Sunday, January 9, 2011

We Don't Know What We Don't Know -- and Neither Does the STAR

Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes offered the following in his editorial this week:
"During the most recent Sun Prairie School Board meeting on Dec. 20, the board learned that the cost to bus the participants in the program will be $192,124 for the 2010-11 school year.  ... The dimension of that expenditure is compounded by someone who, as a member of the board’s Finance Committee, ostensibly did not know what the heck was going on.   
How else could Rick Mealy make a statement like, “How did we [sic] quarduple that amount [originally estimated to be $50,000]?”

Or, for Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei to say, “Did we underestimate transportation? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that. We did the best budget we could at that time.”
And, thanks to the watchfulness of folks like Mealy and Frei, the district taxpayers are now stuck with the tab for their lack of mathematical skill."
Frankly, we think Mertes displayed poor journalistic form (to say the least) by calling out a private citizen and singling out Deputy District Admninistrator Phil Frei.  As a community resident with family ties to the school  district, and editor of the STAR newspaper, we are disappointed that Mr. Mertes used the resources available to him to report this matter in the way that he did--- which is more typical of something from a paper with a name like the Hooterville Humper.

That being said, Mertes is 100% correct.  Mealy did not know that the 4K program busing costs had increased from the initial projection of $50,000 to nearly $200,000  But, unfortunately, the information was compartmentalized.  The information was buried within the budget, hidden from view.  $200K for the cost of busing roughly 130 kids!  We CAN do the math on this one, Mr. Mertes; that comes to over $1,400 per kid.  The cost of busing K-12 kids is more like $400 per kid.  And we completely agree with you.  There's something just plain wrong with those numbers.  In fact, the reason Mealy spoke up was that he had only recently learned of this issue. 

Unfortunately, that’s where Mr. Mertes strays from the facts and simply resorts to casting a narrow beam of blame on a couple of easy targets (Frei and Mealy) rather than using his investigative reporting skills and resources to determine who really is to blame. 
Mertes was clearly wrong to blame any two individuals for the matter.  


Just the Facts. Sir
Let’s examine the facts that Mr. Mertes failed to disclose in his editorial.

  1.  – There are 3 Board members and 2 citizen reps on the finance committee.
  2.  – There are 7 total board members
  3.  – The FTT committee has 3 SB members and 2 citizen reps.
  4.  – The district administrator is, by policy, responsible for all district operations.
  5.  – School Board president was aware of the situation yet never mentioned it to anyone; NOR was he concerned enough to bring it to the board table so that it could be discussed.
Mertes was equally wrong to call out Phil Frei.  If Mertes wants to assign culpability, then he needs to assign it to the one accountable for the district...and that's Tim Culver.


Beyond the fact that he is a newspaper editor, a position which one would associate with "being in the know", Mertes also has family ties to the district.  Shouldn't Mertes have been aware of the exorbitant transportation costs?  After all, the STAR published the district budget documents and covers budget hearings and committee meetings.

So let's get the facts straight.  What Mertes apparently doesn't know that he doesn't know is the following:

  1. Mealy was but ONE member of the FIVE member Finance Committee.
  2. The school board's Finance Committee has no authority to make decisions.  In fact, an item can be (and has been) voted down at the Committee level, only to be approved at the Board table.   If you want to lay blame, Mr. Mertes, you should include the entire school board--most of whom you supported during elections.
  3. The issue of 4K busing costs was never an agenda item reviewed or approved by the Finance Committee.  True, the Finance Committee RECOMMENDS approval/forwarding the entire budget onto the full school board, but those "revised" busing costs were buried within the "complicated details" of the district budget.  In the grand scheme of accounting, the raise in 4K costs was buried within the much larger total "transportation" budget, and therefore never revealed.
  4. Now that we mention "Transportation", Mr. Mertes should understand that the "transportation" budget is assigned NOT to the Finance Committee, but to the FTT (Facilities, Technology and TRANSPORTATION) Committee.  We didn't see Mertes calling out any of those folks.
  5. We're not sure how Mertes could have missed the inaccuracy of his statement, " During the most recent Sun Prairie School Board meeting on Dec. 20, the board learned that the cost to bus the participants in the program will be $192,124 for the 2010-11 school year."  How could it POSSIBLY be that the board "did not learn until December 20th",  when this issue had been raised earlier at an FTT Committee meeting.  (Remember, Chris, issues begin at the Committee level and THEN go to the full board for formal approval?)  As with Finance, the FTT Committee includes THREE board members.  So, using your logic, THREE board members apparently SHOULD have known about the busing costs from Finance Committee meetings, and THREE more from FTT!!!
  6. The only people that we KNOW were completely aware of the increased busing costs were those within the district business office.  And those folks report to Tim Culver, who in turn reports to the board.  Board president John Whalen publicly acknowledged that he knew...but couldn't recall WHEN he was informed.
What we like about the STAR Editorial is that it brings to light the fact that many similar issues are buried within the district budget.  Recall that neither the school board nor the public had any inkling of a $3M budget surplus at the end of the 2009-10 school year until very late in the budget process.  Those are the issues on which we need to focus the spotlight.

