Jimmy Mac Goes Elvis

From the "This Was So Expected It Doesn't Even Qualify as News" Department:

Perhaps channeling some inner Elvis, Jim "Jimmy Mac" McClowry has metaphorically speaking left the building, having resigned as district Athletics and Activities Director.  We received multiple texts and e-mails alerting us to the announcement which quietly appeared in an addendum to the personnel table included in the May 28 School Board package.

We understand that he has accepted a similar position in Kaukauna, a smaller Division 1 school district. Sometime change is necessary to move forward.  Certainly the hockey fee fiasco, and the quality of data presented were an albatross which dogged him, but we understand from numerous reports that Mr. McClowry had more than one albatross hovering over him.  This, then, was probably the best move for Jim.

Personally, we wish Mr. McClowry the best in his new position.  Honestly, we do. Sure, we jab and we poke, but we do so only to effect change.  Change that district folks just don't seem wiling or capable of enacting on their own.  We tried to effect change the easy way...by asking politely.   Then we asked more pointedly.. Neither gets you anywhere.  We sincerely hope that the events that transpired over the last 6-12 months will be valuable to Mr. McClowry in shoring up things in his life.  Life is a series of challenges from which we all learn and use to better navigate life's highways and byways.

This will also provide the District with an opportunity to regroup regarding the Athletic and Activities Director position and determine what we truly need and expect there.

We'd be remiss if we didn't point out that it is a little disconcerting that Mr. McClowry put forth the budget initiative to hire an assistant Director given that he was clearly thinking of moving on.  AD positions don't open all that frequently in the state, and so we suspect that this was a move that had been in the works for some time.

Last but not least, as they say, when one door closes, another one opens. Last year Mr. McClowry made sure that the School Board was aware that he represented the Big 8 Conference AD with the most tenure.  That crown now passes on for  someone else to wear.

Where in the World is....

Lisa Heipp???!!!

As the Stylistics once melodiously wondered...

Have you seen her...Tell me have you seen her?

Why do we ask, you ask?

Well...because once again, Athletics and Activities Director Jim "Jimmy Mac" McClowry was on the public stage presenting the rest of his woefully inadequate budget proposals, and his supervisor was nowhere to be found.

Given the past history McClowry has for making presentations to the public (and the poor quality thereof), once would have thunk that Ms. Heipp might have a vested interest in attending.  We could offer her the benefit of the doubt...maybe she had more pressing matters which needed attending to....but she missed his last performance as well.

Even the good Dr. Culver apparently woke up (literally!) and realized that the proposal that his senior Management Team approved was sadly lacking in substance and rationale.

The Ballad of Joe Palooka: Can You Smell What the District is Cookin'?

If you're paying attention....something's been happening at the district with respect to athletic, particular field and facility scheduling.


We've heard anecdotal reports from community members that they legitimately sign up to use one of the district fields only to find that someone else has been given authority to use the same field at the same time.

How could that be you ask?  Didn't Athletics (Oh, and Activities) Director Jim McClowry tell us in public about the spanky field scheduling software program he brought on line recently?
How could such a zippy new tech tool fail us and allow double booking of fields?

The answer, of course, is ...it can't.  This therefore suddenly gave us credible evidence of the existence

of the Double Secret Probation Field Scheduling Calendar!  That's right!  We have heard from multiple sources that Mr. McClowry's office has maintained at least one additional calendar for his coaches to use.   Geee....that's nice.  So a member of the public can sign up to reserve a field, get their team members all lined up only to find that someone else had the field reserved!!!!   And then it's left for the two coaches to work things out?  WE DONT FRICKIN' THINK SO!

 Further evidence of the (former) Double Secret Probation Field Reservation Calendar comes from the virtual plethora (there...now we feel like an NFL announcer because we used plethora in a sentence) of magically new field reservations that now appear on the District's facility use calendar.

It sure appears that Joe Powelka has come out fighting.  Joe has finally decided that the nonsense shall stop.  He shall therefore be dubbed "Joe Palooka" in honor of the cartoon character of the same name.  Joe Palooka would always prefer not to fight, but when push comes to shove, he does what is necessary.  It's not perfect; some users still appear to not be being charged due to the hallowed SPLL clause.   And some that are scheduled to be billed, we await to see (A) if that happens, and (B) will they pay.  We also need the coaches who ran athletic camps last year and perhaps the year before to pony up for the field use fees.  But overall...we're making progress.

