Showing posts with label 2010 spring elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 spring elections. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Endorsements Are All The Rage...
Yep...it's that time .... anyone who's anyone is handing out endorsements.
Well....maybe it's time that SP-EYE got in the game.
Let's start with a summary look at the candidates...
John Welke
John made a more than respectable run as a write-in candidate last year. Since then, he's kicked it into overdrive. He secured a position as citizen representative on the school board's FT&T Committee, and presented more situation reports than any board member in the past 3 years. This is a guy that not only wants to TALK about the issues affecting Sun Prairie, but also DO something. What he doesn't puff his chest out about is even more credit-worthy. He IS involved in the schools as a WATCHDOG and with the community through youth ministries. In addition, his law enforcement background makes him a top-shelf candidate that is beyond reproach. He's clearly a proactive guy vying to change the operating philosophy of a very reactive board. Welke will demand accountability from district administration and will speak loudly and clearly for board transparency and being good stewards of our tax dollars.
Al Slane
SP-EYE has had a "Love-Like-Wanta Smack Him Upside the Head" thing going with ole Albert. There are many times when Al has stepped up to the plate, and a few others where we want to throttle him--figuratively speaking, of course. Mr. Slane took a brief vacation a few weeks back--first in some time, we understand--and he seems to have come back all re-energized like a US Cellular battery swap. Subsequently, we like what we have seen. The fact that he and his ideas are not getting a lot of love from fellow board members perhaps underscores the merits of his ideas. They want the status quo...and Al seems to be stepping out from their shadows. Good for him. We are very hopeful for Al's future, but need to see a little more from him in terms of making sure that things get on the table and discussed.
Caren Diedrich
When she's not sitting at the board table, Caren is a genuinely likable woman. Unfortunately, when she IS at the board table, the Koolaid flows mightily through her veins. On the one hand, we like that she speaks her mind freely...rather than some other board members that just look at what the majority does and then echo that sentiment. On the other hand, a lot of what she says is really out there. Or...if things don't go her way, she gets a little bit pouty with a "I'm going to take my basketball and go home" 'tude. Case in point the vote this past week regarding the piano. Seeing the other 6 had voted to fund a piano (which she did not favor), Diedrich's response, when called for vote, was , "It doesn't matter...I'm not going to vote". We also have a bit of a problem with her recent statements that she and the board "shut off certain community members when they get up to speak". You may not like their message, Caren, but they ARE community residents and you OWE them your attention. Ms. Diedrich also did not provide any response to questionnaires provided by both SP-EYE and The Isthmus/Dane Co. League of Women Voters. That indicates either a sense of entitlement, or less than valiant effort to be reelected. Neither is good. Finally...we think 12 years of one person's opinion on ANY board is enough.
Jim McCourt
It's abundantly clear that Mr. McCourt would much prefer to be either dining on sea bass or working on his latest business project than putting in even a half-hearted effort on the school board. He misses too many meetings (more than 25%) without a real reason. He's been absent for some of the biggest issues taken up by the board. We simply have too many significant issues to resolve in the district to continue to accept a board member that can, at best, offer only 3/4 of his attention. Like Ms. Diedrich, McCourt also did not provide any response to questionnaires provided by both SP-EYE and The Isthmus/Dane Co. League of Women Voters. He is also is quoted to have been very lukewarm about even running for re-election. He clearly is not actively campaigning in any way. Actually, only Welke is showing any real interest in running for the position. Perhaps all 3 incumbents are running on a sense of entitlement. This is not a guy that is serious about the school board...so why should we seriously consider him as a candidate?
...and the vote goes to...
Whatever you do, cast a vote for John Welke. This board needs change, and Welke has proven that he's a leader that can effect positive change within the district.
IF YOU WANT TO SEND A MESSAGE LOUDLY & CLEARLY:
Vote John Welke
Write-In: Al Borland
Write-In: Jill Taylor
Which ONE Incumbent Deserves your vote?
Al Slane clearly and distinctly has earned another kick at the cat. He's only had a year, and has shown the most growth as a board member. Toss Albert a bone, but either leave that last space blank...or better yet...cast your 3rd vote for Al Borland or Jill Taylor. You know those two are not afraid to say, "I don't think so, Tim!"
SP-EYE's ballot
We're sending a message to the board. We're afraid the board might have forgotten last fall and the fact that WE elect THEM to represent US. We think ole' Al(bert) Slane will be just fine without our vote. Unlike the board, SP-EYE has faith that the community is far smarter than the board gives them credit for, and we're sure the community knows that Al Slane is worth saving.
Well....maybe it's time that SP-EYE got in the game.
Let's start with a summary look at the candidates...
John Welke
John made a more than respectable run as a write-in candidate last year. Since then, he's kicked it into overdrive. He secured a position as citizen representative on the school board's FT&T Committee, and presented more situation reports than any board member in the past 3 years. This is a guy that not only wants to TALK about the issues affecting Sun Prairie, but also DO something. What he doesn't puff his chest out about is even more credit-worthy. He IS involved in the schools as a WATCHDOG and with the community through youth ministries. In addition, his law enforcement background makes him a top-shelf candidate that is beyond reproach. He's clearly a proactive guy vying to change the operating philosophy of a very reactive board. Welke will demand accountability from district administration and will speak loudly and clearly for board transparency and being good stewards of our tax dollars.
Al Slane
SP-EYE has had a "Love-Like-Wanta Smack Him Upside the Head" thing going with ole Albert. There are many times when Al has stepped up to the plate, and a few others where we want to throttle him--figuratively speaking, of course. Mr. Slane took a brief vacation a few weeks back--first in some time, we understand--and he seems to have come back all re-energized like a US Cellular battery swap. Subsequently, we like what we have seen. The fact that he and his ideas are not getting a lot of love from fellow board members perhaps underscores the merits of his ideas. They want the status quo...and Al seems to be stepping out from their shadows. Good for him. We are very hopeful for Al's future, but need to see a little more from him in terms of making sure that things get on the table and discussed.
Caren Diedrich
When she's not sitting at the board table, Caren is a genuinely likable woman. Unfortunately, when she IS at the board table, the Koolaid flows mightily through her veins. On the one hand, we like that she speaks her mind freely...rather than some other board members that just look at what the majority does and then echo that sentiment. On the other hand, a lot of what she says is really out there. Or...if things don't go her way, she gets a little bit pouty with a "I'm going to take my basketball and go home" 'tude. Case in point the vote this past week regarding the piano. Seeing the other 6 had voted to fund a piano (which she did not favor), Diedrich's response, when called for vote, was , "It doesn't matter...I'm not going to vote". We also have a bit of a problem with her recent statements that she and the board "shut off certain community members when they get up to speak". You may not like their message, Caren, but they ARE community residents and you OWE them your attention. Ms. Diedrich also did not provide any response to questionnaires provided by both SP-EYE and The Isthmus/Dane Co. League of Women Voters. That indicates either a sense of entitlement, or less than valiant effort to be reelected. Neither is good. Finally...we think 12 years of one person's opinion on ANY board is enough.
Jim McCourt
It's abundantly clear that Mr. McCourt would much prefer to be either dining on sea bass or working on his latest business project than putting in even a half-hearted effort on the school board. He misses too many meetings (more than 25%) without a real reason. He's been absent for some of the biggest issues taken up by the board. We simply have too many significant issues to resolve in the district to continue to accept a board member that can, at best, offer only 3/4 of his attention. Like Ms. Diedrich, McCourt also did not provide any response to questionnaires provided by both SP-EYE and The Isthmus/Dane Co. League of Women Voters. He is also is quoted to have been very lukewarm about even running for re-election. He clearly is not actively campaigning in any way. Actually, only Welke is showing any real interest in running for the position. Perhaps all 3 incumbents are running on a sense of entitlement. This is not a guy that is serious about the school board...so why should we seriously consider him as a candidate?
...and the vote goes to...
Whatever you do, cast a vote for John Welke. This board needs change, and Welke has proven that he's a leader that can effect positive change within the district.
IF YOU WANT TO SEND A MESSAGE LOUDLY & CLEARLY:
Vote John Welke
Write-In: Al Borland
Write-In: Jill Taylor
Which ONE Incumbent Deserves your vote?
Al Slane clearly and distinctly has earned another kick at the cat. He's only had a year, and has shown the most growth as a board member. Toss Albert a bone, but either leave that last space blank...or better yet...cast your 3rd vote for Al Borland or Jill Taylor. You know those two are not afraid to say, "I don't think so, Tim!"