We'd like to see the STAR and Editor Mertes refocus their journalistic powers to sorting out the wheat from the chaff within the school district budget.   Perhaps instead of singling out two people, Mertes should be calling out the entire to school board to demand that these kind of "mathematical" issues get raised properly and publicly BEFORE we spend the money.  How about expending some of your journalistic ink to help uncover the things which need to be uncovered rather than assigning blame to two individuals?


Editor Mertes should also recall the old adage that when he points a finger, he has three other fingers pointing back at himself.  If you're not part of the solution, you're only part of the problem.  


Mr.  Mertes has contributed in a positive way over the years to the greater Sun Prairie Community.  We appreciate and respect what he has done but unfortunately with this episode of situational ethics he has tarnished the really good things that he and The Star have done for the community.     


Update
The District Office has amended the busing contract and it will be going to FTT and the Board on Monday night.  Hmmmm, why was that?, Oh that’s right they screwed it up and omitted some important language and attachments and now they want a “do over”.  This really underscores the underlying illness:  a series of egregious errors/miscalculations further hampered by  a lack of proactive transparency by the administrators.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

A Survey Monkey On Our Back?

Preface:  This is the 3rd installment of our analysis of administrator contract stipends.  For this piece, we looked at "professional" journal/newspaper/magazine subscriptions purchased during calendar 2010.  We're hearing back from our earlier posts on the stipend issue.  Let us remind you that we are not suggesting that any of these expenditures violate contractual agreements (we'll leave that up to the community --or perhaps the school board--to ask).  We merely want the community to be informed as to the lucrative "perks" nestled within inflated administrator contracts.  We want YOU, faithful readers, to ask the questions:  (is it even appropriate for these "perks" to be included in contracts?  Do we compensate these people enough already?  Are we maintaining a caste system of sorts where various employee "groups" [the "haves"] are getting a much sweeter deal than others [the have nots]?)


Let's Review the Contract Language on Stipends: 
C. Professional Development Stipend 
1. To promote professional growth each administrator shall be provided with a professional development stipend as follows: 
  a. $2000 per year for Building Principals; Assistant and Deputy District  Administrators; and Directors of Student Services or Human Resources. 
  b. $1375 per year for all other administrators. 
2. The professional development stipend may be used by an administrator for: 
  d. Other professional growth or learning activities and/or materials (for  example, professional  journals) as approved  by the supervising  administrator.  Any such materials shall remain the property of the school  or department. 
3. The professional development stipend: 
  a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals; 


Subscription Summary
  • 34 Total  subscriptions - $4560/yr
  • 10 "District" subscriptions --beyond those in library--- @ $2,049 ( $205 ea)
  •        7  "Group" subscriptions  $1,223
  •        3 School board subscriptions  $570  (Does the school board know they have these?)
  • 24 Individual subscriptions:  $2,765/yr
  • A total of 9 individuals (mostly administrators) have subscriptions:  avg of 2-3 each;   ~ $300 ea/yr
  • 25 DIFFERENT journals/magazines....and that's just for administrators.  Never mind that at least some of these are already available in , say, the high school library.

A Note from the Department of Repetition & Redundancy
We are purchasing multiple subscriptions of a particular journal in several cases.  Besides the fact that some of these may already be part of the high school library collection (in which case do we need individual subscriptions), can't we all get along and share?  Frei, Murphy, and Dawes have offices that are a stone's throw from each other.  Can't they share ONE subscription?


