Election '08: Is Havel-Lang vulnerable?

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

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

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

Havel-Lang controls Community Engagement Task Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Superintendent" Tim Culver stayed awake...

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

See previous post for further detail:

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

Let them eat steak!

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

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

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

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

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



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

School Board candidiates - Summary

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


JILL CAMBER-DAVIDSON
Positives:

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


• Fiscal awareness demonstrated during Finance committee tenure


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

Concerns:

• Can appear shy and reserved.

---

AL SLANE
Positives:

• Brings a fresh perspective


• Engineering & technology skills a plus

Concerns:

• A little too much of a Jim Carrel groupie


• No committee experience; lacks knowledge of board operations

---

TERRY SHIMEK
Positives:

• Familiarity with district operations


• Financial knowledge

Concerns:

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


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


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


• Too familiar with the District Administration?


• No response to League of Women Voters' candidate questionnaire

---

DAVID STACKHOUSE (I)

Positives:

• Experienced (3 yrs)


• Keeps a level head

Concerns:

• Tends to pontificate at times


• Have seen some vote reversals

---

MARY ELLEN HAVEL-LANG (I)


Positives:

• The school board is her life


• Experienced (12 yrs)


• Charming... if you agree with her


• Uses Roberts' Rules as her personal weapon

Concerns:

• The school board is her life


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


• Too cozy with administration


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

---

Sun Prairie School Boundaries Finalized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering that is your charge as we move forward.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

HOUSEKEEPING???

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

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

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

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

Carrel admits deceit; ashamed to be a board member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Hot issues in the Sun Prairie School District

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Board tables boundary recommendation

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

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

Why?
That's a good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to referendum in April for a pool?

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

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

School Board starts 2008 off with drama.

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



Disrespect and abdication of fiscal responsibility

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



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



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



Teachers picket School Board meeting.

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

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

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

What is the "QEO"?

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

5 Candidiates vie for 3 School Board seats

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

Running in addition to Havel-Lang and Stackhouse are:

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

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

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

School Board election season begins

Besides snow and the holidays, December marks that time of year when campaigning for school board seats begins. Nomination papers can be picked up at the school District office. This is a great services and allows the school board to know who exactly might be campaigning to replace one of them or an open seat so they can find their own candidate to maintain the status quo.

Of course, if you'd rather run "under the radar", you do NOT have to get the forms at the School District. You can obtain the necessary forms at: http://elections.state.wi.us/subcategory.asp?linksubcatid=412&linkcatid=526&linkid=295&locid=47

There are 3 seats up this year:
- Mary Ellen Havel-Lang (3 yr)
- David Stackhouse (3 yr)
- Timothy Boylen (note this will only be for 1-year)

This is YOUR chance to change the direction of the board. Please consider running for one of these seats.

The forms you will need to file (due in the school district office by 5:00 January 2) are:

• EB-162 (Declaration of candidacy)
• EB-169 (Nomination Paper for Non-Partisan Office)...requires 100 signatures
• EB-1 (Campaign Registration statement)

School Board sweeping Culver contract issue under the carpet?

It's now been nearly 2 months since it was raised to the School Board's Finance Committee and the School Board that District Administrator Tim Culver exceeded the limits of his contract by charging the school district for his membership to the Sun Prairie Rotary Club.

see: http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/10/school-board-cant-even-make-simple.html

We were told that they'd be "looking into it". Well how long does it take to look? The facts are clear.

• Culver is limited to 2 paid memberships (which he already receives)
• The Rotary Club is a great service organization, but it doesn't meet the specifications of the contract.

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/08/district-administrator-tim-culvers.html

• Culver gets paid close to $150,000 per year including some nice monthly per diem expenses! You'd think he could afford to open his wallet and let the dead presidents see the light of day!
• The School Board approves quarterly checks to pay for his dues and meals at meetings (despite the fact that the meals should be covered out of his per diem pay).

Why hasn't this question from the public been answered?

Our crystal ball is clear on this one. We figure that once the Board figures enough heat has been generated on the issue, they'll discuss it at a meeting and agree to approve the additional expense--and once again violate their own policy--or in this case, an employment contract. We're holding out hope, however, that this might be an instance where at least Caren Diedrich votes against such a decision, citing the taxpayers.