SP-EYE's ballot
We're sending a message to the board. We're afraid the board might have forgotten last fall and the fact that WE elect THEM to represent US. We think ole' Al(bert) Slane will be just fine without our vote. Unlike the board, SP-EYE has faith that the community is far smarter than the board gives them credit for, and we're sure the community knows that Al Slane is worth saving.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Incumbent Collage: Caren Diedrich
Meet 5-term (15 years) school board member Caren Diedrich, who is currently up for re-election. It's no secret that Ms. Diedrich is unabashedly a fan of Dr. Culver's.Caren is perhaps most noted for her shouting match with Bristol residents during the "Boundary Wars" fiasco. As the STAR has pointed out, she is also known for her "different" ideas. During the high school quandary, for example, Diedrich--quite seriously--suggested building two school and separating the kids by gender rather than sides of the town.
Diedrich also staunchly defended the rationale for NOT bidding the architecture work for Horizon, Creekside, and the High School/Pool/Upper Middle School projects. That's nearly $150M of building. At an average architectural fee of 5%, that's a cool $7.5M in the architect's pocket. We DID get a 0.5% break on Creekside since it was basically built using the same plans as Horizon. Not to mention the fact that bidding the architecture might have provided the district with lower priced, yet equally fancy designs. Of course, we'll never know.
Another logic-defying argument Diedrich routinely makes is in regards to the "check approval" segment of Finance Committee meetings. You see, when a committee member suggests that a check NOT be approved, Diedrich always argues that the services have been rendered and therefore we need to pay for them. We agree that they should be paid for, Ms. Diedrich...just not on who should write the check. Regardless, if the committee's option is ONLY to approve all checks regardless of questions, what is the point of the process?
Perhaps the biggest indication that it's time for a change came during last night's vote on whether or not to commit funds to the pool hallway. When asked initially for her vote, she said (clearly frustrated), "Come back to me...I'm thinking". After the other 6 board members voted "Yes", it was Diedrich's turn again. This time, even more frustrated, her response was, "What's the point...there's already 6 votes...right...I'm not going to vote." Well, Caren, perhaps we should say, "What's the point" and not vote to re-elect you.
Based on what we've observed from Ms. Diedrich over the years, one might surmise the following:
Favorite Song: Tie: "Culver Moon" by Jackson Browne and "Bark at the Moon" by Ozzie Osbourne
Favorite Book: "Death of Common Sense" by Philip K. Howard
Favorite Poem: "The Death of Common Sense" by Lori Borgman
Favorite Movie: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (we suspect she's a closet Jack Nicholson fan)
Favorite Getaway Destination: Culver City, CA
Favorite time of day: 12:00 (AM or PM) ...Hands straight up, baby!
Favorite phase of the moon: Full moon , of course
Favorite Meal: Why, Culvers, of course!
======================================
SP-EYE: With all due respect to Ms. Diedrich, 15 years is enough--it's time to let someone else bring something new to the equation. Just check out the body language of her fellow board members. It's clear THEY want no part of her.
Based on what we've observed from Ms. Diedrich over the years, one might surmise the following:
Favorite Song: Tie: "Culver Moon" by Jackson Browne and "Bark at the Moon" by Ozzie Osbourne
Favorite Book: "Death of Common Sense" by Philip K. Howard
Favorite Poem: "The Death of Common Sense" by Lori Borgman
Favorite Movie: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (we suspect she's a closet Jack Nicholson fan)
Favorite Getaway Destination: Culver City, CA
Favorite time of day: 12:00 (AM or PM) ...Hands straight up, baby!
Favorite phase of the moon: Full moon , of course
Favorite Meal: Why, Culvers, of course!
======================================
SP-EYE: With all due respect to Ms. Diedrich, 15 years is enough--it's time to let someone else bring something new to the equation. Just check out the body language of her fellow board members. It's clear THEY want no part of her.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Incumbent Collage: Jim McCourt
Meet school board member Jim McCourt, who is currently up for re-election. The main things we know about him from his board tenure are (1) given the opportunity, he prefers to dine on sea bass (at least when it's on the taxpayers' dime), and (2) he only attended 3 out of every 4 (75%) board meeting in 2009 and only 3 of 5 meetings (60%) so far in 2010.Based on this information one might surmise the following:
Favorite CD/album: Jimmy Buffet's "Living and Dying in 3/4 Time"
Favorite Book: "Three Quarters Dead" by Richard Peck
Favorite Movie: Strauss: The King of Three-Quarter Time
Favorite Getaway Destination: A drive down I-75
Favorite Biblical verse: John 3:4 - "Whoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law"
Change in his pocket: 3 quarters, ya think?
Favorite Quote: The probability is that too many people are too stupid by three-quarters. - John Major
Favorite time of day: 9:00 (AM or PM) ...Three quarters to noon (or midnight)!
Favorite phase of the moon: Waning gibbous, or 3/4 moon on the down side
Favorite Meal: SEA BASS!
SP-EYE: With all due respect to Mr. McCourt, it seems that his start-up business needs more of his attention than he has to devote to the school board. These are trying times in our school district, and we need board members who can devote full time and energy to their board duties.
School Board Candidate Questions - Their Answers
...well...half the candidates responded, anyway.
Frankly, it came as no surprise to us that we didn't receive responses from Caren Diedrich or Jim (Seabass) McCourt. Ms. Diedrich even said quite clearly recently (on a Talk of the Town candidates segment) that "we" [the board] ignore certain community members. She also says she doesn't "do e-mail", yet we caught her publicly state that she sent e-mails to state representatives regarding school funding. Hmmmm.
As for Seabass....well...he's probably busy setting up his business. Heck...if I guy cant even make more than 2-3 out of every 4 school board meetings, how can we expect him to have time for trivial matters such as this...right?
YOU be the judge, people. And judge with your vote on April 6th. Which candidate(s) will best serve us --you--- for the next 3 years?
Besides...we figured you needed a break from all the girls basketball sappy crappy.
2010 SP-EYE School Board Candidate Questions and Answers
1. Please assign the school board a letter grade for its efforts in Community Engagement. Discuss the rationale for awarding that grade.
Al Slane: Grade: B-
The Board has made some strides since having the engagement task force, but has failed to make enough progress on the items that we took away from that process. I think we have done a better job of getting and listening to input as well as getting information out to the public. One issue is people are busy and don't tend to get involved in yet another activity unless there is an issue that directly affects them. When we talk about changing class size or dropping HS electives, people come out of the woodwork. One good thing that came from last years annual meeting and the cost cutting, is more people realize they need to be involved and be informed about what is going on. The Board can do a better job of keeping everyone involved.
John Welke: Grade: D
The only community engagement activity the board is involved with are reactive activities such as returning phone calls and emails and listening to district residents concerns at school board meetings. I believe that the board knows that this is a weakness for because in 2008 they authorized a group of community members to form the Community Engagement Task Force (CETF). The CETF was charged with making recommendations to the board on ways to increase the communication between the school board and the community. After a number of meetings and brain storming sessions the CETF made 6 recommendations to the school board that they thought would increase communication between the board and the community. Unfortunately, to date the board has not implemented any of the 6 recommendations. Normally I would give the board a “C” for at least being accessible to the public via phone and email but I cannot ignore the fact that they went to the extent of asking the CETF to give them ideas to increase community engagement and have not implemented any of their recommendation in the last 17 months. For that I give the school board below average grade of “D”.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
____________________________________________
2. If it were solely your decision (i.e., not a board of 7), what would your ideas be to address the growing socioeconomic diversity inequity in our elementary schools?
Al Slane:
I don't pretend to have the answer, but I think we need to be looking at how we address this issue as it continues to spread across the district. First we need to decide if SAGE is the answer or not. If it is, how do we maximize its benefits, since we can only have two SAGE schools. If it is not the answer, how do we restructure things to get the best outcome for all of the kids.
We also need to consider how inequity is creeping into the schools due to the ability of different parent groups to raise more or less money, and the fact that some schools are new. Equity is considered as items are updated, but we may need to be a little more creative in funding of school budgets to make sure things remain equitable.
John Welke:
To best address socio-economic disparity one must understand that there are short term and long term ways to address this issue.
Short Term: For the short term there are programs such as SAGE (Student Achievement Guaranteed in Excellence) and Schools of Hope that are designed to address schools with a high poverty rate and lower student achievement. Student achievement should be actively monitored and the staff and administration in those schools should be regularly consulted to see if there are any resources above and beyond the norm that the State or School District should be providing these schools to level the educational playing field.
