Signage From The Frontlines

Regardless of one's position on the issue, you have to admire some of the creativity. We're not representing either side of the issue here; nor do we agree with the messages...just offering a smattering of favorite signs.

Open Meeting Violation?

We hear the following from a community resident:

Neither tonight's meeting nor the negotiations meeting tomorrow have been properly noticed in the Star.  I called the Star this morning to see if I overlooked it.  The person I talked to verified that there were no notices and said they must have made the request too late to make the deadline.  I don't think the board can hold a legal meeting.

The issue at hand is: does a public notice have to actually appear in the paper?  Or can the district just SEND it to the paper?  One can argue that with the wide availability of the Internet, by virtue of posting a meeting Notice on the district website (BoardDocs) is sufficient.  The district also posts notices at the District Office.  The District send notices to the library, but we learned recently that the library doesn't always post them.


Last week a similar violation was alleged because notice was not found in the STAR -- the district's official newspaper-- in the usual location (back of section 2, with other notices).  We learned that on this occasion, the STAR published the Notice in question in the "LifeStyles" section.  Seems logical to us (NOT!).


So...at the very least does the district have to consider whether or not the STAR is adequately serving us in its role as the official newspaper?  Should the meetings be cancelled tonight?


The state's Open Meetings Law Guide states the following:

Note, however, that the requirement to provide notice to the officially designated newspaper is distinct from the requirement to provide notice to the public.  If the chief presiding officer chooses to provide notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium, the officer must ensure that the notice is in fact published. 

Culver Blogs About School Closing Last Week

About 315 of 640 members of the Sun Prairie Education Association (SPEA) did not report to work. Of that number, 298 absence requests came in between 8 p.m. Wednesday and 5 a.m.Thursday.


Good Reading.  
Culver's blog about teacher absences due to a "job" action
By the way...
We're hearing that Chris Mertes (STAR editor) has made an Open Records request to obtain the names of all SPEA members who were absent.

An Open Letter to the Community from SPEA

We received this from SPEA this afternoon...
__________________________________________
An open letter to the Sun Prairie Community…

Dear Students, Parents, Educators, and Community Members,

The events of the last week have left many with questions, concerns, and a lot of emotions. In an effort to answer those questions, address those concerns, and help to calm the emotions we are all feeling, I offer a few thoughts:

There are few things in life that are shared experiences. One of those things is going to school. We have all, at one time or another, gone to school. Some had good experiences, some did not – but we have all been in school and been offered a public education. Public education is often a right we take for granted, but our schools and our education system have been built through the struggle of voters, communities, parents, students, and yes – the unions. Collective Bargaining has brought many key components of education to the
forefront from both the union and management side. There are also many benefits that have spilled over into the private sector.

To have great schools, we need three ingredients: great teachers, supportive parents and community members, and students with a desire to learn. Sun Prairie has those things now. We just built an amazing new high school! We are a growing community with eager students who are excited to go to school. Great things are happening in Sun Prairie Schools! And we have great teachers: teachers that have their National Board
Certification, those who are certified in many areas, those who have gotten their Masters Degree. We have so many teachers who put in extra hours before and after school to be sure that their students get to experience the highest level of quality education. Sun Prairie is frequently at the forefront of public education policies, curricula, and educational ideas. We led in the area of multiple settings for Early Childhood services,
and with our 4K program. We are proud of what we have accomplished with the help and support of the community here.

Thursday was a very difficult day for teachers in this district. We believe in and support the excellent schools in Sun Prairie, and we wanted to be with our students. However, we also want Sun Prairie schools to continue to be great. We want to protect the future of the children of this district. Effective teachers’ unions attract great teachers because the great teachers want to work in places where they are respected and appreciated. The union’s right to bargain is a right that allows us to obtain and then maintain the highest quality
education for the students and the future of Sun Prairie.

We understand there is frustration and confusion. We feel it too! For those of us that made the difficult choice to be absent yesterday, please accept our apologies for the inconvenience and hurt that may have caused you and your families. We love our jobs, and we love this community. We hope you will understand that each of us is trying to find the best solutions to these complex problems, and to do what is right. Please know that we continue to need your patience and support.

We have made a commitment to be here for our students going forward and will honor that commitment. We hope you realize that our frustration and subsequent actions on Thursday are focused on Governor Walker’s Budget “Repair” Bill and not the students and community of Sun Prairie. We look forward to continuing the positive working relationships we have had with Students, Parents, Community Members, Administrators, and the Board of Education. Sun Prairie is a great place to live and work, and we want to keep it that way!