In the meantime...

Say Dr. Culver...can we address the Conflict of Interest Issue?

Why is Athletics (and Activities) Director McClowry allowed to (continue to) serve on the Board of Directors of Sun Prairie Little League? Shouldn't he represent ALL sports (and activities) equally?

Would any other public sector employee be allowed to serve on a Board with such obvious conflict of interest?

We did notice a slight change however.  Up until mid last week, Mr. McClowry listed his school district e-mail and phone number.  Hmm....doing Little League business while at the district?   No wonder he is requesting a 1/2 FTE Assistant Director position!

Wethinks, however, that Jimmy Mc got a trip to the 'Splainin' Room where the lesson for the day was NOT to list his school district contact info.   Unfortunately, the 'splainin' fell short of where it needed to go: directing Jimmy Mac to resign his position (or serve on ALL the sports boards).  Here's a tip....someone else probably needs to have that same discussion.

Time to Pop This Zit

Sorry for the disgusting analogy, but policy KG has gotten so out of hand, it IS disgusting.

What am I? Click to see the classic clip!

As a friend of ours used to say..."it's a grounder...you gotta squeeze it to get it to surface".

District administration (remember...Dr. Culver is ultimately accountable) simply refuses to deal with the issue. There is a policy in place, but nobody wants to enforce it.  It's unfair to hang this on Joe Powelka, who took over Buildings an Grounds last summer.  He's trying to do the right thing.  We think.  But he's getting no support from on high.

We've spoken with people involve in this whole shady deal and we're told of backroom deals and "negotiations"....you know...nudge, nudge, wink , wink....that ensure that the good folks of SPLL will never be charge while we have no trouble at all charging the Madison Downs Syndrome Society.  Shame on you all!

Show us your "Get Out of Jail Free" card
We've heard rumors of past precedent and "the way things work".  Bullspit!  Show us in writing where it says you can use facilities other than high school fields...even on weekends...and before school competition is complete---without paying a fee.  But please...have something tangible...not some story or blaming of past Buildings and Grounds Managers.

Excerpt from the Sun Prairie Little League facility use agreement

Yes, we have an agreement with the Sun Prairie Little League (SPLL) to use the fields. And yes they are paying us $85,000 over time for 23 years of field use. But that is for the HIGH SCHOOL FIELDs....AFTER the competition season is complete.  It does not apply to indoor facilities; nor does it apply to Ashley field, fields at CHUMS, or any other fields.  We're sorry that this weird spring has forced people to head indoors to practice, but your agreement doesn't cover that.

Lost field/facility maintenance revenue:  $27,625 for ONE field!

SPLL "squatting" on softball fields...AGAIN!

The SPLL has laid claim to the varsity softball field from 8 am to 9 pm EVERY DAY between June 1 and August 24th!   At no cost!  Because, of course...they are giving u $85,000.   That $85,000 over 23 years amounts to a whopping $3,700 per year to cover field maintenance and upkeep.   At field usage fees (Policy KG) we are losing $27,625 in potential maintenance/field facility revenues every single year for JUST THIS ONE FIELD!  Suddenly that $85,000 doesn't seem like such a good deal...does it?

And they also have the JV softball field locked up as well.  Worse, yet...they did this last year; it was called out, and nothing has changed.  We're back doing the same thing all over again!

Shouldn't SOMEONE ask about conflict of interest on Jim McClowry's part?
Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry (yep...Jimmy Mac is back in the headlights again!) is the personal contact for a whole set of facility uses under the Little League umbrella. And did we mention that he serves on the board of directors for the SPLL?   Doesn't that in some way, shape, or form constitute a conflict of interest?  Dr. Culver?  Ferris Beuler?  ANYONE?

It' no wonder he hasn't taken the time to learn about the potential new sport, lacrosse, or read their application in detail.  It seems abundantly clear that Mr. McClowry is all about baseball.  Hmmmm...even the turf on Ashley Field project is suddenly being hijacked by the desire for a new baseball field at the cost of $350K+. Is it right for an AD to be that involved in a single sport?  More to the point....to be so un-involved in other sports/activities?   It's no wonder why Jimmy Mac is looking to hire a 1/2 time Assistant AD.  He does't have enough time for baseball!

There are also some reservations made for SPLL under the names of certain high school coaches that list the coach's school district address, phone, and e-mail.  Some community residents may wonder whether our staff are doing SPLL business on the district's dime.