Long Term: Several years ago the school board attempted to adjust the socio-economic imbalance between elementary schools during the redistricting process to populate Creekside Elementary. At the time the Board ignored the recommendations from the Boundary Task Force and the community and came up with their own boundary changes that they argued were to make long term socio-economic changes to balance out students of poverty. This process was flawed from the beginning because there were no clear objectives and the board rushed to make a decisions with unreliable information. Now the elementary schools are in a worse imbalance than before the boundary changes.
Looking ahead and working proactively, Elementary School number 8 will likely be needed for the 2014-15 school year which is not that far off. If balancing socio-economics at a time that there is already going to be boundary changes I would begin work immediately to identify the areas that were flawed in the last boundary change process. I would work towards identifying primary and secondary objectives for the next boundary change. I would have the district administration begin assembling information so that the board will get the most current information by which to make a well informed decisions. Perhaps the most critical piece of this preparation process would be to begin communicating with students, parents and community members that a boundary change is on the not-to-far horizon so that they can prepare for potential changes.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
__________________________________________
3. As we know, hindsight is 20:20. Look back on the past 3 years, tell us 3 things that the school board could/should have done differently.
Al Slane:
Unfortunately, not much hindsight is needed to know the previous boundary changes were not handled well. There are always unhappy people when boundaries are changed no matter how good a job is done, but the previous changes were handled so poorly, that we split up the community. Moving forward, there needs to be more of a process instead of making quick decisions because we are out of time.The pool was not treated as a first class citizen when it was forced to be a separate question on the last referendum. By doing so, it was never fully integrated into the high school, and we are now forced to add a pool hallway after it is completed in order to complete the task.
The lack of a football stadium at the new high school is another cost cutting decision, that with hindsight, appears to probably be the wrong decision (home games become away games at Ashley Field because there is no locker room facility at Ashley). Moving forward we will have to live with the decision until another solution presents itself.
John Welke:
The three things that the school board should have done differently over the last three years are:
1. Ensured competitive bidding for the architectural work on the New High School, pool and remodel of the “Upper Middle School”. For some reason the school board deemed the architect that was used was a “sole source provider” and did not utilize a competitive bidding process. This was a lost opportunity to potentially save taxpayers’ dollars.
2. Increased community engagement. In 2008 the Community Engagement Task Force (CETF) gave the school board 6 recommendations to increase community engagement. Unfortunately none of the 6 primary recommendations were implemented by the Board. The 6 recommendations from the CETF were:
Establish an on-going community engagement standing committee
Improve Board member accessibility
Leverage the Web (it is the future)
Establish on-going communication committee
Produce a professional, district-wide, visually appealing newsletter
Increase Key Communicator usage
3. The process to populate Creekside elementary school and establish new elementary school boundaries in 2007 was flawed in many ways. The decisions made by the board did not achieve the stated objectives other than populating Creekside. This process pitted district residents against each other and created a situation of diminished trust with the school district. I hope that the board will use lessons learned by the mistakes made with this situation as they move forward in preparation for the opening of elementary school #8 in 2014-15.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
_______________________________________________
4. 60% of middle schoolers earned honor roll status recently. Some feel it is a reflection of grade inflation. Do you agree? Do you feel that grade inflation is a significant issue in the district? Why or why not?
Al Slane:
Perhaps, but if you look at the WKCE data, the number of kids in the proficient and advanced category exceed the numbers of kids on the honor roll. The disconnect is should grading be based on a bell curve or based on what kids know. From there, you have to decide if proficient and advanced are equivalent to B's and A's. This is where the jury is still out for me, as proficient is a pretty wide sale.
I think grade inflation becomes more of an issue as you get into high school. This is something we can measure, as core grades should correlate to ACT scores, and we are doing more ACT-type testing moving forward (EPAS passed at 3-8 Board meeting). It is also important because kids going to college need to be prepared for how things work in the real world, where there is a curve, and sometimes, good people don't make the cut.
John Welke:
Grade inflation is an issue that has come up recently. During my campaign I have had an opportunity to talk with a number of district residents who have expressed their concerns in this area. There is no doubt that if one were to simply look at the number there are quite a few students that make the honor roll. I do not feel that I have enough information on this issue in order to make a well informed decision/opinion. I will say however that up to this point much of the focus has been on the seemingly high percentage of students making the Honor Roll. I guess what I would like to see is the grade distribution of the students NOT on the honor roll. I believe that bit of information would go a long way in providing a clearer picture for everyone whether or not there might be a valid concern over grade inflation.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
________________________________________________
5. Each year electors in the district have an opportunity to actively participate in the Annual Meeting. In October 2009 the community voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M. The economy is not in that much better condition and the proposed levy will increase 8.6% to about $48.05M. If the community again reduces the levy from the proposed amount what will your position be?
Al Slane:
I would not be very happy, as the proposed budget is under the cap while opening two new schools, which was not easy to do. A large portion of the increase is due to the increase in the debt levy and the increased expense of opening the schools (more people), all of which the community voted for. If we had not added 4K last year, we would be in a much worse situation then we are today. I am in favor of trying to bring the budget in more by finding some more permanent cost savings, but it becomes increasingly difficult without cutting services, which many have been very vocal about maintaining. More important, in my opinion, is making changes to prepare for potential state cuts in future years.
John Welke:
First let me say that I was pleasantly surprised to see the active participation and higher than normal attendance at the 2009 Annual Meeting. Typically the Annual Meeting is poorly attended with little community input. At the 2009 meeting the message was clear that the community was hurting economically and they wanted some tax relief and voted accordingly. Fortunately the approved tax levy coupled with budget cuts and use of Fund Balance will be sufficient for the district to make it through this school year.
The current projected 8.6% levy increase for 2010-11 has me a little worried. As you accurately stated the economy is not in all that much better shape and I’m sure community members, now better informed about the annual meeting, may show up in force to try and trim the school district tax levy even more. If too much is cut at once from the tax levy it may not be sufficient to operate the school district without significant cuts in areas that will negatively affect student achievement.
I think that the school district budget can and should be trimmed and that this should be an ongoing process throughout the year. The school board should be involved at every step in the budgeting and planning process and the administration should be more creative in finding areas to trim. In addition, I believe that increased community engagement will garner better support and trust by the community in the school board and district administration. This increased trust will benefit all parties involved.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
________________________________________________
John Welke added the following to his response. We offer the contact information as a measure of equity, as the other candidates have prominent school district phone numbers and e-mail addresses:
Thank you for the opportunity to answer questions for your readers. If you or your readers have any further questions you may contact via phone at (608) 825-7960 or by E-mail atJohnMWelke@Gmail.com.
Frankly, it came as no surprise to us that we didn't receive responses from Caren Diedrich or Jim (Seabass) McCourt. Ms. Diedrich even said quite clearly recently (on a Talk of the Town candidates segment) that "we" [the board] ignore certain community members. She also says she doesn't "do e-mail", yet we caught her publicly state that she sent e-mails to state representatives regarding school funding. Hmmmm.
As for Seabass....well...he's probably busy setting up his business. Heck...if I guy cant even make more than 2-3 out of every 4 school board meetings, how can we expect him to have time for trivial matters such as this...right?
YOU be the judge, people. And judge with your vote on April 6th. Which candidate(s) will best serve us --you--- for the next 3 years?
Besides...we figured you needed a break from all the girls basketball sappy crappy.
2010 SP-EYE School Board Candidate Questions and Answers
1. Please assign the school board a letter grade for its efforts in Community Engagement. Discuss the rationale for awarding that grade.
Al Slane: Grade: B-
The Board has made some strides since having the engagement task force, but has failed to make enough progress on the items that we took away from that process. I think we have done a better job of getting and listening to input as well as getting information out to the public. One issue is people are busy and don't tend to get involved in yet another activity unless there is an issue that directly affects them. When we talk about changing class size or dropping HS electives, people come out of the woodwork. One good thing that came from last years annual meeting and the cost cutting, is more people realize they need to be involved and be informed about what is going on. The Board can do a better job of keeping everyone involved.
John Welke: Grade: D
The only community engagement activity the board is involved with are reactive activities such as returning phone calls and emails and listening to district residents concerns at school board meetings. I believe that the board knows that this is a weakness for because in 2008 they authorized a group of community members to form the Community Engagement Task Force (CETF). The CETF was charged with making recommendations to the board on ways to increase the communication between the school board and the community. After a number of meetings and brain storming sessions the CETF made 6 recommendations to the school board that they thought would increase communication between the board and the community. Unfortunately, to date the board has not implemented any of the 6 recommendations. Normally I would give the board a “C” for at least being accessible to the public via phone and email but I cannot ignore the fact that they went to the extent of asking the CETF to give them ideas to increase community engagement and have not implemented any of their recommendation in the last 17 months. For that I give the school board below average grade of “D”.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
____________________________________________
2. If it were solely your decision (i.e., not a board of 7), what would your ideas be to address the growing socioeconomic diversity inequity in our elementary schools?