The Sun Prairie Education Association

$1.7M on Ashley Field? We Don't THINK So!

You gotta give 'em credit. They keep coming back. Dave Stackhouse is challenging the Energizer Bunny for stick-to-it-iveness. If there was any hope of this folly moving forward, however, it should be abundantly clear by now that Uncle Scottie's 2011-13 Biennial Budget Plan should squash any further flights of fancy. Could we use better locker room area? Sure. We'll concede that one. But under the hack and slash style of our new Governor, the future of education in Sun Prairie --and every school district-- is in jeopardy.   Curriculum has to get 50 yard line seating; athletics gets relocated to the cheap seats. 
 But...just so everyone understands what was proposed....

Total estimated cost: $1,680,000 
Parking...............$ 80,000 
 (OK, so we just got done deconstructing 200 parking spots; now we want to add back in 60???!!!)
Artificial turf.......$823,000 
Locker rooms..........$370,000 
Move ticket booths ...$257,000 
 (Interesting...this is what it was labeled in the situation report, but actually, this cost is for adding 1,000 seats)


Site upgrades/misc....$150,000
-------------------------new ticket booths $40,0000 
-------------------------site paving $50,000 
-------------------------fencing $20,000 
-------------------------general site electrical $25,000 
-------------------------general site landscaping $15,000 

 Another lowball estimate?
The quote from Findorff (interesting...was this bid out?) tells it all, "This budget is conceptual..."  
Haven't we heard this too many times before?  The most recent example is the (now) need for an additional $70,000 worth of bleachers for Summit (baseball) field.  Fool us once, shame on you, but fool us twice....
Where are the costs NOT being mentioned?

Conspicuously absent is the ongoing cost of maintaining--and replacing--the 90,000 sq. ft. of artificial turf. What?  This stuff is so cool it maintains itself?  And never has to be replaced?  Estimates for annual maintenance are approximately $20,000 per year.  There are needs for seam repairs, replacing the "crumb" rubber (typically used), sweeping the field, brushing the field, locating and removing lost metal items (e.g., Chad Ochocinco's missing earring), re-painting lines (yes that still has to happen at least 1-2 times per year).

 one turf maintenance link

Another good turf maintenance reference

Replacement Costs
No, Virginia...artificial turf is not forever..  It must be replaced every 8-10 yrs.  One estimate (2005) suggests that replacement and disposal (not recyclable) of the old turf runs about $7.15 a square foot, for a total cost of about $650,000.  Spread over 10 years, that's $65,000 which needs to be budgeted.   Replacement costs only are at least $4 per square foot (meaning at least $360,000)  [http://www.academysportsturf.com/faqs.php#7].  But what do we do with the old stuff?  There are costs there....that nobody is discussing.
 Bond interest? 
 Assuming we would even have the desire to fund this venture, where are we coming up with $1.7M? Fund Balance? We would have to go to referendum, and even if that passed, there are bond origination charges, and interest as well.  We don't see that factored in.


 "Potential" Stormwater Management Area? 
What part of "climate change" isn't being understood? You think maybe there's a QUESTION about whether or not we'll have to deal with rainfall (and snowmelt) runoff? Natural grass at lease absorbs some water. This plan reduces over 90,000 square feet of potential infiltration. Or is this one of those, "Let's plan on NO COST for stormwater management and then a year from now go "Ooops, we made some miscalculations and we'll need another $200K for an approved stormwater management plan?". Of course, in the interest of business development, maybe Uncle Scottie will no longer require stormwater management plans!
Bottom Line
If there was any board interest in spending any money on Ashley field, Walker's budget plan has vaporized it.  

SP Alum Gains Fame!; Oh Yeah...Didja Hear About the Budget Repair Bill?

Yes, loyal readers, SP-EYE is well aware that Governor Walker's thinly veiled attack on collective bargain rights--hiding behind the title, "Budget Repair Bill"-- has launched massive, soon-to-be unprecedented, protests at the Capitol.  We happen to have obtained a few personal cellphone images of the rallies.


Oddly enough, the protests have served to swing the fickle finger of fame's spotlight onto one Sun Prairie alum (Class of 2005), whose video montage of the protests is apparently "going viral":
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/19/viral-video-the-view-from-the-front-lines-of-the-wisconsin-protests/.    Congratulations to Matt Wisniewski!