Let the bus aides rule!

As predicted, the FTT vote was 4-1 in favor of hiring bus aides....or rather have Kobussen hire bus aides and charge us $17.00 per hour. The school board on Monday December 3, then voted unanimously (Diedrich and Boylen absent) to seal the deal.

It's so easy to say, "It's for the kid's safety", and therefore who could possibly argue with the decision. Of course, that's the prevailing tactic of our school board and administration. They toss out feel-good buzz phrases to support their decisions in a manner designed to make people think that to disagree would mean that you don't care about the welfare of our children. It's a great tactic, actually. They are to be lauded for their ingenuity.

Our problems with this whole situation is that this is yet another knee-jerk reaction to solve a problem by throwing money at it instead of holding people accountable for their actions. We were told that it's not a good idea to suspend bus privileges of offending students because "if they're not on the bus, they're not in school". True. But there's a word for that. It's called truancy, and it's a legal issue. The school administration cannot serve as surrogate parents, and the taxpayers cannot--should not--bear the fiscal responsibility of the district administration doing so. Parents have an obligation to get their children to school. And if they're suspended from riding the bus, maybe the parents need to spend some quality time with their children pursuing behavior modification techniques.

Another problem is that the school board talks a good game about setting policy, but then they frequently disregard their own policies....unless of course sticking to their policies serves their purpose. Now we have a policy that simply states that the Administration can hire bus aides as needed. This leaves a lot of unanswered questions:

• Why wasn't some other solution considered such as using volunteers--perhaps senior citizens or at-home parents--- and providing property tax breaks in return?
• Since all bus routes have an assigned driver, and the behavior problems affected only 3 of 28 bus routes, did we consider switching bus drivers? Could it be that there are a few bus drivers that have better sills in the discipline management area?
• Who monitors the decisions that bus aides are needed?
• How will we even know if the bus aides are being effective?
• What if we decide that the problem is temporary? Who will make sure that we stop using bus aides when they are not necessary?
• Is one bus aide enough for a bus of 70 kids? Jim Carrel noted that when traveling with the HS band, there are often 3 or more chaperons per bus. Does this open the door for more than one bus aide per bus?
• How soon will it be that, in the name of safety, a bus aide is placed on all 28 routes (at a cost to the taxpayer of $3,000 per route per trip)
• When will this school board as a whole consider the taxpayer?

SP School Board: Let's spend MORE money!!!!!

The school board is looking to enter into an "energy performance contract". This will be in addition to the 4-year contract already in effect for $9000 per month to Energy Education Inc.


A man who was introduced only as "Chuck McGinnis" made a presentation to the School Board's FTT Committee on November 12, 2007. It was interesting to note that Mr. McGinnis never mentioned who he represented. Even his slide presentation contained only his name. Thanks to my good buddy, Yahoo, however, one can quickly discern that Mr. McGinnis works for none other than Johnson Controls. Yes, the very same Johnson Controls that is the employer of School Board member Jim Carrel. To his credit, Mr. Carrel left the meeting during McGinnis' presentation, and no action was taken by the FTT Committee. It is, however, yet another one of those things that makes you scratch your head and ask...who brought this forward as an agenda item? And, why didn't Mr. McGinnis indicate that he worked for and represented Johnson Controls?



What does our $108,000 per year to E2I buy us? Pretty much:

• They required us to hire an "Energy Manager" at about $50K per year+ benefits.
• They tell us that we should turn off lights to save money.
• They tell us to lower our thermostats in the winter and raise them in the summer.
• They tell us to reduce heating and cooling to unused areas.

WOW! I'm definitely in the wrong line of work! If they can charge over $100K per year to a school district...hell, I'll give the same advice for , say, $75K. Nice!

So, now what is an Energy Performance Contract (EPC)? It's a contract for "comprehensive energy efficiency improvements". Entering into an Energy Performance Contract MAY indeed make sense financially for the district. We are concerned however, that such decisions usually come in hindsight, rather than foresight. Sure we could save more money through loan programs and getting professional assitance in terms of what equipment to purchase. But on the other hand, an EPC would cover many of the things the E2I contract already covers, which makes our spending $9000/month (under a binding contract for 2 more years!) seem like a less than stellar move. Why weren't we considering an EPC back then???? And why did we hire an Energy Manager and , recently, an HVAC technician if these folks aren't capable of providing knowledgeable advice on purchasing decisions such as "green" lighting or "on-demand" hot water system vs. hot water heater.