Little League Tournaments
We see several SPLL Tournaments scheduled on OUR fields as well.  You suppose they bring in more than $3,700 in revenue from these?

Geee....we wonder what kind of revenue the district could generate from holding ...say... a softball tournament.  Oh...wait...we can't.  SPLL is squatting on the JV and varsity softball fields all summer.

Can we talk about insurance policies (or lack thereof)?
The other thing of note is that more often than not if you call up a reservation, you see a red flag that there is no current insurance certificate on file.  Again...are we following policy at all?

Bottom Line: For $3,700 a year, SPLL gets to use all of our facilities whenever they like?
Are you KiddinG (ing) us?

A Closer Look - Athletics/Activities Budget Proposals

Hold onto your hats, kiddies, this is gonna be an E-ticket ride fer sure!

Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry has offered four separate proposals.  We'll look at each in a little more depth.  Upon scrutiny, they do not hold up.  The big questions are:

• Why does district administration continue to allow such poor quality information to be presented to the public?  
• Why does the school board allow it?
• Did we learn NOTHING from the hockey fee fiasco?
• Where is HS Principal Lisa Heipp in all this?  As McClowry's direct line supervisor, shouldn't she have reviewed this?
• Is this the best we can do?  
• REALLY?

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART A:
 0.5 FTE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC & ACTIVITIES DIRECTOR – HIGH SCHOOL
Cost: $36,194.00

Forgive us, but we're a teensy bit tired hearing about how over-worked Mr. McClowry is. He has said numerous times that it's all about the kids and the connections they make, yet first out of the chute is a proposal to get some help for himself.  With all the technology in this school district, you're telling us that the only solution to scheduling and accessing facilities needs is to add a body?

"It is suggested that this position be in line with current Sun Prairie Area School district positions, such as, the Aquatics Program and Facilities Manager in terms of salary and benefits. At .50 F
TE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include: Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade non-conference athletic events.
[Hmmm...we don't see anything about clubs.  Is it all about athletics?]

In 2006, there was a coaching staff of less than 100. Now, the coaching staff is regularly over 120 members with only 60% being district staff. This makes the orientation, training, education, supervision and evaluation of these coaches even more critical to providing safe and positive experiences for our students.
[We're sorry, but we don't see how a 20% increase in coaching staff OVER 7 YEARS is a ton of additional work.   Nor do we understand why "external" staff require more training, education and supervision.  What...every coach that doesnt teach at Sun Prairie is a moron that requires hand holding?]

Over 1,000 student athletes are processed for compliance over three athletic seasons in a given school year. The increase in transfer students and foreign exchange students wishing to participate in athletics has become more demanding as well.
This number just seems a tad high given the number of kids in the high school.  Plus there's the history of Mr. McClowry not providing the most reliable information.  How many of the "1,000" are multi-sport athletes?  What kind of processing does that require?  One would think that ethics codes are per student...not per sport.  We'd like to see the number of actual UNIQUE, individual student athletes.

 During the 2011-12 school year, 1,320 students participated in a school-based club which represents 67% of students in high school that are participating in a club.athletics has become more demanding as well.
Again, the devil is always in the detail when it comes from Jimmy Mac.  Over 1,320 kids participated in clubs last year.  Is that unique kids?  How many kids participate in multiple clubs?  And the wording suggests that the number REPRESENTS 67% of students in the high school.  Most will read that as 67% of high school kids participate in one or more club.  But that's not really what it says...is it?  Is this more of the district or McClowry being purposefully obtuse?  Why do we care?  Because if 2/3 of the kids in high school are participating in extracurricular activities, that's awesome.  But is that really the case?  Or do they hope that's what we'll believe by reading those words quickly and not asking questions?  Again, we want to know...how many individual unique students participate in one or more clubs?  With all our technology, is that too difficult a question to answer?

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
" High school:
Conservatively, the district hosts over hundreds of athletic and activity events each school year. Each event has its own unique needs, but all events need proper supervision, emergency response plans and coordination.
It is likely that we will be adding two to four new levels of a spring sport in the near future. That will add another 12-24 home sporting events. These would add to an already very cumbersome and full spring schedule for athletics."
2 to 4 new levels of a spring sport "in the near future"?  He's only proposing girls varsity lacrosse NEXT year and boys varsity lacrosse the year after that.  Those are turn-key operations.  Why on earth does he need help for that?
How about some data?  Jimmy Mac ducked the question about whether schools of similar size have an assistant AD.   That smells like it struck a nerve.