Why do we have FOUR "Survey Monkey" (an on-line survey tool) subscriptions?  ($300, $200(2),  $239.40)?    Subscriptions are held in the names of Culver, HS Athletics, HS Guidance, Brian Dean [Social Worker, ATODA/At-Risk Coordinator].  Why does Guidance pay the higher monthly rate?  Instead of $1,000 per year, we could get ONE "Pro" subscription for a mere $200.  Better yet...couldn't we just use the BASIC (*free*) subscription?  Do we really do surveys of more than 10 questions to more than 100 respondents?  The question needs to be asked.
  • Why do we have THREE "Education week" subscriptions? Stocks-Glover ($59.94), A. Murphy ($59.94) , Culver ($74.xx)
  • Why 3 subscriptions for WASB's " WI School Laws": Frei, Dawes,  Murphy ($85 each)
  • Why 2 subscriptions for WI Taxpayer Alliance, "Focus" Culver/Board ($99), Frei ($43)
Does Anybody LOOK at these purchases?
  • For 4 Survey Monkey subscriptions, we're paying THREE (3) different rates  Why?
  • For 3 Education Week subscriptions, we're paying TWO (2) different rates.  We researched Education Week subscriptions and found two websites offering it at $40/year.  So why are we paying $59-$75?
  • We have 2 subscriptions to the TaxPayer Alliance publication, "Focus".  The cost for Culver/the Board is $99, while Phil Frei's personal subscription is $43?  Why is that?   Can't they share a subscription?
  • At least we're paying the same price ($85 for each of our 3 subscriptions to "WI School Laws")
...and from the "Really!?" Department
Newsweek?  We get it.  It's a great "current events" magazine.  Maybe we could see it for a high school social studies class (who would use the library's subscription).  But for an elementary school principal?  And why are we paying three times as much for it as it is available for online?


Wisconsin State Journal?  We've asked this question before.  The school district administration feel entitled to have the taxpayers provided them with something for the "reading room".    7-Day Delivery, 26 weeks,  $65.  Do we REALLY need to provide a 7-day newspaper?  Hey...who gets the Saturday and Sunday editions?  Hmmm?





Hues? ("Hear Us Emerging Sisters") Our particular favorite.  We kinda get it.  This is a "girl power" mag, aimed at building self-esteem in young girls.  But what we don't so much get is that which you find if you Google it:  HUES is hip, smart, and down-to-earth. A woman's guide to power and attitude, HUES promotes self-esteem and self-sufficiency among young women, ages 16 - 30, of different cultures, sizes, and lifestyles. The publishers, Identical twin sisters Tali and Ophira Edut—known as The AstroTwins— are professional astrologers with over 15 years experience in astrology, publishing and coaching

Maybe if we purchased these from Publisher's Clearing House we could at least win $10,000,000!

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Stackhouse is in; We Got Us a Race!

Tom Weber, who has been a great addition as  current Citizen Representative to the School Board's Finance Committee, is a worthy candidate for school board.  Early indications suggest this is a race between Weber and Stackhouse for the 2nd seat.  


Many feel that Jill Camber-Davidson has come on strong of late as a board member who will take a stand against fiscal irresponsibility.  Ms. Camber-Davidson has also been leading the charge against advertising in our schools.  We believe her tenacity and attention to detail merit a 2nd term.


Tom Weber is very well spoken and has a strong financial background.  Incumbent David Stackhouse has provided some spark in the last year as he has rebelled against a board majority that gave him no love during officer elections.  During a number of officer votes, only a single vote was cast for Stackhouse for each board officer slot.  Hmmm...whose was it?  Stackhouse's  checkered history during his last board term has seen his stature reduced from board president to simply a board member at large.   Will the community vote for the refreshing air of change that Mr. Weber offers?  In the past, Stackhouse relied on strong support form the youth football community.  Is that support still there? Stay tuned.
Both incumbents Dave Stackhouse and Jill Camber Davidson will be joined by a third candidate, Tom Weber of Sun Prairie, in their campaign for the Sun Prairie School Board. Seats on the board are elected at-large within the Sun Prairie Area School District.

Candidates had until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 4 to submit their nomination papers for elected offices. The general election will take place on Tuesday, April 5.
http://www.sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=52&ArticleID=6629

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Exactly How Swollen is Your Membership?

Bear with us...but there are some more details about professional memberships we need to share with you.

Let's look a little more closely at one membership in particular: the ASCD, or Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  Our school district is shelling out for SIXTEEN individual memberships at a taxpayer cost of $2,410.  Why, we ask?  Why do SIXTEEN different people need to hold a membership to this organization.  But let's get back to that in a minute.  Let's ask a different question.  WHY are we paying for the top tier memberships instead of more basic memberships??  Hmmm.  Let's zoom in on this one, shall we?

ASCD offers the following INDIVIDUAL membership options:

Premium Membership:  ($219/yr): we believe we're paying for 4 of these
Select Membership:  ($89/yr): we believe we're paying for 12 of these
Basic Membership: ($49/yr): None
Online Membership ($29/yr): None

We paid for 16 memberships to ASCD:

  • 1 @ $79 (not sure...could have been intended to be $89 SELECT membership)
  • 6 @ $89 ( $89 SELECT membership)
  • 1 @ $89.99 (not sure...could have been intended to be $89 SELECT membership)
  • 4 @ $164 (looks to be a SELECT membership ($89) plus an additional $75 purchase)
  • 3 @ $219  ( $219 PREMIUM membership)
  • 1 @ $294 (looks to be a PREMIUM membership [$219] plus an additional $75 purchase)
-------------------------
Total cost: $2410.
For 16 staff, that comes to an average cost of $151 per staff member

Why do we need SELECT or PREMIUM memberships?  
The BASIC and ONLINE memberships offer the same advantages EXCEPT * free * books and prepaid vouchers for Professional Development Institute purchases. But, but....since any materials gained through membership fees remain the property of the district--not the employee-- why do we need 16 copies of books anyway?