For more about Energy Performance Contracting

• http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/resources/index.html



• http://asbointl.org/ASBO/files/CCPAGECONTENT/docfilename/0000003168/Performance_Contracting_in_K-12_Schools.pdf


• http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/plan/financing/contracts.html

Bus aides?

At a special meeting on Monday November 19, the School Board's FTT Committee will discuss Administration's desire to change policy to allow the use of bus aides and then approve an addendum to the Kobussen contract to allow for Kobussen to hire bus aides for selected routes and charge the District.

The history of "bus aides" goes back to at least to this past September when Human Resources worked out an agreement with Local 60 to create a position entitled "Bus Aide" and a salary schedule. The issue was discussed at the October 1 HR meeting and then again at the November 5 HR meeting. At that meeting, the item was tabled pending review by the FTT.

Why bus aides? The District has been quiet about the issue, but WISC-TV picked up on it and posted an item on their Channel3000.com website on November 14.

www.channel3000.com/education/14589344/detail.html

That item indicated that both District Business Manager Phil Frei and Horizon elementary principal Kathi Klaas were both interviewed and reported that bus aides would be hired for at least 3 routes.

Again, why bus aides? Phil Frei was quoted as saying,

"We've had some issues of horsing around. Sometimes that horsing around gets more serious where kids are bringing a paper clip and threatening kids with a paper clip. So, mostly it's horsing around, but we wouldn't allow that behavior in a classroom, and we don't allow that on a bus."

So all this relates to 6-12 year olds wielding paper-clips? That reminds us of the old Monty Python sketch about teaching self defense against attackers wielding different varieties of fruit.

Instead of just throwing money at an issue, this District needs to settle back and look at what policy, procedures, and the bus contract offer to resolve the situation.

According to the bus contract, the bus driver has complete responsibility for discipline on the bus. He can stop the bus and call Administration or even the police if kids get unduly unruly. By contract, these buses are supposed to have video recorders on board, so we should know who the offenders are and deal with them appropriately. Bus drivers are also required to report any discipline problems to the school principle via a District form. Our policies clearly provide multiple steps, both pro-active and reactive to maintaining discipline on buses. Let's use them!

The big concern here is that this issue has all the earmarks of being a back-door done deal. WISC-TV reported that they received calls from parents who received a letter indicating that bus aides WOULD be placed on buses. Human Resources has been working to hiring bus aides for the district since early September. Phil Frei was quoted on Channel 3000 as saying bus aides WILL be hired. That was later edited to say "MAY" be hired (but only after SP-EYE complained about this FTT meeting being a sham and the decision had already been made.) Both Kathi Klaas and Phil Frei refuted quotes attributed to them by WISC-TV. So the bottom line here is that someone's not telling the whole truth: is it the parents who reported the issue to WISC-TV and "the letter sent home" or is it administration? We don't like to ask these kind of questions, but it seems that the question needs to be asked.

The media may not always get it right...but they never get it all wrong either. Usually the truth lies somewhere in between.

With all apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, "How do I hate this proposal? Let me count the ways."