Al Slane:
I don't pretend to have the answer, but I think we need to be looking at how we address this issue as it continues to spread across the district. First we need to decide if SAGE is the answer or not. If it is, how do we maximize its benefits, since we can only have two SAGE schools. If it is not the answer, how do we restructure things to get the best outcome for all of the kids.
We also need to consider how inequity is creeping into the schools due to the ability of different parent groups to raise more or less money, and the fact that some schools are new. Equity is considered as items are updated, but we may need to be a little more creative in funding of school budgets to make sure things remain equitable.
John Welke:
To best address socio-economic disparity one must understand that there are short term and long term ways to address this issue.
Short Term: For the short term there are programs such as SAGE (Student Achievement Guaranteed in Excellence) and Schools of Hope that are designed to address schools with a high poverty rate and lower student achievement. Student achievement should be actively monitored and the staff and administration in those schools should be regularly consulted to see if there are any resources above and beyond the norm that the State or School District should be providing these schools to level the educational playing field.
Long Term: Several years ago the school board attempted to adjust the socio-economic imbalance between elementary schools during the redistricting process to populate Creekside Elementary. At the time the Board ignored the recommendations from the Boundary Task Force and the community and came up with their own boundary changes that they argued were to make long term socio-economic changes to balance out students of poverty. This process was flawed from the beginning because there were no clear objectives and the board rushed to make a decisions with unreliable information. Now the elementary schools are in a worse imbalance than before the boundary changes.
Looking ahead and working proactively, Elementary School number 8 will likely be needed for the 2014-15 school year which is not that far off. If balancing socio-economics at a time that there is already going to be boundary changes I would begin work immediately to identify the areas that were flawed in the last boundary change process. I would work towards identifying primary and secondary objectives for the next boundary change. I would have the district administration begin assembling information so that the board will get the most current information by which to make a well informed decisions. Perhaps the most critical piece of this preparation process would be to begin communicating with students, parents and community members that a boundary change is on the not-to-far horizon so that they can prepare for potential changes.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
__________________________________________
3. As we know, hindsight is 20:20. Look back on the past 3 years, tell us 3 things that the school board could/should have done differently.
Al Slane:
Unfortunately, not much hindsight is needed to know the previous boundary changes were not handled well. There are always unhappy people when boundaries are changed no matter how good a job is done, but the previous changes were handled so poorly, that we split up the community. Moving forward, there needs to be more of a process instead of making quick decisions because we are out of time.The pool was not treated as a first class citizen when it was forced to be a separate question on the last referendum. By doing so, it was never fully integrated into the high school, and we are now forced to add a pool hallway after it is completed in order to complete the task.
The lack of a football stadium at the new high school is another cost cutting decision, that with hindsight, appears to probably be the wrong decision (home games become away games at Ashley Field because there is no locker room facility at Ashley). Moving forward we will have to live with the decision until another solution presents itself.
John Welke:
The three things that the school board should have done differently over the last three years are:
1. Ensured competitive bidding for the architectural work on the New High School, pool and remodel of the “Upper Middle School”. For some reason the school board deemed the architect that was used was a “sole source provider” and did not utilize a competitive bidding process. This was a lost opportunity to potentially save taxpayers’ dollars.
2. Increased community engagement. In 2008 the Community Engagement Task Force (CETF) gave the school board 6 recommendations to increase community engagement. Unfortunately none of the 6 primary recommendations were implemented by the Board. The 6 recommendations from the CETF were:
Establish an on-going community engagement standing committee
Improve Board member accessibility
Leverage the Web (it is the future)
Establish on-going communication committee
Produce a professional, district-wide, visually appealing newsletter
Increase Key Communicator usage
3. The process to populate Creekside elementary school and establish new elementary school boundaries in 2007 was flawed in many ways. The decisions made by the board did not achieve the stated objectives other than populating Creekside. This process pitted district residents against each other and created a situation of diminished trust with the school district. I hope that the board will use lessons learned by the mistakes made with this situation as they move forward in preparation for the opening of elementary school #8 in 2014-15.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
_______________________________________________
4. 60% of middle schoolers earned honor roll status recently. Some feel it is a reflection of grade inflation. Do you agree? Do you feel that grade inflation is a significant issue in the district? Why or why not?
Al Slane:
Perhaps, but if you look at the WKCE data, the number of kids in the proficient and advanced category exceed the numbers of kids on the honor roll. The disconnect is should grading be based on a bell curve or based on what kids know. From there, you have to decide if proficient and advanced are equivalent to B's and A's. This is where the jury is still out for me, as proficient is a pretty wide sale.
I think grade inflation becomes more of an issue as you get into high school. This is something we can measure, as core grades should correlate to ACT scores, and we are doing more ACT-type testing moving forward (EPAS passed at 3-8 Board meeting). It is also important because kids going to college need to be prepared for how things work in the real world, where there is a curve, and sometimes, good people don't make the cut.
John Welke:
Grade inflation is an issue that has come up recently. During my campaign I have had an opportunity to talk with a number of district residents who have expressed their concerns in this area. There is no doubt that if one were to simply look at the number there are quite a few students that make the honor roll. I do not feel that I have enough information on this issue in order to make a well informed decision/opinion. I will say however that up to this point much of the focus has been on the seemingly high percentage of students making the Honor Roll. I guess what I would like to see is the grade distribution of the students NOT on the honor roll. I believe that bit of information would go a long way in providing a clearer picture for everyone whether or not there might be a valid concern over grade inflation.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
________________________________________________
5. Each year electors in the district have an opportunity to actively participate in the Annual Meeting. In October 2009 the community voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M. The economy is not in that much better condition and the proposed levy will increase 8.6% to about $48.05M. If the community again reduces the levy from the proposed amount what will your position be?
Al Slane:
I would not be very happy, as the proposed budget is under the cap while opening two new schools, which was not easy to do. A large portion of the increase is due to the increase in the debt levy and the increased expense of opening the schools (more people), all of which the community voted for. If we had not added 4K last year, we would be in a much worse situation then we are today. I am in favor of trying to bring the budget in more by finding some more permanent cost savings, but it becomes increasingly difficult without cutting services, which many have been very vocal about maintaining. More important, in my opinion, is making changes to prepare for potential state cuts in future years.
John Welke:
First let me say that I was pleasantly surprised to see the active participation and higher than normal attendance at the 2009 Annual Meeting. Typically the Annual Meeting is poorly attended with little community input. At the 2009 meeting the message was clear that the community was hurting economically and they wanted some tax relief and voted accordingly. Fortunately the approved tax levy coupled with budget cuts and use of Fund Balance will be sufficient for the district to make it through this school year.
The current projected 8.6% levy increase for 2010-11 has me a little worried. As you accurately stated the economy is not in all that much better shape and I’m sure community members, now better informed about the annual meeting, may show up in force to try and trim the school district tax levy even more. If too much is cut at once from the tax levy it may not be sufficient to operate the school district without significant cuts in areas that will negatively affect student achievement.
I think that the school district budget can and should be trimmed and that this should be an ongoing process throughout the year. The school board should be involved at every step in the budgeting and planning process and the administration should be more creative in finding areas to trim. In addition, I believe that increased community engagement will garner better support and trust by the community in the school board and district administration. This increased trust will benefit all parties involved.
Caren Diedrich: Did Not Respond
Jim McCourt: Did Not Respond
________________________________________________
John Welke added the following to his response. We offer the contact information as a measure of equity, as the other candidates have prominent school district phone numbers and e-mail addresses:
Thank you for the opportunity to answer questions for your readers. If you or your readers have any further questions you may contact via phone at (608) 825-7960 or by E-mail atJohnMWelke@Gmail.com.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
5 Questions from SP-EYE
This past weekend, SP-EYE generated a set of 5 questions for the school board candidates. We're betting that only half the candidates respond. We will print whatever answers we receive, but thought you all should see the questions they received.
Candidate Questions 2010
1. Please assign the school board a letter grade for its efforts in Community Engagement. Discuss the rationale for awarding that grade.
2. If it were solely your decision (i.e., not a board of 7) , what would your ideas be to address the growing socioeconomic diversity inequity in our elementary schools?