Missed Savings Opportunities through Institutional Membership

ASCD offers both Institutional and Institutional PLUS memberships.  The Institutional  membership consists of one Team Leader getting the equivalent of a PREMIUM membership plus 10 other "Team Members" receive the equivalent of SELECT memberships.  The cost is $885, which comes to $80.50 each (nearly $10 less than a SELECT membership) and extends to 11 staff members.    We could have saved $1,525.  Come on...we need 5 volunteers to give up their uber-necessary ASCD membership.


Oh...wait...but the 10 staff members wouldn't get their *free* books (Someone...quick...dial Whine One One).  Only the "Team Leader" would get the 10 *free* books.  Ok... if these are an absolute necessity (eyes rolling) then we could have secured an "Institutional PLUS" membership which would give each of the "Team Members" 5 *free* books.  The cost would be $1,285, which still represents a savings of $1,125

How many more of these are out there?
This is what happens when people just rubber stamp the school district Check Runs every 2 weeks.

http://www.joinup.org/im/  ASCD Iinstitutional Memberships

http://shop.ascd.org/MEMBERSHIP.aspx   ASCD Iindividual Memberships

A New Year's Re-Affirmation

SP-EYE exists in order that you are provided with the most detailed information regarding the Sun Prairie Area School District.  Currently, an average ($250K) homes pays roughly $3,000 per year (before the First Dollar or School Tax Levy Credits) in property taxes.  In the City of Sun Prairie, the total mill rate is a bit more than $22 per $1000.  The cost of running the entire city (including police, fire, etc.) is LESS than the cost to run the school district.  These are tight economic times,but regardless of the economic climate, we have a right to know PRECISELY how are tax dollars are being spent.

If You Can't Stand the Heat, the Kitchen May Not be the Place for You
You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that we DO hear on occasion comments regarding the "tone" of SP-EYE.  
  • "Gee...those posts are pretty pointed..."
  • "You really called that out..."
  • "OMG...Can't believe you posted that!"
  • "Man...I totally peed my pants!"
We've been termed "snarky" (and we rather like that one), bitter, crass, etc., etc.  But what we are consistently told is that we offer the real data that the school district doesn't want you to know.  They wave their hands and say things like, "It's really complicated...you'll have to trust us".  Yeah...and Kaa wanted Mowgli to trust him too.

SP-EYE operates under a very simple principle:  So long as the Powers That Be continue on their smoke and mirrorquest to snow taxpayers, we'll call things out publicly.  They don't like that.  Geee...wonder why?  No one likes to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. THEN KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR!

Case in point:  The district doesn't want the public (or the likes of Governor -elect Walker) to know that they actually make a PROFIT off of the 4-year old kindergarten program. (They prefer to call it a surplus)   That's right....the state pays the district MORE than it costs to actually run the program. (Tell us again...who are the "haves" and who are the "have nots", Mr. Walker?)  That extra million dollars funds a whole lot of salary increases and perks.   Similarly, they don't want you to learn that the highly paid administration made a crucial error in projecting transportation costs of the 4K program.  They budgeted $50,000 and the school board approved the program.  Oh...wait...turns out the ACTUAL cost was over $250,000!  FIVE TIMES the "projected" amount!   They don't want you to know because if you did, you might start to wonder:  Are these people that poor at budgeting?  Or is it that they so badly wanted the 4K program to be approved that they budgeted low to ensure school board approval.  Or is it something else?

Public Defense/Denial....Quiet Change
Our issue is that the school district -- and frequently the board by majority vote-- continues to refuse to acknowledge its own weaknesses and failures.  Instead, they choose to point fingers, ignore community residents, and actually attempt to rationalize their fiscal irresponsibility.  But, in the end, they generally--QUIETLY-- make changes (reduction in pizza deliveries, no more birthday Kit Kats, to name just a few).  That's just plain cowardly.  