Oh...you wanna know what we think about the situation?
Well...since we just happen to be intimately familiar with the situation from the eyes of the state worker, we think our position is fairly clear.  There's simply no need to pillage unions to balance a budget.  Busting unions is not the answer.  Scott Walker and the Republicans (is that great band name?) have labelled public employees the "HAVES" and private sector workers the "HAVE NOTS".  We're not going to argue the point, we think the following article does a good job of making an unbiased analysis:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d4093848-3c92-11e0-ac18-001cc4c03286.html

What we will say is that this is precisely what we have been warning the school board and school district for years.  It wasn't ONLY state employees "bloated" bennies that put the state in the mess it's in.  Again and again we've advocated for injections of fiscal conservatism.  To no avail.  But, I think we have people's attention now.  Now we are ALL in it: teachers, unions, state, municipal, and county workers.
And this is only the Budget REPAIR Bill.


On March 1, we will hear Walker's 2011-13 biennial budget plan.  Our sources indicate that among others, DPI will see a cut of $900 MILLION to $1 BILLION dollars.  That translates to a reduction in state equalized aid of approximately $500 per student.  In a typical year, state aid INCREASES by about $200 per student.  SPASD has about 7,000 students.  Do the math.


It means CUTS, people.  Deep, and mortal wounds to positions and programs.  Oh...and definitely no more sea bass dinners (Ahem!).
Stay tuned.

HR Position Tabled AGAIN-- Whalen Putting $$ Where His Mouth Is

In his 5-year tenure with the school board, has John Whalen EVER seen an expenditure he couldn't pass up? Has he EVER used the word "cut" in a sentence that didn't have food as its subject? At Monday's school Board meeting, Whalen surprised us all. Apparently he is SO convinced that hiring a new Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist position (to the tune of $75-80,000 in salary and benefits) is the the preeminent panacea to solve the district's growing diversity puzzle--- that he used the "C" word.  

“This is an item that I am willing to support right now.  I am willing to cut other items in order to make it work. We have talked about this for a long time, we can continue doing that, but it is an item I feel like I need to put my money where my mouth is, and I’ll support it again.”
---Board President John Whalen

Whalen's voting buddy Jim McCourt used the "C" word during a plea to support an earlier agenda item.
"We need to cuts somewhere else to [implement the district's new AVID program]"
---Board Treasurer Jim McCourt

How did other Board members react?


We have to start taking action on this.  Our track record [for recruiting and retaining teachers of color] is abysmal, and I think we have to make it better. Regardless of what happens in the budget, we are going to have turnover of teachers. We have turnover of teachers every year. I think we have got to get this person in here now and not wait.”
---Jim McCourt

"I was against this before and I haven't seen anything to change my mind."
--David Stackhouse

"I encouraged bring this forward, but as I look through the action plan, a lot of the things we've tried have not been overly successful.  I'm not sure throwing a position with no sunset date will fix it.  I, too, would like to postpone [this decision]."

"A couple of you  have talked about cuts; I look forward to hearing them on Monday [Feb. 21st, scheduled School Board Work-study session on the budget]."

--- John Welke

"I'm not going to vote for it tonight.  There's too much uncertainty [in the state budget picture].

---Board Vice President Terry Shimek

“I still am uncertain as to how hiring one person is going to change the culture of our school district.  We need to be looking at exit surveys. We don’t need to hire someone to do that. We should have that in place right now.  The last thing I want is to turn around and say we don’t have the money to support the position, and we need to let you go.  That is the worst thing we need."
---Jill Camber-Davidson

_______________________________________________________________________
(3rd) MOTION: TO POSTPONE ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 28 SB MEETING

Motion by Terry Shimek, second by John M Welke. Final Resolution: Motion Carried

In Favor: Caren Diedrich, Jill Camber Davidson, John M Welke, Terry Shimek

Opposed: David Stackhouse, Jim McCourt, John Whalen

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

(Note1: Don't be misled by Stackhouse voting against postponing the motion.  He clearly does not support hiring the position.  We believe his vote reflects a desire to vote the position down and be done with it.)

(Note 2: In  Caren Diedrich's characteristic tradition for zaniness, she initially made the motion to approve the position.  Then --after seeing that wouldn't be flying---she withdrew her original motion and made a second motion to postpone the issue until the board's March 14th meeting.  That motion failed on a 2-5 vote.)

The 2011 Winner of the "I'm Gonna Take My Basketball and Go Home Award" Goes To...

....School Board Treasurer Jim "SeaBass" McCourt.   McCourt seemed a tad grumpy Monday night as more informed school board members seemed to hesitate before writing any more big checks.  McCourt, on the other hand seems poised to continue his "Damn the struggling taxpayers, let's spend money" ways.  When it appeared that yet another motion he supported was going down in flames, there was an underlying tone in McCourt's voice as he stated,

"We seem to be stopping...just waiting to see what happens...how do you run a school district [that way]?"
--Board Treasurer Jim McCourt

Where's PhilDough?