3. As we know, hindsight is 20:20. Look back on the past 3 years, and tell us 3 things that the school board could/should have done differently.
4. 60% of middle schoolers earned honor roll status recently. Some feel it is a reflection of grade inflation. Do you agree? Do you feel that grade inflation is a significant issue in the district? Why or why not?
5. Each year electors in the district have an opportunity to actively participate in the Annual Meeting. In October 2009 the community voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M. The economy is not in that much better condition and the proposed levy will increase 8.6% to about $48.05M. If the community again reduces the levy from the proposed amount what will your position be?
Candidate Questions 2010
1. Please assign the school board a letter grade for its efforts in Community Engagement. Discuss the rationale for awarding that grade.
2. If it were solely your decision (i.e., not a board of 7) , what would your ideas be to address the growing socioeconomic diversity inequity in our elementary schools?
3. As we know, hindsight is 20:20. Look back on the past 3 years, and tell us 3 things that the school board could/should have done differently.
4. 60% of middle schoolers earned honor roll status recently. Some feel it is a reflection of grade inflation. Do you agree? Do you feel that grade inflation is a significant issue in the district? Why or why not?
5. Each year electors in the district have an opportunity to actively participate in the Annual Meeting. In October 2009 the community voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M. The economy is not in that much better condition and the proposed levy will increase 8.6% to about $48.05M. If the community again reduces the levy from the proposed amount what will your position be?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
2 Write-In Candidates Emerge for School Board!
Rumor has it that two write-in candidates have materialized in the Sun Prairie Area School District School Board race.None other than Al Borland and Jill Taylor, of TV's "Home Improvement" fame, are tossing their hats in the ring. Asked whether they have a campaign platform in mind, both simulataneously answered, "Sun Prairie needs school board members that are willing to step up to the plate and set a new tone for the board, with a rallying cry of...
" ...I don't think so, Tim!"
Friday, February 12, 2010
Who Dat! Revealed
School board elections are about 6 weeks away. We think that the community--particularly those that don't have cable access to watch meetings---have a right to know who is seeking their vote.Al Slane and Jim McCourt have their pictures posted on the
school board webpage...but Caren Diedrich choose not to do so.
It's time to put a face to a name. So...we answer the question:
Caren Diedrich?
WHO DAT!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
School Board Candidate Double-Speak
Dontcha just hate it when all year long an elected official presents a certain "face" only to suddenly put on a completely different face as election season arrives?
We offer this first look at such posturing by school board incumbent Jim (you know him as "Seabass") McCourt.
McCourt sits on the Human Resources committee and therefore was involved in contract negotiations for the teachers union (SPEA).
We offer this first look at such posturing by school board incumbent Jim (you know him as "Seabass") McCourt.
McCourt sits on the Human Resources committee and therefore was involved in contract negotiations for the teachers union (SPEA).
June 2009
Last June, he supported that contract--although knowing full well the impending budget squeeze. As the STAR reported:
The agreement contains a 3.8 percent increase in the total salary and benefit package for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school year. "The 3.8 percent increase is not a straight raise on salary", said McCourt.
"The first year it will be the salary, because the health care costs are staying down," McCourt added. "But those are expected to go up in 2010. When you look at the total package it gets a little deceiving."
He said if the district and SPEA didn't settle on 3.8 for the next two years, the increase for the total package could have been much higher for the 2010-11 school year.
Coulda...Shoulda...Woulda. As Judge Judy likes to say, "...and if my parents had been taller, I would be 5 foot 8".
Summer 2009
As several citizens fought to restore the 5% cut that had been imposed on school building budgets (before the electors set the levy), McCourt went on the record numerous occasions during Finance Committee meetings, stating that teachers do not need anything beyond what they are provided.
October 2009
Then the bottom fell out of the budget as electors declared that the school board was spending too much and raising property taxes too much in a down economy. Oh...wait...McCourt wasn't even present for that meeting. That was in addition to his missing ONE out of every FOUR school board meetings in 2009.
Nov-Dec 2009
Suddenly, when the board needed to find $1.2M in budget cuts, McCourt suggested furloughing teachers was in order: "We could furlough teachers…Maybe that's a direction form us to you--have Annette Mikula look into furlough possibilities." Gee...he wouldn't even SECOND a motion made by David Stackhouse to furlough administrators 5 days each. But here he is in December supporting a vote to ask teachers to give back one day of pay on each of 2009-10 and 2010-11.
January 2010
Just as suddenly, when SPEA rejected district advances to renegotiate, McCourt came back on the side of the teachers proclaiming that, “[Teachers are] already contributing above and beyond…”
----------------------------
Is is any surprise that McCourt suddenly is back to courting favor of the teachers union, now that it's election season, and with4 people on the ballot for three seats, when the music stops somebody is going to be without a seat?
Batman always feared the infamous Two-Face....and you should be equally wary of elected officials who get caught trying to keep one foot on each side of the fence. We've had enough of pocket candidates. We need to elect people that will speak for the electorate--NOT the administration.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Caren Diedrich: Who Dat!
Drew Brees and the Saints are on a roll.And they come complete with the entire Who Dat Nation.
Here in Sun Prairie we have a school board election coming up.
Three incumbents (Diedrich, McCourt, and Slane ) are up for re-election with community resident John Welke mounting a challenge for one of their seats.
We have our own Who Dat! in incumbent Caren Diedrich.
The school District website has a nice "Meet the School Board" page.
Only you can't really "meet" Caren Diedrich, because she refuses to have her picture taken!
So it's really an issue of Caren Diedrich? Who Dat!
It has her e-mail address as well, but all reports indicate that in addition to not doing photo ops, Diedrich doesn't "DO" e-mail either.
The Sun Prairie school board voted several years back to have their pictures posted on the website in a small gesture of community engagement. Diedrich voted against the motion, which passed 6-1.
So, here we have an official vote, which becomes tantamount to POLICY....and Diedrich refuses to comply because...she doesn't like her picture. Oh boo hoo!
Diedrich wants to run for re-election---for like her eleventeeth 3-year term--she just doesn't want you to know what she looks like.
Nice. Anybody else thinking eleventeen terms is enough?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
...and the 2010 School Board Race Kicks Off!
By the 5:00 pm deadline this evening, FOUR sets of nomination papers were turned in for school board. Of course...who knows...maybe John Whalen will up the ante on his penchant for deadline violations and accept papers late from some heretofore unknown candidate.
Coming as no surprise, the three incumbents (Caren Diedrich, Jim McCourt, and Al Slane) all submitted their nomination papers. We wonder if McCourt had his papers left at the Beans and Cream counter as he did last time.
The fourth candidate is none other than John Welke, who was unsuccessful as a write-in candidate last year, although he created quite a buzz within the community and managed to entice over 800 people to write his name in on the ballot. That's an incredible number.
There are 3 seats and 4 candidates, so there will be no primary. Our bet is that all three of the incumbents are a little nervous tonite. This time they face the formidable challenger Welke with his name ON the ballot. Welke has only served to strengthen his candidacy through his recent appointment as the school board's citizen representative for the Facilities, Technology, and Transportation (FTT) committee. He also serves as the Town of Bristol's liaison to the school board.
Next Monday night, the candidates will draw for the order in which their names appear on the ballot. Let the games begin!
Coming as no surprise, the three incumbents (Caren Diedrich, Jim McCourt, and Al Slane) all submitted their nomination papers. We wonder if McCourt had his papers left at the Beans and Cream counter as he did last time.
The fourth candidate is none other than John Welke, who was unsuccessful as a write-in candidate last year, although he created quite a buzz within the community and managed to entice over 800 people to write his name in on the ballot. That's an incredible number.
There are 3 seats and 4 candidates, so there will be no primary. Our bet is that all three of the incumbents are a little nervous tonite. This time they face the formidable challenger Welke with his name ON the ballot. Welke has only served to strengthen his candidacy through his recent appointment as the school board's citizen representative for the Facilities, Technology, and Transportation (FTT) committee. He also serves as the Town of Bristol's liaison to the school board.
Next Monday night, the candidates will draw for the order in which their names appear on the ballot. Let the games begin!
Monday, January 4, 2010
How do YOU Think the School Board Did?
Examining Critical Votes of 2009
1/12/2009 6.02 Sun Prairie Four Kids: A Community Early Learning Program
Supported: 6-1. Camber-Davidson opposed
This vote established a 4-yr old kindergarten program.