An honorable board/district would have the integrity to stand up and say, "You know what?  You're right.  That IS (fill in the blank) and we need to change they way we do business."  SP-EYE could be a valuable ally instead of the present thorn in their side.  But they simply refuse to see that.  Do things right.  Instill fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Improve the overall academic process.  Do those things, and SP-EYE will be there tooting your horn for you.  But that isn't going to happen under the current leadership.  So be it.  So long as you choose to continue the shenanigans, we'll continue to cajole you, post the things you don't want people to know, and even embarrass you into doing the right thing.  We're in no hurry.  We can wait as long as you can.  We're not going away.  There are a whole lot of skeletons in your closet, and we'll bring every last one of them into the daylight. 

Dirty Laundry
Another issue we have is the way parents who come forward with complaints are treated.  Quietly sweeping the complaints under the carpet and ignoring policy.  And they way we protect certain "partnerships" while attacking others.  Remember a few years back when the district went on the offensive against T-Durst busing?  They tried to make T-Durst look like a fly-by-night outfit that was going to go under.  Yeah...the same T-Durst...who annually provides such a great service to special needs kids.  The district came up with "complaints" against T-Durst, and the witch hunt began.  The end game was an attempt to pull T-Durst's special ed. bus contract and give it to someone else (hmmm...wonder who).  If it weren't for the courage of Terry Bednar and the aid of Tom Hebl, the board would have had its way.  That was just plain dirty pool.  Bus problems....?

What if we told you...
... a 5 yr old child was let off the bus at their home when no one was present?  
... one parent was frustrated that their child suffered a concussion during a bus ride?  
... a failure to "clear a bus" and having a 4-year old left sleeping in the back of the bus until 5 pm?  

You don't hear these things, because the district works hard to squelch them. Excuse us if we have a problem with that.

So...if you don't like snarky...you have some options.  SP-EYE is a choice.  It is not required reading.  So, if it offends you, read it no more.  Or choose to stand up with us and ask the questions that must be answered and continue to press until the real information comes out.  The status will remain quite quo until people find time in their busy schedules to come out to board meetings and speak up publicly.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

32 Miles per Day

(Part 2 of a series on contractual "perks")


...and the Jeopardy question is:
For how many miles per contract day do we pay administrators --above and beyond their salary-- for "travel within Dane County" in lieu of having to file for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred.  Note...this is not reimbursement for travelling to/from work...just for travel within the Dane County for district-related business.

32 miles PER DAY?  That's like 4 or 5 cycles between every school in the district...daily.
Why are we paying these people for nearly 7000 miles of travel JUST WITHIN DANE County each year?  Remember...for travel outside of Dane County, we reimburse them at the IRS rates in addition to this "mileage stipend"!   If the average person puts 12,000 miles on their vehicle each year, we are automatically PAYING these folks for just under 60% of the mileage that the average person puts on their vehicle!

And shouldn't their job be here in Sun Prairie?  Not out galavanting across Dane County.

What could $30,225 per year buy?
$30,225 per year - the cost of providing these mileage stipends. Remember...no receipts are required. They don't even have to do any work-related travel within Dane Co. They just get the cash.  You don't hear administrator complaining, do you?  So clearly they are not traveling MORE than that per day for work.  This is yet another "perk". 

$30,225 per year could buy a lot of school supplies from those infamous school supply lists. 


Do the math
We pay administrators either $75/month or, for the really bigwigs, $125/month worked.  Culver gets $3,900 per month.
  • $75 per month
  • ...at $3 per gallon
  • ...translates to 25 gallons of gas
  • If the average vehicle gets 25 miles/gallon
  • ...that translates to 625 miles per month
  • The minimum we pay administrators this "stipend" is 11 months
  • 625 miles per month  X 11 months = 6875 miles per year
  • 6875 miles per year divided by 215 contract days (and that includes 5 paid holidays!)
  • comes to about 32 miles per day
What does "month worked" mean?
Wisconsin schools are basically planned round 180 days.  Actually things get fuzzy because "officially" the number of school days required is 175 but the more critical number is hours of schooling.  So let's just work off of 180 school days.

Between the start and end of the school year there are at least 20 days where kids are not in school, but administrators are still required to work (or take a paid leave day).  So that brings us to 200 days.  The first and last days of school are typically 1/2 days, but administrative staff work a full day.  In addition, administrators are required to start their work year at least 2 days before the official start of school and end their school year a couple of days after the last day of school.  

So...basically, it appears that administrators work only a couple of days in August and not even half-way through the month of June.  Yet, no administrator is paid less than 11 months of the mileage stipend.   The key here is the contract language "per month worked".   It seems that the interpretation is that if one works ANY day within a month, the administrator earns the full month of mileage stipend ($75 or $125).  

Wow.  And let's keep in mind that these calculations are based on th LOWEST level of compensation ($75/month).


In the real world, when one is being paid over $70,000 per year (and the average salary of all administrators is just shy of $100K), a little bit of travel is considered "part of the job".
And, perhaps more to the point, where exactly are these folks traveling anyway?  Shouldn't building principals and assistant principals be in their schools?