The OurDough pants have quietly been getting quite stuffed as the fiscal year progresses to its conclusion June 30th.  We all saw the budget that was presented/approved last October.  What we didn't see then, and haven't heard since, however, is what the district is planning on doing with all the unexpected windfalls.  To name just a few:

• Administrative raises: Budgeted for 2%; "only" awarded 1%...where's dough from the difference? 
• Administrative health insurance premium: Budget  increased the employee share...where's that dough?
• Administrative Support raises: Budgeted for 2%; "only" awarded 1%...where's that dough? 
• Administrative support health insurance premium: Budget  increased the employee share...where's that dough?
• Local 60 raises: Budgeted for 2%; "only" awarded 1%...where's that dough? 
• Budgeted/unfilled staffing.......where's that dough?
• Staff replacement savings...where's that dough?
• ~$200,000 from sale of the home construction project...where's that dough?
• If Walker's plan goes through there will be at least $1M in "savings" THIS year ...where will that dough go?

Only "PhilDough" Frei knows.  He keeps filling pockets in his OurDough pants.  Can you find Phil and  Our Dough?

Valentine's Day Spend-A-Thon!

Vanilla after vanilla school board agenda.  An occasional spark, here and there but generally Dr. Feelgood style happycrappy.  That's the way school board business has been for several months.  Then.... just as many folks will be [very happily with absolutely no reservations whatsoever] celebrating the joys of Saint Valentine with their significant other...BAM! ZAP! WOW!   School board got that Boom Boom Pow!  


Just seems a tad fishy that all of a sudden we have this jam-packed agenda for both FTT and the full board...on a night where many folks have reservations elsewhere.  Really! Really, JohnE?  This meeting couldn't have been moved up a day...or the agenda covered at another meeting?  Really?  The board continually cajoles community residents for showing up at board meetings instead of appearing first at the committee level.  Did you folks even LOOK at that FTT agenda and all the multitude of big ticket items being discussed?


These are some of the hot issues that will be discussed:
Kobussen Contract (School Board)
Isn't this interesting!  First this appeared as an "addendum" to a $10M contract.  Now it's termed "revisions".  Addendum? Hah!  The only reason for this "addendum:" is that the original contract was prepared and signed without the original --critical-- addendum which determines transportation costs.  Is that what we get from $35.00+ per hour staff?  Board member John Welke was the only board member that requested a critical legal review of the revisions.  Welke rightfully questioned if the district had the authority, based on the original contract language, to solicit other, less expensive carriers for the 4K program.

 “The contract is ambiguous. If the District does not get prior consent or agreement from Kobussen but acts unilaterally, Kobussen could object and assert that contracting with another vendor constitutes a breach of contract. Thus, unless the District has prior agreement or approval from Kobussen, then contracting for transportation from another vendor could expose the district to litigation with uncertain outcome”.
---SPASD legal counsel Bill Fahey on whether the district could use other options for 4K transportation

Contract Extension for District Administrator Tim Culver
This is a waste of time.  Legally, by failing to act prior to January 31, 2011 (at least nothing was ever done PUBLICLY), the contract defaults to an extension through June 2013.  The big question though...is what aren't we seeing?   What decisions have been made behind closed doors regarding Culver's 6 contract proposals?
New HR position
Perhaps 'nuff said...but is this the time to add administrative new staff?  And is this ONE individual going to really effect change where 3 years of intra-district efforts have not?
New baseball stands for Summit Field
The situation report doesn't appear to 1tell the whole story.  We hear from reliable sources that the reason for spending $70K on new bleachers (hell..we haven't even used the original "new" ones yet!) is that the view from the ones we bought is largely blocked by the above ground "dugouts".  Apparently somebody had the brilliant notion that if they call 'em "dugouts" they must be below ground and therefor wouldn't block views from the grandstands. Hmmm...whodathunk?  Genius!    Now, of course, somebody wants to spend $70K MORE of the $900,000 leftover from construction.
Ashley Field
Like the Twilight saga...this story just seems to keep building.  Now the pricetag is up to $1.7M.  Of course they at least determined that at $2.3M, it would cost too much to make changes to the new high school field.  Is this school board incumbent for re-election David Stackhouse's swan song?  Is he looking for HIS legacy?  How about we all stop looking for our own leg-acies and start trying to get an academic LEG UP on other school districts?
District Office remodel: $70,000
OK...enough with the fat cat office remodel, eh?  We already have gold name plates on doors fro cry eye!  When does it stop!
Secured Door Access
Here's an item that at least makes sense...securing the buildings for our students.
Our Particular Favorite...New Diving Boards.
OK...so they only cost $3,400.  So we should just do it, right?  EXCUSE US!  We BOUGHT--and had delivered over a year ago--- brand spanking new diving boards that even the district says meet WIAA standards.  Except....and this is good...so give us a drum roll for effect...the diving boards aren't the "preferred ones" used for competitions.  So...the threat is that if we don't replace them, we may not be able to host competitions. So...let's just replace perfectly good, brand new diving boards...right?  We don't freakin' think so!  You want new/better boards?  Then make a stink with the contractor who purchased the ones we have.