1. This issue reeks of closed door decision making and done deals.
2. If one reads the bus company contract and our own school district policies, the bus driver is responsbile for discipline on buses...much like the captain of an airplane has authority over discipline of its passengers. Why are we paying extra for responsibilities that the bus company is already contractually obligated to provide?
3. Bus aides' will cost the District over $3000 per school year per route ($6000 for both morning and afternoon trips)...which brings us to ...
4. All the information points to using bus aides "to ensure a safe ride home"...okay...so the kids are only exhibiting bad behavior in the afternoon?
5. It's clear that already a "maximum" of 3 routes have been identified out of 28 total routes. That's a pretty isolated issue.
6. At least one of the routes of "bad behaved students" is elementary school kids (6-12 years old!). Are these kids really behaving badly to THIS degree? Whatever happened to those good old days when a bus driver shot you a look in his mirror and you instantly folded your hands in your lap and zipped your lip???
7. Sure paper clips can be a weapon...but so can anything these kids have: pencils, pens, rulers, backpacks. Come on! Let's stop sensationalizing the issue and hiding behind student safety. What's next....metal detectors before boarding a bus?
8. What is the purpose of video recorders that are by contract supposed to be on each bus? Or are they really there? If they are, then what purpose do the serve?
9. Who's to say these kids will behave just because a bus company provided "aide" is present? If they won't behave for the bus driver, why are we so sure this will work?
10. The school district outlined 14 responses to disciplinary problems on buses last February. Are you telling us that all 14 steps have been tried without succcess and now this "last resort" is necessary?
11. Current policy already provides for suspending bus privileges for bad bus behavior both short and long term. Have we even tried that? When fighting was an issue at the high school, all it took was for Administration to crack done and expel a few offenders to resolve that issue.
12. Why are two separate Administrators talking to the media about this issue and then claiming they were misquoted? Didn't we hire a "Communications Specialist" for this very role? Didn't we just increase this position from 0.5 to 1.0 FTE? Shouldn't all media inquiries have been directed to that person?
13. Why aren't FTT Committee members provided with ALL the information to make an informed decision at their meeting? There's a lot of information that is out there but was not made available to them.

District residents tabbed for legal expenses to defend School Board members

In previous episodes:

• A complaint , alleging violations of Open Meetings Laws, was filed with the District Attorney against school board members Jim Carrel, John Whalen, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang back in early June.
• The District Attorney began reviewing the issue and requested formal response from the School District records custodian, Tim Culver.
• The matter remains open.

District resident Roger Fetterly has monitored the costs incurred for legal expenses. At the October 22nd School Board meeting, he noted that --based on open records requests--the School District has racked up over $14,000 in legal fees, including 27 separate billings related to preparing responses for the school board members named in the violation of Open Meetings law complaint.

Fetterly also correctly notes that these same school board members who serve to benefit from this legal aid provided at tax payer expense have voted to approve the very checks used to pay for their legal defense! That seems to be a question of ethics.

Why is the District automatically paying for the defense of 3 school board members who should know their responsibilities as elected officials?

Section 895.35 of Wisconsin Statutes specifies that

(1) Whenever in any city, town, village, school district, technical college district or county charges of any kind are filed or an action is brought against any officer thereof in the officer’s official capacity, or to subject any such officer, whether or not the officer is being compensated on a salary basis, to a personal liability growing out of the performance of official duties, and such charges or such action is discontinued or dismissed or such matter is determined favorably to such officer, or such officer is reinstated, or in case such officer, without fault on the officer’s part, is subjected to a personal liability as aforesaid, such city, town, village, school district, technical college district or county may pay all reasonable expenses which such officer necessarily expended by reason thereof.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0895.pdf

Why has the school district jumped the gun and paid for all these expenses before a decision has even been rendered?

Why are school board members voting to approve of checks to pay for services from which they will directly benefit?

STAR says: Vote 1. NO 2.yes 3.NO on Sun Prairie High School Referendum

SEE: http://www.sunprairiestar.com/editorial/editorial.html

Question 1 (new 10-12 High School; remodel HS to an 8-9 school)

The remodeling of the high school into a middle school will allow for construction of a larger high school, which we still think could be constructed for 2,400 students (that’s 600 students per grade) until space demands require construction of a second high school in roughly 10 years. That was always part of the district’s long-range planning for its west side piece of land – and our proposal would not change that. That size is consistent with previous editorials regarding this issue – as is the phasing. Of course, west siders want their own high school and will likely turn out against this proposal because of that.

There are plenty of reasons why we think voters will reject the Nov. 6 referendum, but the failure of the district to recognize the community’s desire for one large high school is perhaps the greatest among them. For those reasons, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE NO on Question 1 to authorize borrowing $96 million.

Question 2 (swimming pool for the new high school)

Although [the STAR] believe[s] the vote will be a symbolic one because [the STAR] believe[s] question 1 will go down in flames, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE YES on question 2 to support borrowing $3.325 million for a swimming pool.