We're just sayin'.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Stipends: Swollen Memberships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Questions
  • Do we need pay for 18 separate AWSA [Association of Wisconsin School Administrators] memberships?
  •  Do we need pay for 17 separate Administrator memberships to ASCD [Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development]?
  •  Do we need pay for 9 separate NAESP [ National Association of Elementary School Principals] memberships?  We only have 7 elementary schools!  Why are we paying for membership in an ELEMENTARY school organization for two MIDDLE school administrators?  For the half-time principal of SP4K? 
  •  Do we need to pay for 4 separate NASSP [ National Association of Secondary School Principals] ?
  • Why are we paying for 2 memberships to NCTM  [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics ] for an elementary school principal and  a Staff Development Program Manager?  A math teacher?  Math department head?  Maybe...but two administrators?
THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION
Documents we have obtained from the district indicate that most stipends...such as Dr. Culver's $125/month for Dane Co. travel costs and $325/month for "miscellaneous" costs...are paid out along with salary.

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

Wait!  It's all OK.  It's part of an Administrator's Compensation package!
That's right, folks.  It's all above board...right?  After all, the administrators' benefit package (which school board members have voted to approve) includes the following:
C. Professional Development Stipend
1. To promote professional growth each administrator shall be provided with a professional development stipend as follows:
a. $2,000 per year for Building Principals; Assistant and Deputy District  Administrators; and Directors of Student Services or Human Resources.
b. $1,375 per year for all other administrators. 
3. The professional development stipend:
a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals;
b. Will not be subtracted from the administrator's operational or building budget;
c. Will be carried over annually, up to a maximum amount of $4,000 per administrator;
d. May be supplemented by funds from the administrator's operational budget;
YIKES! eh?  Not only do they get up to $2,000 per year ON TOP OF THEIR FAT SALARIES...but

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

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


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

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

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Ruh Roh, Raggy: 4K Is in the Gunsights

Maybe we won't have to worry about how $50,000 for busing 4-year olds became $250,000.
It seems that at least one Republican lawmaker has got the 4K program squarely on his radar screen.  Bombs away?
"It is important for Governor Walker to make it clear that the days of encouraging four-year-old kindergarten are at an end so local districts can plan accordingly," 
--State Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend
 Read the State Journal article

School Board New Years Resolutions You Should --But WON'T-- See

Sun Prairie School Board New Year Resolutions for 2011 that SHOULD be made...but won't be.


#1.  Do away with the phrase, "All in favor say 'aye'....all opposed, same sign".
If you're opposed to something, why on earth would you say, "aye"?  This phrase dates back to the days when voting was done by raising one's hand...as in, "All in favor (raise your hand), All opposed, same sign".  Get it?


#2. Get better quality KSUN *live* feed of meetings.
Seriously...if you've ever watched one, the sound quality is horrendous, and the board members are washed ou (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).  Diedrich, in particular, looks ghostly (note, for the record, we did NOT say "ghastly").  May we recommend that the board bring in a small TV and actually watch one of their meetings as it airs?  What's really weird is that if you watch one of the DVDs produced, the quality is better.


#3.  Create a standing agenda item for "Items of business at next school board meeting".
Currently the board president sets the agenda (actually it's mainly set by administration).  The public should know, with more than 3 days notice, what is coming up.  The public should also have input in this process.  Let's make the whole agenda-setting process transparent, eh?  And it should be sequenced before "Consent" items in the agenda.  We'll even start you off with a suggestion: grade inflation.  Let's have a school board table discussion regarding the percentage of kids making the honor roll/perfect 4.0 and how realistic that percentage is.


#4. It's time to return King Culver to the cheap seats.
It's the BOARD table, and he's NOT a board member.  'Nuff said.  Many times Culver has even responded to citizens requesting a response from the BOARD.  He also uses his "Administrator's report" time to poke and jab at public commenters whose comments he doesn't care for.  Bad form!


#5. Reconsider seating at the "administrator" table.
Are we paying administrators to attend?  Giving them "comp" time?  We hope not...because there are a number of them that appear religiously yet never speak a word.  If they are just interested citizens, they too should be in the cheap seats.


#6.  At committee meetings, treat other school board members in attendance the same as any other citizen.
If you've attended one of these meetings, when the chair turns and asks the public for comments, they routinely call individual school board members in attendance FIRST and ask if THEY have any comments.  Excuse us!


#7.  Re-arrange the agenda.
The administrator's report frequently contains some notable news, but more often than not is composed of self-indulgent or "rah-rah" items.  Frankly, it's typically as interesting as week-old turkey tetrazzini.  OK, maybe that was a poor analogy, 'cause we've seen some interesting developments in week-old anything.    The administrator's report needs to be moved to the back of the bus, with "Board member reports".