Despite 50-50 public sentiment at best, and the fact that we already have the original HeadStart program, the board supported this. It caused a $600K budget deficit for 2009-10, but promised to be a "cash cow" in future years. So...did we do it "for the kids"? Or did we do it because we'd get more money from the state than it costs to run the program? Does this board even know the meaning of "fidelity to funding"?
2/9/2009 6.06 Budget Forecast Model
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The 2010-11 budget (the year the new high school opens) projects an $801,374 deficit.
This was the first warning that NEXT year's budget was going to be hellish. Yet they went ahead and voted to support these measures.
2/9/2009 6.08 District Administrator Contract Extension
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Gave Culver a 1-year extension on a contract that was already valid through June 2011.
" The Board hereby employs the District Administrator and the District Administrator hereby accepts employment for a term commencing on July 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2011. This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2011-2012 school year unless either the Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2010, that such extension shall not apply. Each January the Board shall review this paragraph as part of an annual evaluation to determine whether to extend this contract by an additional year. "
Why on earth would a board extend a contract that hasn't expired? This isn't exactly Barry Alvarez here!
4/13/2009 7.06 Conversion of Administrative Support FTE
Supported: 6-1 Shimek opposed
In anticipation and preparation for opening the new secondary buildings in the 2010/2011 school year, administration would like to convert 1.0 FTE from the Administrative Support Group (Partnership Principal) to the Administrative Group. Administration would like this change to occur in the 2009/2010 school year so a secondary assistant principal can be hired. The cost would be net zero.
Just what we needed...MORE administration! And what, exactly, IS a "Partnership Principal"? In the real world, these are the kinds of positions that get CUT in tough economic times.
4/13/2009 7.07 Naming Rights Committee Recommendations
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Diedrich opposed
"Price" List for Naming rights generates $3,084,314 (of the total $100M cost) plus any monies derived from selling "bricks" leading up to the new high school.
A 3% return on a $100M investment is the BEST we can do? And someone should ask the questions: who gets the money? And how will it be used? And how will it be accounted for in the budget?
5/16/2009 5.01 Converting Contracted Security Guards to District Employed Youth Advocates
Supported: 4-2-1 Shimek, Stackhouse opposed; McCourt absent
This proposal maintains positions to supervise student safety and security, but reframes them and strengthens them to focus on building relationships in addition to basic “guarding.” The key research supporting this decision came from a study from Baylor University entitled the “Violence Free Zone Initiative: A Milwaukee Case Study.” (See attached or go to http://www.isreligion.org/pdf/case_milwaukee.pdf ). The district also looked at similar programs in Janesville and Madison.For all of these reasons, on April 29, 2009, the Management Team decided to recommend that instead of contracted “security guards” the district put in place “youth advocates” starting with the 2009/10 school year. (See job description in attachment 2.) This program would be carefully monitored and adjusted frequently to determine that it is providing best practices for the safety and security of students.
Let's see...safety at the high school. Security guards? Or "Youth Advocates"? Kinda sounds a little "spare the rod and spoil the child"-ish, doesn't it?
6/22/2009 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement
Supported 5-1-1 Slane opposed; Shimek abstained
A fundamental component of the new contract is a 3.8% increase in the total salary and benefit packages for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 contract years. The salary schedule provided is tentative pending final dental rates which will be available in July.The final agreement was reached on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 after 6 months of negotiations.
NOTE: waiting till after 7/1/09 would have enabled a stronger negotiating position for the district as the 2009-11 biennium state budget removed the QEO.
Hmmm...budget crisis. Budget is about 85% personnel cost. The rest of the world is getting pay CUTs, furloughs, or just plain lay-offs. So 5 of 7 board members supported 7% raise over 2 years???? And remember, folks, a "3.8% total package" means actual salary increases of over 4%.
7/13/2009 6.02 Reduction to Previously Approved Administrator Salary and Benefit Total Package for 2009-2010
Supported: 4-2-1 Camber-Davidson, Slane opposed; McCourt absent
On May 27, 2008 the School Board adopted changes to the Administrative Contractual Benefits and Evaluation Plan that included a 4.5% total package increase. However, the administrative team felt that in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle, it would be best to ask the School Board to reduce the salary and benefits package from what teachers received last year to what teachers received for 2009-2010: a 3.8% total salary and benefit package.
Do these people even understand what they are voting on? How does one manage to OPPOSE a reduction in pay increases?
7/27/2009 6.01 Personnel
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
Hire a principal for SP4K program: at a cost of $45,000 for a half-time role.
Routine Personnel not through Personnel Committee
Position__________________________Hiree_____Salary__Comments__FTE
------------------------------------------- ---------------------
Principal – Sun Prairie 4 Kids__Ward, Karen__$45,000__1-Year__0.50
So....for a program of 2 hr instruction time, we hire a person to work half-time and then pay them $45,000 for the school year. Any of you make $45K for FULL-TIME? And let's not even talk about the fact that "full-time" means 9 months out of the year.
7/27/2009 6.05 Appointment of Representatives to Standing Committees (Student, Staff & Citizen)
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
The board violated its own policies and disregarded deadlines to name someone to the Finance Committee with lesser qualifications than a candidate that met all requirements.
Why do we even write policies if we're not going to follow them? Why set any rules at all? Why even bother going through some false "application" process? Why don't we just let the school board president name anyone he/she wants as citizen representatives for board committees. Oh...wait...that's what John Whalen did. Never mind.
8/24/2009 6.06 Administrative Support Study and New Salary Structure
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.1. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend adoption of the new pay plan.2. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase for the Administrative Support Staff group at a cost of approximately $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.
This from the Department of Redundancy Department: Budget bad...but raises good?
9/14/2009 6.02 Approval of the Sun Prairie Substitute Teachers Association (SPSTA) 2009-2011 Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
Highlights of this contract include: a 0% increase in salary for year one (2009-2010) and a 2% increase for year two (2010-2011).
This from the "So What Are We? Chopped Liver?" Department: So we give Teachers, Admin, and Admin Support 3.8% raises and the put the screws to the SUBSTITUTE teachers...the ones we frequently depend on! Talk about establishing a caste system!
9/14/2009 6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
So…they ALL (well, you can't hang this on McCourt) approved of the raises, the huge budget increase, and the proposed tax levy increase!
9/14/2009 6.08 Proposed 2009-2011 District Administrator Employment Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
The District Administrator has requested that he receive no base salary increase for 2009-2010. As part of this agreement the District Administrator has requested two things: That it is made clear that the purpose of getting no salary increase is not necessarily a reflection of the Board's evaluation of performance for 2008-2009 and an additional 3 days of vacation be added to the employment contract.So, they gave him NO raise, but then gave him 3 MORE paid days off!
"The District Administrator has requested"...doesn't that sum it all up? This is the very picture of the tail wagging the dog. Our only question is: why didn't Culver ask for more...maybe an increase to his monthly, exempt-from-receipts $425/month stipend? It appears the board is his personal genie, granting his every wish.
10/26/2009 6.02 2009-10 Budget Adoption
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
This vote says it all, folks. If you approve a budget that requires a 12+% increase to property taxes, you get what you deserve.
10/26/2009 6.03 2009-10 Tax Levy Approval
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Despite posturing that McCourt and/or Slane might propose to overturn the vote of the people, the board voted unanimously to implement the tax levy (reduced by $2M) set by the electors at the annual meeting.
This was actually the first sign that the board realized that the public meant business by its actions at the annual meeting. Perhaps some of them feared for their re-election hopes in April if they voted against this.
11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 6-1 Diedrich opposed
Motion as amended TO APPROVE THE BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING AS OUTLINED IN SECTIONS I, II, AND III.
Caren Diedrich wanted to dig deeper for cuts!....and even got testy with Culver and Frei in the process. This from someone who has typically voted in support of EVERYTHING coming from Administration. Does she really "get it"...or is this a clever advance tactical ruse to garner votes for her re-election in April. Go ahead...roll the dice...do you feel lucky with her on the board?
11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
It was moved by Al Slane and seconded by Jim McCourt TO SCHEDULE A CLOSED SESSION OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPEA REGARDING SALARIES.The result of the vote was: Unanimous
Geee...too little, too late? Can anyone blame the teachers for NOT agreeing to a voluntary ONE-day furlough? I mean really...if your boss asked you to voluntarily work one day without pay, would you? No...of course not. The thing about furloughs is that no sane person would voluntarily agree to them....unless a knife were held to their throats. Furloughs MUST be a decree...not an option.