Question 3 (exceed revenue cap each year for swimming pool operating costs)

Did the board make the same requirement when the district’s other athletic facilities were constructed? Did it require an exceed the revenue cap question when gymnasiums were constructed to pay for heat, lights and equipment? No. So why then would the school board require taxpayers to pick up the tab associated with the operation of this facility?It’s a question the board needs to answer – and until then, [the STAR] urge[s] voters to VOTE NO on Question 3.

Construction Manager position snakes through school board.

Learned at the annual meeting (Oct. 8th) that the board had held interviews for an selected a Construction Manager for the 7th elementary school to monitor cost control. The position is a good thing. The way that the board went about it however, has a certain stench to it.

SP-EYE asked when the interview meetings were public noticed. On 10-22-07, Phil Frei responded that ,

" Administration was directed by the HR committee and School Board to bring a recommendation to the Board on a Construction Manager for the building projects. Adm. sent out RFP's and set-up interviews with three Construction managers. Adm. asked School Board members if they wanted to sit in on the interviews. This was administrative work, not a meeting of the School Board.

Mary Ellen Havel-Lang and Jim Carrel did sit in on the interviews.

The HR Committee also felt that this should not even be a "real" position, but simply an out-sourced service.

Hmmm. Let's see. When the FTT Committee was interviewing Construction firms for elementary #7 thisa spring, THOSE interviews were public noticed and held during open meetings. Even school board candidates for Jim Gibbs' vacant seat were interviewed during an open session. For such a large project, and for a new position--albeit a "temporary" one-- why was this done so quietly?

School Board can't even make a simple determination.

How many school board members does it take to screw up? Just one. Take your pick.

Over a month ago, SP-EYE asked Jim McCourt, chair of the Finance Committee why Tim Culver's paid memberships exceeded the boundaries set by his contract.

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

McCourt had no answer, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang tried to shut the discussion down, crying "Point of Order!" SP-EYE pressed on and asked why the Finance Committee approved the check to pay for Culver's Rotary dues. McCourt said he would look into it and get back to us. RRRRRRRIIIIGGGGHHHTTTT!

This past Monday, Dr. James Murray asked about the status of the complaint and was told, "We're not going there." So much for open meetings, communicating with the public, and a decisive school board.

How hard is this? You were wrong. Culver over-extended his contract, and someone needs to own up to the responsibility. The dues need to be reimbursed by Culver, and the Board should be demanding it. You can even issue an empty apology for the "oversight". Again...what the hell are you teaching our children???

These "leaders" want us to approve $100M for a referendum, but can't even manage to watch these simple expenses. Gotta wonder how much Sun Prairie is being fleeced on the cost of this referendum.

The opponents of open records are at it again.

Once again some of our leaders are trying to shut down access to information. A cornerstone of open government is open records.

If you've followed any of the recent articles in the Wisconsin State Journal....
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2007/10/03/0710020450.php

...then you are aware that Assembly Bill 418 (AB 418) is an attempt to restrict access to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access system. AB 418 would restrict most people from viewing the web site, which is a repository for court records. The site - wcca.wicourts.gov - describes basic information about civil and criminal charges and convictions in courts across Wisconsin.
The website is popular because it provides regular citizens --us --with a means to obtain information about other key people they encounter and in whom they place trust. For example, just about every parent has some concern about those individuals that interact with their children, such as child-care providers and coaches. It can also aid employers in screening job applicants.

Those with daughters of dating age, knowing this site exists, will undoubtedly check the record of potential suitors to answer questions such as, "Is she safe with him? Is he a safe driver?". Who could deny that information? Others may wish to check out elected officials or those running for election. There have been numerous incidents of elected officials mishandling finances over the year, both criminally and otherwise. Wouldn't it be considered prudent to check out elected officials and political candidates BEFORE problems arise?

Can this system be abused? Yes, absolutely...as can any other system. The point is that these records are OURS. Granted if charges are dismissed, we need to understand the person is not guilty. On the other hand, if the individual is found guilty, then perhaps they shouldn't have done the deed to begin with. You do the crime, you do the time, right?

Sun Prairie is no longer a small town. With growth comes not only positive things but some not so positive ones. Now that we no longer know every face, this site is critical in providing each of us with information about those people that we rely upon to spend our tax dollars wisely or care for our children.

Check it out at:
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl