we pay the school board president and other school board members. Think they deserve a raise? a paycut? This is YOUR chance to have a say and cast YOUR vote instead of just watching school board members cast theirs.

$500,000.00

That's the amount from last year's $1.5M in budget surplus that school board Finance Chair Jim McCourt would like to use to pay against future WRS loan payments due. Would you rather this $500K be used to reduce the amount of the tax levy and lower your property tax bill?

Be informed. Be a part of of the process. At this meeting, the ELECTORS (us) get to vote. Obtain a copy of the Annual Report (which coincidentally the District posted after SP-EYE noted it's distinct absence.)

$111,268,227.00
That's the net total expenditures expected for all funds for 2008-09.

24.35%

That's the total fund expenditure increase over last year.

Tax Delinquency Issue - Final Chapter

Several folks have contacted us regarding school board president David Stackhouse's repeated on-air insistence that he "dealt with [his delinquent taxes] as soon as he became aware of the problem".

Inquiring minds wanted to know....what's the dealio? What are the facts?

Well, folks, I thought we had put this one to bed, but if Mr. Stackhouse wants to continue to deny the facts, then the facts will continue to rear their ugly heads.

Thanks to "Committed Community Member", SP-EYE is now in receipt of incontrovertible data obtained directly from the Dane County Treasurer's office. First let's recap:

• Mr. Stackhouse was not in arrears just for this past year. He was in arrears for the total taxes due for the past three tax years.
• Do the math: the tax bill, with interest and penalties was over $14,000. Stackhouse doesn't own mansion. The overdue taxes were certainly more than one year.
• Stackhouse paid the total amount due --arguably in response to concerns that these facts would be picked up by local media outlets--in two installments in July 2008.

Now for the rest of the story.

As indicated previously, SP-EYE has received copies of 8 separate mailings made to Mr. Stackhouse alerting him that his taxes were in arrears. The Dane County Treasurer routinely mails delinquent tax reminders showing the total amount due at least quarterly. Copies of all these mailings are retained. The mailing address matches Mr. Stackhouse's residence. Maybe ONE or TWO of these communiques could have been "lost", but EIGHT? And that's just the statements for which copies are retained. Several other reminders are mailed out for which copies are not retained.

Mr. Stackhouse...haven't we had enough of the truth being stretched in the barrage of presidential advertisements? Please...from here on out, accept responsibility for your personal transgressions. No more excuses. SP-EYE properly reported when you resolved the issue. The issue was closed until you re-opened it with your untrue claims.

Thanks very much to Committed Community Member", for the assist on this play.

Has Anyone Seen the District Annual Report?

The annual elector's meeting is scheduled for next Monday October 13 at 7:00 pm in the high school auditorium. But how would you know? Unless you noticed the little blurb in the STAR, or obtained the school board's meeting packet, or listened (yawn!) through the entire school board meeting to catch "upcoming meeting announcements".


One week away and no annual report. Certainly not on the website...or even listed as a meeting!


THIS is how the board expresses its fervent desire for community involvement?
By minimizing publicity of the annual elector's meeting? The annual meeting report booklet SHOULD have been posted by now on the website, and the elector's meeting should have been announced as an upcoming meeting for several weeks as well.

But....perhaps the board would rather you not know????

They sure have got their referendum propaganda machine in full working order...more than 30 days in advance of THAT key date. I'm certain that you could drop by the district office and, upon request, obtain a copy of the report. But you'd have to go to those lengths to get one.

The above screen shots are of the school district website as of this weekend. Maybe this posting will prompt some action.

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?