The budget problem is related to school funding, and a solution coming from the legislature is simply NOT going to happen. Being the smart politicians they are, they are pushing those decisions down to the local level...as in ELECTED school boards. Furloughs are not an answer....negotiating more reasonable contracts IS.
11/23/2009 6.05 2010 Sun Prairie Chamber of Commerce Membership
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Shimek opposed
Motion made to NOT renew COC membership…at a cost of over $1300.
Look...the Chamber of Commerce is a great entity...but the school district is NOT engaged in commerce. In fact, it's a non-profit organization whose sole goal is education. Sure, good schools help get people to locate here, who will subsequently support local businesses. So school districts should logically be a part of any chamber of commerce....but how about waiving the membership fee? Or...at the very least...offer a VERY paltry fee...as other local Chambers of Commerce do. It's called negotiation, school board members, and you may want to brush up on the concept.
11/23/2009 6.06 State Education Convention
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Motion made to NOT re-imburse any board member for attendance at the annual conference!
Most common sense vote ever coming out of this board. This year, if McCourt wants to go and eat seabass, it comes out of HIS pocket! We're betting he passes on attending (and actually having to PAY for seabass).
12/14/2009 6.10 Addendums mutually agreeing to a voluntary one-day reduction in each administrator contract during the 2009-2010 contract year
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
ONE furlough day? THAT is the best they could do? State employees, who got their 2009 raise (2%) repealed and will NOT receive raises in 2009-10 or 2010-11, are being furloughed SIXTEEN days over the next 2 years! RUFKM????
1/12/2009 6.02 Sun Prairie Four Kids: A Community Early Learning Program
Supported: 6-1. Camber-Davidson opposed
This vote established a 4-yr old kindergarten program.
Despite 50-50 public sentiment at best, and the fact that we already have the original HeadStart program, the board supported this. It caused a $600K budget deficit for 2009-10, but promised to be a "cash cow" in future years. So...did we do it "for the kids"? Or did we do it because we'd get more money from the state than it costs to run the program? Does this board even know the meaning of "fidelity to funding"?
2/9/2009 6.06 Budget Forecast Model
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The 2010-11 budget (the year the new high school opens) projects an $801,374 deficit.
This was the first warning that NEXT year's budget was going to be hellish. Yet they went ahead and voted to support these measures.
2/9/2009 6.08 District Administrator Contract Extension
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Gave Culver a 1-year extension on a contract that was already valid through June 2011.
" The Board hereby employs the District Administrator and the District Administrator hereby accepts employment for a term commencing on July 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2011. This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2011-2012 school year unless either the Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2010, that such extension shall not apply. Each January the Board shall review this paragraph as part of an annual evaluation to determine whether to extend this contract by an additional year. "
Why on earth would a board extend a contract that hasn't expired? This isn't exactly Barry Alvarez here!
4/13/2009 7.06 Conversion of Administrative Support FTE
Supported: 6-1 Shimek opposed
In anticipation and preparation for opening the new secondary buildings in the 2010/2011 school year, administration would like to convert 1.0 FTE from the Administrative Support Group (Partnership Principal) to the Administrative Group. Administration would like this change to occur in the 2009/2010 school year so a secondary assistant principal can be hired. The cost would be net zero.
Just what we needed...MORE administration! And what, exactly, IS a "Partnership Principal"? In the real world, these are the kinds of positions that get CUT in tough economic times.
4/13/2009 7.07 Naming Rights Committee Recommendations
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Diedrich opposed
"Price" List for Naming rights generates $3,084,314 (of the total $100M cost) plus any monies derived from selling "bricks" leading up to the new high school.
A 3% return on a $100M investment is the BEST we can do? And someone should ask the questions: who gets the money? And how will it be used? And how will it be accounted for in the budget?
5/16/2009 5.01 Converting Contracted Security Guards to District Employed Youth Advocates
Supported: 4-2-1 Shimek, Stackhouse opposed; McCourt absent
This proposal maintains positions to supervise student safety and security, but reframes them and strengthens them to focus on building relationships in addition to basic “guarding.” The key research supporting this decision came from a study from Baylor University entitled the “Violence Free Zone Initiative: A Milwaukee Case Study.” (See attached or go to http://www.isreligion.org/pdf/case_milwaukee.pdf ). The district also looked at similar programs in Janesville and Madison.For all of these reasons, on April 29, 2009, the Management Team decided to recommend that instead of contracted “security guards” the district put in place “youth advocates” starting with the 2009/10 school year. (See job description in attachment 2.) This program would be carefully monitored and adjusted frequently to determine that it is providing best practices for the safety and security of students.
Let's see...safety at the high school. Security guards? Or "Youth Advocates"? Kinda sounds a little "spare the rod and spoil the child"-ish, doesn't it?
6/22/2009 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement
Supported 5-1-1 Slane opposed; Shimek abstained
A fundamental component of the new contract is a 3.8% increase in the total salary and benefit packages for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 contract years. The salary schedule provided is tentative pending final dental rates which will be available in July.The final agreement was reached on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 after 6 months of negotiations.
NOTE: waiting till after 7/1/09 would have enabled a stronger negotiating position for the district as the 2009-11 biennium state budget removed the QEO.
Hmmm...budget crisis. Budget is about 85% personnel cost. The rest of the world is getting pay CUTs, furloughs, or just plain lay-offs. So 5 of 7 board members supported 7% raise over 2 years???? And remember, folks, a "3.8% total package" means actual salary increases of over 4%.
7/13/2009 6.02 Reduction to Previously Approved Administrator Salary and Benefit Total Package for 2009-2010
Supported: 4-2-1 Camber-Davidson, Slane opposed; McCourt absent
On May 27, 2008 the School Board adopted changes to the Administrative Contractual Benefits and Evaluation Plan that included a 4.5% total package increase. However, the administrative team felt that in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle, it would be best to ask the School Board to reduce the salary and benefits package from what teachers received last year to what teachers received for 2009-2010: a 3.8% total salary and benefit package.
Do these people even understand what they are voting on? How does one manage to OPPOSE a reduction in pay increases?
7/27/2009 6.01 Personnel
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
Hire a principal for SP4K program: at a cost of $45,000 for a half-time role.
Routine Personnel not through Personnel Committee
Position__________________________Hiree_____Salary__Comments__FTE
------------------------------------------- ---------------------
Principal – Sun Prairie 4 Kids__Ward, Karen__$45,000__1-Year__0.50
So....for a program of 2 hr instruction time, we hire a person to work half-time and then pay them $45,000 for the school year. Any of you make $45K for FULL-TIME? And let's not even talk about the fact that "full-time" means 9 months out of the year.
7/27/2009 6.05 Appointment of Representatives to Standing Committees (Student, Staff & Citizen)
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
The board violated its own policies and disregarded deadlines to name someone to the Finance Committee with lesser qualifications than a candidate that met all requirements.
Why do we even write policies if we're not going to follow them? Why set any rules at all? Why even bother going through some false "application" process? Why don't we just let the school board president name anyone he/she wants as citizen representatives for board committees. Oh...wait...that's what John Whalen did. Never mind.
8/24/2009 6.06 Administrative Support Study and New Salary Structure
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.1. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend adoption of the new pay plan.2. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase for the Administrative Support Staff group at a cost of approximately $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.
This from the Department of Redundancy Department: Budget bad...but raises good?
9/14/2009 6.02 Approval of the Sun Prairie Substitute Teachers Association (SPSTA) 2009-2011 Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
Highlights of this contract include: a 0% increase in salary for year one (2009-2010) and a 2% increase for year two (2010-2011).
This from the "So What Are We? Chopped Liver?" Department: So we give Teachers, Admin, and Admin Support 3.8% raises and the put the screws to the SUBSTITUTE teachers...the ones we frequently depend on! Talk about establishing a caste system!
9/14/2009 6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
So…they ALL (well, you can't hang this on McCourt) approved of the raises, the huge budget increase, and the proposed tax levy increase!
9/14/2009 6.08 Proposed 2009-2011 District Administrator Employment Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
The District Administrator has requested that he receive no base salary increase for 2009-2010. As part of this agreement the District Administrator has requested two things: That it is made clear that the purpose of getting no salary increase is not necessarily a reflection of the Board's evaluation of performance for 2008-2009 and an additional 3 days of vacation be added to the employment contract.So, they gave him NO raise, but then gave him 3 MORE paid days off!
"The District Administrator has requested"...doesn't that sum it all up? This is the very picture of the tail wagging the dog. Our only question is: why didn't Culver ask for more...maybe an increase to his monthly, exempt-from-receipts $425/month stipend? It appears the board is his personal genie, granting his every wish.