#8.  Votes of abstention should be reserved for those situations where a board member has a direct or perceived conflict of interest in the subject at hand.
No more of this ridiculous, "How many Yes votes does it take? Oh...I abstain!" crap.  VERY poor form.


#9. Streamline the meetings.  
On any business item, the routine should be: 1.Once --not twice-- around the table.  2. Be brief with your comments, board members.  3. Ask for public input. 4. Bring it back to the board, but only ask for any final comments (raise hands), rather than going around the table again.


#10.  Stop the closed-door shenanigans.
Look...we KNOW that more goes on in closed board sessions than is legally allowed.  STOP IT!   You can't possibly think that you're so clever that we aren't aware of the violations occurring.  Hell, the whole public knew all the silliness that went on behind the scenes with the Pool Manager hiring.  Newsflash, Ms. Diedrich...you can't change your vote once you've cast it in public session. 

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

ONE MEEEEL YUN DOLLARS!

The Sun Prairie Area School District general budget for 2010-11 is about $73M.
You know the old adage....what does "a million of [something] look like"?
Here's what ONE MILLION DOLLARS buys (or what costs $1M) in the school district:


  • The combined salaries (excluding benefits) of the top 9 highest paid administrators: Culver, Frei, Dawes, Luessman, Mikula, Hery, Murphy, Heipp, Ruggles)
  • The combined salaries (excluding benefits) of all 28.5 administrators for July - Nov, 2010
  • The combined salaries (excluding benefits) of the top 12 highest paid teachers
  • The district cost -- for ONE MONTH -- of Health Insurance ($936,250)
  • The 2010-11 district cost for Dental Insurance
  • The budgeted amount which state aid exceeds cost (aka "profit") of the 4K program in 2011-12
  • The 5 YEAR busing cost to transport 4 year olds to the 4K program (currently 133 kids) 
  • The District budget for "General Supplies" for the 2010-11 school year
  • The budgeted sum of "Extra-curricular" and "Summer School" salaries paid to district staff above and beyond their regular pay for 2010-11 (actually $1.1M)
  • ONE TENTH of the 2010-11 district payment for Capital Debt
  • 0.6% of the total district debt ($171M) as of June 30, 2011.
  • The Capital Projects (building maintenance) budget for 2010-11
  • The budgeted district cost for electricity for 2010-11
  • SIX MONTHS of  budgeted district cost for SUBSTITUTE teachers for 2010-11

Monday, December 27, 2010

Please Don't Go!!!

We understand that board member David Stackhouse is pondering whether or not to turn in papers for re-election.  We'd miss him.  After all...he provides so much fodder.


Most recently, at the Dec. 20th school board meeting, the subject was advertising in the schools.  Board member John Welke commented regarding an e-mail that all board members had received from "a citizen" (it was from none other than SP-EYE).  
Stackhouse commented to the effect that, he...
"...doesn't give any consideration to e-mails that don't identify the sender."
And THAT's what we love about Stackhouse.
He knows darn right well who SP-EYE is....after all....his good buddy Monte Couch has made it clear in e-mail and in the newspaper that "SP-EYE is none other Rick Mealy".   We even reported it ourselves!  (http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2009/05/sp-eye-aint-monte.html )  And Stackhouse is copied on all Monte's hodgepodge of correspondence (uh oh...hope that won't turn on the legal threats tap again!!!).


David...you even e-mailed us directly to specifically suggest we use Billy Joel for your "celebrity look-a-like".   How come you knew who to e-mail it to, but suddenly you forget who SP-EYE is?  A little senility creeping in?  


Remember the old Trix rabbit?  Silly David, nice of you to pontificate...but the whole world knows who "runs" SP-EYE...so it doesn't become you to play coy now.  But...that being said...we love the opportunity to point out how ridiculous your chest-puffing is/was.  Don't hate on the player...hate the game, baby.


The school district world is a much funner place with you in it...especially after you started voting against McCourt, McWhalen, and McDiedrich because you weren't voted into an officer position.   So here's hoping you file your candidacy papers.  Go on...you KNOW you like the limelight!


Note: While we would love to lay claim to all the intelligence and tidbits we post here, we maintain what we have maintained from the get go.  SP-EYE may well be written by one individual...but we rely on the eyes and ears of the many of you who have supplied us with critical intelligence to truly know the details of what's going on inside the district core.  And we thank you all for your continuing contributions.  Without you, SP-EYE would not be nearly as strong.  And the community would not be so well-informed.

4K Transportation: What Kind of Accounting is this?