Newsflash! School Board To State The Obvious!

On Monday, the school board is poised to extend District Administrator Tim Culver's contract for yet another year, through June 2013.  What has us scratching our heads is...what's the point?  As part of the LAST time the board adjusted Culver's contract (last September), there was (as there has been) a little clause that states:

This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2012-2013 school year unless either the Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2011.

Dear school board...you may want to check the calendar...that contractual deadline passed 2 weeks ago.  Legally you already extended the contract by fiddily... (ooops, nevermind)...er...by not taking any action to NOT extend the contract [pardon the double negative].


It's s done deal.  So why waste taxpayer dollars sending the contract to be reviewed--scratch that---to be WRITTEN by a law firm.  You crossed out and replaced like 50 letters.  What exactly did that genius move cost us?  That editing couldn't be done by one of our secretarial staff?


Adding insult to stupidity...your open records bumbling suggests that we'll be seeing YET ANOTHER revision to his contract in the very near future.  Which required even MORE legal staff time.


We may be a tech savvy district, but someone forgot that Microsoft Office stores key information about a document in its "properties".  Ooopsies!   What we can now tell speaks volumes:

1. The contract document was written by Godfrey & Kahn (district legal counsel).  Why are they WRITING a contract instead of just REVIEWING it?
2. The total editing time for this monumental contract change was exactly 19 minutes.  Hmm...wonder what we paid in legal fees for that?  Our staff couldn't change a couple of dates?
3. The contract was last "saved" 12/15/2010.  That means that it has been  available for TWO MONTHS!  Why hasn't action been taken?

Here's a question SOMEONE should be asking:   Why was Culver's contract extension sent to legal to edit without even stopping for a moment to think when board president John Whalen and the district balked against having legal counsel review a $10 MILLION "addendum" to the district busing contract????


And here's a follow-up question....How does "addendum" fit as a descriptor for a contract that was carved up pretty heavily both internally and by legal counsel?  Hell...it's not even a revised contract anymore...it's better defined a s a whole new contract!!!


But you keep on rockin', school board.  Because precious few care enough to come to your meetings and tell you differently.  Many residents are indeed asleep at the switch until tax bills arrive.  And many others believe that calling you and e-mailing you won't change your minds.  Once you drink the KoolAid, you're unreachable.


Your action Monday will merely state the obvious.  Do you REALLY have time for such foolishness?

Nothing Else Works? Throw a Position at It!

On Monday night the school board will vote whether or not to hire a new "Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist at a salary of $55,000 per year (plus about $25,000 in benefits).  The goal of this position is to:

"...work to identify minority candidates through outreach efforts within the community and the broader employment market, and then work with Principals and the candidates to increase the diversity in our applicant pools.  This individual with also work with our current minority employees to establish support groups to provide ongoing connections with the larger school community designed to increase employee retention."

Since August of 2007, the school district has engaged in a plan to increase minority recruitment (and retention).  Despite action taken to date, it has been related by HR Director Annette Mikula, that the sum total of efforts yielded 1 minority hire out of 40 new hires this past year.


What has never been shared with the public....and one can likely surmise why....is how many minority hires have "left the building" for one reason or another in recent years.  Is too tall an order for even the legendary little Dutch boy?


While we fully support the goal of a more diverse workforce to better reflect the diversity of our community and school district, we have some concern that we're just throwing a position at a problem.  Our question is a simple one:
 "How can ONE individual-- in a school district of about 1,000 employees and 7,000 students-- repair what 3 years of efforts could not?"

It seems that we need to repair the intra-district culture before we continue with any plan.  As Yoda might opine, one person cannot a culture change.  What's the plan if this doesn't work out?  Is there an exit strategy?

Slidin' One Between The Pads!!!!

Forgive us readers, for we have whiffed one.
Thanks to a dear reader for pointing out that the District snuck one past the goalie.  We were asleep at the switch.  We have no excuse.