10/26/2009 6.02 2009-10 Budget Adoption
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
This vote says it all, folks. If you approve a budget that requires a 12+% increase to property taxes, you get what you deserve.
10/26/2009 6.03 2009-10 Tax Levy Approval
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Despite posturing that McCourt and/or Slane might propose to overturn the vote of the people, the board voted unanimously to implement the tax levy (reduced by $2M) set by the electors at the annual meeting.
This was actually the first sign that the board realized that the public meant business by its actions at the annual meeting. Perhaps some of them feared for their re-election hopes in April if they voted against this.
11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 6-1 Diedrich opposed
Motion as amended TO APPROVE THE BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING AS OUTLINED IN SECTIONS I, II, AND III.
Caren Diedrich wanted to dig deeper for cuts!....and even got testy with Culver and Frei in the process. This from someone who has typically voted in support of EVERYTHING coming from Administration. Does she really "get it"...or is this a clever advance tactical ruse to garner votes for her re-election in April. Go ahead...roll the dice...do you feel lucky with her on the board?
11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
It was moved by Al Slane and seconded by Jim McCourt TO SCHEDULE A CLOSED SESSION OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPEA REGARDING SALARIES.The result of the vote was: Unanimous
Geee...too little, too late? Can anyone blame the teachers for NOT agreeing to a voluntary ONE-day furlough? I mean really...if your boss asked you to voluntarily work one day without pay, would you? No...of course not. The thing about furloughs is that no sane person would voluntarily agree to them....unless a knife were held to their throats. Furloughs MUST be a decree...not an option.
The budget problem is related to school funding, and a solution coming from the legislature is simply NOT going to happen. Being the smart politicians they are, they are pushing those decisions down to the local level...as in ELECTED school boards. Furloughs are not an answer....negotiating more reasonable contracts IS.
11/23/2009 6.05 2010 Sun Prairie Chamber of Commerce Membership
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Shimek opposed
Motion made to NOT renew COC membership…at a cost of over $1300.
Look...the Chamber of Commerce is a great entity...but the school district is NOT engaged in commerce. In fact, it's a non-profit organization whose sole goal is education. Sure, good schools help get people to locate here, who will subsequently support local businesses. So school districts should logically be a part of any chamber of commerce....but how about waiving the membership fee? Or...at the very least...offer a VERY paltry fee...as other local Chambers of Commerce do. It's called negotiation, school board members, and you may want to brush up on the concept.
11/23/2009 6.06 State Education Convention
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Motion made to NOT re-imburse any board member for attendance at the annual conference!
Most common sense vote ever coming out of this board. This year, if McCourt wants to go and eat seabass, it comes out of HIS pocket! We're betting he passes on attending (and actually having to PAY for seabass).
12/14/2009 6.10 Addendums mutually agreeing to a voluntary one-day reduction in each administrator contract during the 2009-2010 contract year
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
ONE furlough day? THAT is the best they could do? State employees, who got their 2009 raise (2%) repealed and will NOT receive raises in 2009-10 or 2010-11, are being furloughed SIXTEEN days over the next 2 years! RUFKM????
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
School Boarding In 3/4 Time
Yet another revelation from reviewing the 2009 Sun Prairie School Board meeting records.
Jim "McSeaBass" McCourt...you know...the guy seeking re-election this spring...failed to show up for fully 25% of school board meetings!
Yep. That's right. Mr McCourt operated in 3/4 time---while collecting his full salary (well...95% salary after 7/1/09). McCourt was absent for the meetings of:
2/23/2009
5/26/2009
6/8/2009
9/14/2009
10/12/2009
12/14/2009
That's 6 meetings....out of 24. Oh...yeah...and he wasn't present for the annual meeting either.
And he thinks he should be re-elected? Perhaps Mr. McCourt should focus his time on that new business of his...which is clearly more pressing than school board meetings he was ELECTED to attend.
If you look at it another way, ole Seabass only cast 103 out of a possible 143 votes during regular school board meetings. That means he failed to vote on 27% of the issues presented. More importantly, his absences coincided with some of the more critical issues faced by the school board this year, like:
- staff renewal contracts (2/23/09)
- switching from security guards to 'youth advocates' at the high school (5/26/09)
- Next Steps in tackling the diversity issue (9/14/09)
- District Administrator contract (9/14/09)
- adoption of the 2009-10 budget (9/14/09)
- the annual electors meeting (10/12/09)
- District fiscal audit report (12/14/09)
0.750 might be a great batting average in baseball...but for an elected official...we expect better than operating in 3/4 time.
Jim "McSeaBass" McCourt...you know...the guy seeking re-election this spring...failed to show up for fully 25% of school board meetings!
Yep. That's right. Mr McCourt operated in 3/4 time---while collecting his full salary (well...95% salary after 7/1/09). McCourt was absent for the meetings of:
2/23/2009
5/26/2009
6/8/2009
9/14/2009
10/12/2009
12/14/2009
That's 6 meetings....out of 24. Oh...yeah...and he wasn't present for the annual meeting either.
And he thinks he should be re-elected? Perhaps Mr. McCourt should focus his time on that new business of his...which is clearly more pressing than school board meetings he was ELECTED to attend.
If you look at it another way, ole Seabass only cast 103 out of a possible 143 votes during regular school board meetings. That means he failed to vote on 27% of the issues presented. More importantly, his absences coincided with some of the more critical issues faced by the school board this year, like:
- staff renewal contracts (2/23/09)
- switching from security guards to 'youth advocates' at the high school (5/26/09)
- Next Steps in tackling the diversity issue (9/14/09)
- District Administrator contract (9/14/09)
- adoption of the 2009-10 budget (9/14/09)
- the annual electors meeting (10/12/09)
- District fiscal audit report (12/14/09)
0.750 might be a great batting average in baseball...but for an elected official...we expect better than operating in 3/4 time.
Dr. No No: The Board Member Who Couldn't Vote "No"
Correction 12-31-09: Due to an error in BoardDocs' handling (and subsequent record ) of multiple motions on a particular vote, this data is in error, and a retraction was posted 12-31-09.
Actually, it turns out that Jim McCourt--who cast only a single "NO" vote (when he was there to actually vote) --- is the King of the "Yes" Men.
John Whalen came in second with only 3 "NO" votes.
Slane slides into 4th place with 4 "NO" votes cast.
A review of school board meetings and voting records offers some very valuable insight.
Calendar year 2009
24 regular school board meetings...
143 votes registered...
Votes nearly always are based on recommendations from administration..
Care to guess which board member was the only one who did not cast a single "NO" vote?
Nope...it wasn't Seabass McCourt! (But good guess! McCourt only cast ONE "No" vote)
Nope...it wasn't John "Do I Look As Uncomfortable Up Here As I Feel" Whalen. (Another logical guess! But Whalen actually cast TWO "No" votes)
Give up?
OK....it was none other than Al "I'm the Outsider on the Board" Slane!!
That's right. Mr. Slane never heard a recommendation from administration he didn't like.
143 votes....and 143 times Slane said "Aye".
How's that for a re-election campaign platform? He can claim he has a perfect voting record!
As in he voted perfectly in line with Administration recommendations.
Gee...for an "outsider" Slane seems pretty well "linked in".
Perhaps his new nickname should be "Aye Aye" Al.
Actually, it turns out that Jim McCourt--who cast only a single "NO" vote (when he was there to actually vote) --- is the King of the "Yes" Men.
John Whalen came in second with only 3 "NO" votes.
Slane slides into 4th place with 4 "NO" votes cast.
A review of school board meetings and voting records offers some very valuable insight.
Calendar year 2009
24 regular school board meetings...
14
Votes nearly always are based on recommendations from administration..
Care to guess which board member was the only one who did not cast a single "NO" vote?
Nope...it wasn't Seabass McCourt! (But good guess! McCourt only cast ONE "No" vote)
Nope...it wasn't John "Do I Look As Uncomfortable Up Here As I Feel" Whalen. (Another logical guess! But Whalen actually cast TWO "No" votes)
Give up?
OK....it was none other than Al "I'm the Outsider on the Board" Slane!!
That's right. Mr. Slane never heard a recommendation from administration he didn't like.
143 votes....and 143 times Slane said "Aye".
How's that for a re-election campaign platform? He can claim he has a perfect voting record!
As in he voted perfectly in line with Administration recommendations.
Gee...for an "outsider" Slane seems pretty well "linked in".
Perhaps his new nickname should be "Aye Aye" Al.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