In December 2008, district administration presented the school board with its budget for the costing of the new 4 year old kindergarten program (SP4K).
Year 1 (2009-10) projected transportation costs (busing): $50,000
with projected increases of 4% per year.  Notably, this is the budget which was approved by the school board in agreeing to implement 4K.


In October 2009, a revised "estimate" was generated (with no fanfare, despite a 150% increase over the projection 10 month prior:  $125,000.  Neither the school board (nor the public) was informed of the severity of the under-budgeting of the 4K transportation costs.  The cost was buried within routine "budget adjustments".


Actual cost for 2009-10:  $ 259,848
Projected Cost for 2010-11: $ 261,124


How does a projection of $50,000 swell to $125,000 in just 10 months and then again to $261,000 ?
That's an under-budgeting of 500%!


Phil Frei's answer:
"Well....we don't just budget for a program...like we don't budget for the cost of the science program"


Um...Phil....the problem with your logic is that it's not logical.  Science is PART of an entire curriculum which is and always has existed.  The SP4K was a NEW addition to the school district.  As would be expected of ANY new curriculum, an accurate accounting is required.  Being off by a factor of 5 just doesn't cut it.


If we're off this much for the SP4K busing, maybe that explains how we wound up with a surplus of nearly $3M AFTER the community voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M.


Hmmm...the original budget called for a $600K deficit for 2009-10, a $300K "profit" (surplus) for 2010-11, and a $1.3M "profit" for 2011-12.  


Our questions:
1. Would the board have approved the 4K program had they know that transportation would cost FIVE TIMES as much as projected?  With up to a 60 minute (each way) ride time?
2. Whatever happened to the concept of "fidelity to funding"?  If we are "making a profit off of 4K....why should there be a 60 minute ride time for 4 year olds?  Oh ...wait...we know...because they want to use the "surplus" for other things.


We're hoping Governor -elect Walker has his radar screen focused on DPI and state aids as well as he has it focused on nailing state employees.

Monday, December 20, 2010

WHO Ordered the Code Red?

We have heard multiple reports from sports fans that there's some spanky new scorer's tables in use this year.  Nice tables, but apparently some part of them are being covered up.
Whatcha got hiding under that sheet?
Wouldn't happen to be a Pepsi logo, now, would it?


Enquiring minds want to know:

WHEN were these tables purchased? (how soon before/after the board decision on Pepsi contracts)
With WHAT money? (referendum funds? Fund 10?)
WHO authorized the purchase?
HOW much did they cost?
WHAT are we going to do with them if they have Pepsi logo (which we should NOT be displaying)?




...and Visions of Sugar Plums (???) Danced in their Heads

What are our school board members and top administrators hoping to find under their holiday trees this year?

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Statewide, School Portion of Property Taxes Rises 3.4%

In a report by the Wisconsin State Journal, the school portion of property taxes increased 3.4 percent this year. This represents the smallest change since taxes dropped a half a percentage point in 2006.

The average school tax rate is $9.11 for every $1,000 in property value. That is up 55 cents from last year.
The report says part of the reason for the increase is a 3 percent drop in the value of property taxed.
Nearly $4.7 billion was levied in taxes by school districts this year. That is 1.6 percent below the maximum that could have been sought under the law.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/article_2d1010a8-0ac8-11e0-9602-001cc4c03286.html

Pint-Sized Passengers -- Hefty Cost

The School Board will review SP4K busing tomorrow night.

This started out as a simple issue...a parent complained (rightfully) that their 4 year old was spending 2 hours a day on a bus for about 2.5 hours of instruction.  But...as with many school board issues, this one became another bloomin' onion....the more layers you peel away, the more information that comes clear.

Notable facts:

1. We, the people, and the school board were sold a bill of goods with the 4K program.  We were told that busing costs were projected (and budgeted) to be about $50K.  The number of students is as projected, yet the busing costs are FOUR TIMES higher than projected at just under $200K per year.

2. The cost to bus each student is a whopping $1963.34 per year, which is just more than FOUR times the average cost to bus a K-12 student.

3. There are FOUR times fewer kids per bus than for K-12 kids.

4. Here's the silver tuna...the school district expects to make a profit of about ONE MILLION dollars off the 4K program.  Shhhhh...keep that one under your hat.  They don't want YOU to know that...and they certainly don't want Scott Walker to find out that DPI is giving out $1M more for 4K than the program actually costs ...for ONE district

WTF?

Didja Miss Us?

We're baaaaaaa- aaaack!

Sorry folks....had to take a time out to deal with some family medical issues.
Some of you probably think we deserve a time out for other  reasons :)

Not to worry...there's always stuff brewing in the SPASD....and we'll bring you what we know