It is indeed worth noting that very quietly, as part of the one year contract for Local 60, one teensy weensy little  "adjustment" occurred.  The Secretary for athletics programs got "re-classed" to a higher salary level than every other secretary in the district except Tim Culver's personal secretary. Yes, sports fans, it seems we have further evidence to support that education takes a way back seat to sports in Sun Prairie.

While we're certain the district made arguments to support this change, we wonder if any board members really did their homework and checked to see where this little "bump" placed the Athletics Secretary in the grand salary matrix scheme.  We also could make the case that other secretaries have just as significant a workload or duties.

Whalen Shoots.....He BORES!

School Board president John Whalen has responded to community resident Roger Fetterly's Open Records request.  For the second time, Fetterly's request has been denied.  What exactly is Whalen hiding?  Clearly he fears the public being informed.  Whalen's response is a beaten road. It's tired. It lacks imagination.  Frankly, it's boring.
_____________________________________

TO:    Roger Fetterly

FROM:  John Whalen, School Board President

DATE:  February 8, 2011

RE:    Open Records Request

Roger:

Thank you for your email of February 7, 2011, to me.  In your email, you renew your previous open records request from January 23,2011. That request was to inspect a document you referred to as “6 Employment Contract Proposals” that Dr. Culver submitted to the School Board for its consideration. When I responded to your earlier request on January 24, 2011, I confirmed the existence of the document, but I declined your request to inspect the document at that time. We have consulted with legal counsel in regard to your request.  Our response to your renewed request is the same as when we previously responded. We decline to release the requested record for inspection at this time.

The process of negotiations between Dr. Culver and the School Board has not concluded. The Board continues to work with Dr. Culver to address possible changes to his employment contract with the School District under Section 118.24, Wis. Stats. This matter differs significantly from the release of labor union initial proposals referenced in your most recent email as those proposals, from each party, are required to be presented in an open session under Wisconsin law. See Section 111.70 (4) (cm) 2. Wis. Stats. No such requirement exists for administrative contract negotiations. 

As stated in my earlier email to you, we do not believe that it is appropriate, at this time, to release the requested material while these negotiations are in process. Contrary to your assertion I have considered the public interest in allowing the inspection of the requested material versus the public interest in allowing the school board to complete its statutory responsibility under Section 118.24 Wis. Stats. to contract with a school district administrator.

To release the requested material at this time, would unduly interfere with the negotiation process. In particular:

1.      The release of this information at this time would discourage the free and open exchange of contract ideas between the Board and it primary administrative officer, said exchange being essential to the success of the negotiation process.

2.      The release of the information at this time would negatively affect the negotiation environment by subjecting the process to outside influence by persons and or groups who are not a party to the contract, and this in turn may negatively impact discussions that are essential to completion of the process..

Withholding this information, at this time, is supported by Section 19.85(1)(c) and (e), which are indicative of public policy where I have, as here, made a specific demonstration that there is a need to restrict public access at the time the request to inspect the record is made.  See Section 19.35(1)(a), Wis. Stats.

The record information that you have requested will be available once the negotiation process described above is concluded.  The records are not, however, available at this time, given the ongoing process of negotiation.

The law requires that I inform you that, because your request for a record was made in writing, our determination to not release the record at this time is subject to review by mandamus under Section 19.37(1), Wis. Stats., or upon application to the Attorney General or a district attorney.  See Section 19.35(4), Wis. Stats.

Thank you for your continuing interest in the Sun Prairie Area School District.

5903749_1

_____________________________

Whalen's playing a dangerous game here...virtually daring someone to challenge his decision.  It certainly appears that this is WHALEN'S decision...not that of the board.  As usual...we have so very many questions...


1. If the "negotiations" are not complete...and since there are no closed sessions scheduled between now and the board meeting on Monday Feb 14th...then Culver's contract cannot be part of the agenda...right?


2. So...let us get this straight...Whalen can't share Culver's proposals because it would subject them to "outside influence".  EXCUSE US!  But aren't WE the ones that the board represents?  Don't WE have a right to know what exactly the board is negotiating FOR US?


3.  Does anybody else feel like this is just a little too cozy?  After a closed door session 2 weeks ago, NOTHING has transpired.  That doesn't exactly sound like "active negotiations".  Anyone else smell what we smell?  That maybe Whalen has contracted the same disease as Terry Shimecchio?   Do we now have John Whalenocchio?  


4. Releasing the proposals would discourage "free and open exchange of contract ideas"?  A sphincter says "WHAT"?  Is what Whalen saying that if the public knew the proposals being considered by the board then board members' ears would be ringing from all the negative calls they'd receive?


5. Is this a board decision?  Or a unilateral Whalen decision.  Are there any board members out there who feel that Whalen is on shaky ground (to say the least) and will cough up the requested documents?  You have our e-mail address.   Paging AG Van Hollen...your involvement is requested! 


We think that this laundry is a tad malodorous.

Ed Jobs Act Funding update

Thanks to a loyal reader for pointing out this article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online.
Clearly some districts have held onto a lot of the Ed Jobs money.  Sun Prairie has about $1,000,000 remaining.  How will it be used?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/115072454.html

Cart Before the Horse...Again?

Tomorrow night the HR Committee will discuss --again-- the hiring of a new position...a Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist.  The concept of the position is, and has been, quite good.  The main stumbling block that does not appear to have been removed is:  What is the plan for this position?  How can one individual single-handedly change the culture of a 1000-staff, 7,000 student school district?


This is the 3rd time the position has been discussed.  Each time, it failed not only for lack of funding, but also because the grand scheme has never been revealed.  Last fall, HR Director Annette Mikula related that of 40 new hirees, only one new teacher (2.5%) was not Caucasian.   Currently the district’s student population is about 25 percent students of color, while the staff population is 6 percent employees of color.

RECOMMENDATION:

Hire a 1.0 FTE, 260 day per year, Human Relations and Recruitment Specialist for the remainder of the 2010-11 school year as soon as practical using the attached job description so that we will be able to build a program to address the diversity of our workforce within the SPASD.  This position would be in the Administrative Support Staff group at a salary of $55,016.00 ($26.45 per hour) per school year.  The funding will come from the un-spent, unallocated FTE that is currently in the 2010-2011 budget

Key Aspect from the District's"Minority Recruitment Plan" 

Tasks/Action Steps

13.  Propose a district level position with an emphasis on minority recruitment and retention. Responsibilities 

Executive Director of Human Resources Management Team

Resources 

$42,9000 salary and benefits with a January 2009 start date

(2 years later and with our booming economy, the proposed salary increases 28.2% to $55,019

Timeline

Ongoing with potential budget proposal for November 2008

Questions:

1. District Commitment

If this is such a major need position....and given the single-handed responsibilities, why is it considered "Administrative SUPPORT"?  And why is the pay roughly equivalent to that of the district communications manager ($26.19 per hour as of the 2009-10 school year).   Doesn't the position description seem rather monumental?  While we're sensitive to salary costs...does  the salary reflective of commitment?

"--Develops and implements a plan to promote the cultural competence and educational practices of employees creating an inclusive learning environment for all students.
--Develops and presents new initiatives in the area of minority and high need recruitment, retention, and career development"

---- from the HR Committee's Position Description

2. Where's the Plan, Stan?

As usual, the district offers no specifics....even after the board voted against hiring this same position last fall BECAUSE of the lack of a plan in place.

“I see the need, I see the value. It seems like we’re moving very quickly without a goal in place. I sit here with a bit of uneasiness because there doesn’t seem to be a comprehensive plan to address the issue... 

The biggest conflict I have is the budget and funding on it. The other piece of it is where have we been and where are going. I don’t have that today. If I don’t support it, it’s not because it’s not a good idea. I want to make sure we have all the pieces in place.”

-----John Welke (Sun Prairie STAR 9-30-10

Do we need to better match the diversity of our district staff and teachers to that of our students?  Unequivocally, YES.  That being said, however, the district tends to attempt to solve all of its problems one-dimensionally:   Let's throw a position at it!  The grim reality is that once a person is hired, it ceases to become a position, and instead becomes a real human being.  What if the plan doesn't come to fruition?  Do we then sever ties and send this individual packing?  It's precisely this question why board member John Welke is correct to be cautious about leaping into something without a concrete plan.  Perhaps there IS a plan...but if there is...the sun hasn't shone upon it.

Perhaps more to the point, there have been numerous side discussions that suggest that the district culture is not exactly inviting to individuals of more diverse cultural backgrounds.  These of course are sensitive discussions that the district would prefer to keep solidly locked in the dirty laundry closet.  But....these cans of worms have to be opened and not allowed to fester.  If the 3rd time is the charm, and the board decides to hire this position, the individual has to have a fighting chance of success.  Many quietly believe that old Sisyphus had a better odds.

Lastly, the inquiring public is interested in knowing of the success we have had to date with our minority recruitment and retention efforts.  A Recruitment Specialist is designed to bring minority hirees into the fold.  But then it's up to the district to have a commitment to giving these individuals the necessary tools to succeed. There have been reports of minority hirings only to have those teachers contracts not renewed.  That would be disconcerting if there is any element of truth to those rumors.  Unfortunately, we haven't seen any data from the district regarding the RETENTION of its minority hires.  Seems like that would be a good place to start.  Before we forge ahead, we need to know the level of carnage already in our wake.  

GO PACK GO

House Sold...But Where Does the $$$ Go??

Agenda Item Details

Meeting Jan 27, 2011 - SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING  6:00 p.m. at the District Office (Room 220), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie. 

Category New Business 

Subject Sale of house at 1306 Crossing Ridge Trail (Construction Trades Program) 

Type Action

We understand that LAST YEAR'S home construction house has been sold.  Rumors suggest that the amount was around $220,000, which would represent break-even considering instructor time.  That's what we want to be doing... breaking even while providing a great opportunity for kids.


Costing for last year's home building project

The question is....what do we do with un-budgeted revenues of $200,000?  That would buy a heck of a lot of school supplies and take THAT unsavory burden off of parents next fall.

We say un-budgeted because, like many grants applied for, Phil Frei can't really budget for a revenue for an unknown commodity.   if we don't budget for grant revenues, why would we budget for a home sale...especially in the current housing market. Of course, perhaps a revenue was built somewhere into the budget.  We don't believe so.

Achieving Educational Equity

Caution!  This post contains sensitive subject material.

Let's start right of the chute by stating clearly and unequivocally that we believe parent-school-community organizations (PTOs, PTAs, SCOs, etc.) serve a very necessary and wonderful purpose.   By no means do we wish to incur the wrath (oh, but we will...we will!) of any of these groups.  On the flipside, however, these groups need to thicken their skins just a tad and take a closer look at the "greater good".   While some of these groups are veritable fund-raising machines...others struggle to raise funds for their "neighborhood" school.  Are the groups that raise beaucoup de bucks simply on better financial footing than the rest of the district?  Or, conversely, isn't it conceivable that it's a far more challenging proposition to raise funds from within a school that has a significantly higher percentage of economically disadvantages students (and parents)?

Some SCOs use funds raise to provide field trip funding for kids that couldn't otherwise attend. And that is awesome.  But what about other schools that don't have the same success in fundraising?  Do those kids just have fewer field trips?  

We looked at the 2010-11 Donations list, and zeroed in on how our elementary schools stack up against each other.  Mixed feelings result.  Take a look at Eastside elementary.  Their SCO is doling out funds in Phil Frei Our Dough pants-sized chunks, including $3,250 for "teacher gifts".  What about teachers in other schools?  Chopped liver?  

Clearly, some schools make out pretty well.  Others?  Not so much.  Without intent of "picking" on  any given school, consider the substantial investment in new playground equipment recently purchased for a school from their SCO funds.  That is an awesome and quite generous bounty.  But collectively, we have to look at the bigger picture.  Does this system create a culture of "Haves" vs. "Have Nots" within our school district?

Is there something we can do to better "share" the wealth?
One idea would be to pool the funds raised by all SCOs and then divide the money equally between all schools.  The downside to such an idea, of course, is that--faced with that reality-- some (perhaps many) would choose not to donate at all. Understandably, some want their donation to help their particular child's or "neighborhood" school.

We noticed that it appears only 3 of the 7 elementary schools are benefiting from Target's program to donate 1% of purchases to schools.  All parents have to do is sign up, identify the school of choice, and 1% of every purchase comes back to the school as a donation from Target.  Outstanding!  But...maybe we could tweak it so that monies go to the district rather than a school?  Of course, there would have to be CLEAR accounting to demonstrate that those donations get used at the school level.

Sadly, we can't offer a perfect solution.  But we're hoping it becomes clear that what's going on just doesn't sit well.  We talk about giving every student a fighting chance, but some schools--by virtue of being located in a zone of high affluence-- can fare much better through fund-raising.  But...isn't it the role of the district, and our elected school board, to ensure that there is equity within the district?  That all kids get the same quality education? 

How do we achieve these goals if we aren't doing everything we can to ensure equity across school boundaries? 
-------------------------

Afterword
To those parents and residents who have donated or aided the cause by buying a ton of really tasty (???) pizzas, popcorn, and other things...we tip our hat to you.  We just ask if that you could step outside your shoes and see the bigger picture.   And we'd like to believe that if it was YOUR child that attended a school with less than stellar fundraising, you'd be concerned.