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART B:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICTWIDE CLUB ADVISOR STIPEND ADDITIONS
Cost: $27,840.00

The proposal is to increase club stipends in each building across the district. The rate of 2% of Full Time Equivalency (FTE) would be used as a universal amount for all stipends.
[NOTE: This amounts to $580 per year per advisor)

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal. 
See attached data.
(there is none!)

3. How will the outcomes of this proposal be evaluated after 12 months? Three years?
Elementary - TBD 
Middle School/Prairie Phoenix Academy (PPA) - TBD
High School - TBD

Really? So....how will it be determined?  Does Jimmy Mac even have a plan?  No plan...no approval!



ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART C:
ADDITIONAL HIGH SCHOOL COACHING POSITIONS
Cost: $7,106.00

Proposal: Add two swim coaching assistant positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Swim Assistant Coaches Stipends: 7% or $2,030 x 2 = $4,060

Proposal: Add two cross-country assistant coaching positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Cross-Country Assistant Coach Stipends: 5.25% or $1,523 x 2 = $3,046

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
1. Provides a more appropriate student-to-coach ratio.
2. Provides proper safety and supervision of student-athletes.
3. Provides more diversified skill development and connection with sub-varsity student-athletes.
4. Provides a high quality experience for students in existing programs.

Participation Numbers for last 4 years:
Boys Swim 17, 29, 33, 45
Girls Swim 18, 28, 34, 48
Boys CC 43, 49, 35, 38
Girls CC 29, 33, 32, 38

Look carefully at these numbers!  Boys cross country participation has actually DECLINED, while girls have remained fairly steady with a very slight increase this year.  Swimming, on the other hand, is clearly on the rise.
Here's a case where the data support PART of the proposal:  additional coaches for swimming.

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART D:
INTRODUCING VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL LACROSSE
Cost: $11,010.00 (Year 1) $11,280.00 (Year 2)

There is a desire in the community for the school district to sponsor boys' and girls' lacrosse teams. This proposal rolls out a plan to do so.
A "desire in the community"? Really?  This makes it sound like a few old guys in lawn chairs sippin' brewskis came up with the wild idea to develop a varsity lacrosse team.   That is worlds apart from  concerted effort by a large and growing club sport to be recognized as a full school-sponsored sport!  Disingenuous doesn't even begin to describe this.

Spring 2013-14: introduce a girls varsity lacrosse team
Spring 2014-15: A boys' varsity lacrosse team would be introduced.

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
See data attached.
Once again...NO DATA!  This is beyond embarrassing.  It's downright shoddy work.  And Mr. McClowry knows full well that the lacrosse program has been requesting this for months, so there is no excuse for not doing a better job.  In fact, we happen to know (and have seen a copy) that the lacrosse folks put together a very detailed report to support this proposal.  Did McClowry use any of it?   Why not?  Does he have some personal issue with lacrosse?  For someone that speaks frequently about the importance of giving kids opportunities and the value of sports, McClowry doesn't seem all that interested in adding lacrosse. 

A participation fee of $85 for all SPHS lacrosse members would be accessed. All other expenses would be the responsibility of SPASD. The expected cost of running a lacrosse program for boys would be approximately $11,280. The Sun Prairie Lacrosse Club (SPLC) has agreed to donate $10,000 for start up costs and to purchase uniforms.

On Jan. 24 the Secondary Principals level met and ranked this proposal 2 out of the 4 submitted at this level. Projected participation fees $85 x 40 = $3,400

Does ANYBODY Review What Comes out of the Athletic Dept?

We had to start somewhere in reviewing these budget proposals...what better place than athletics.  If you glance at the budget proposals most include some level of detail and rationale.  Jim McClowry's do not.  We got bupkis.

We happen to have some inside information that, following the poor information presented regarding hockey fees, that any future reports to be presented by Mr. McClowry would be reviewed by the entire management team.  Did they?  Either way, the Management Team comes off looking poorly here because either (A) they reviewed--and approved--this proposal, or (B) they didn't review it and let it go to the public as is (again).

How can we trust ANY budget information coming out of the district when such poor quality reports such as this are released?  This district if going to need an 8th elementary school within 4-5 years and that will cost $18-20 M (or more).  Did anyone notice that most of the building referenda got slammed last week?  If one wants this community to support another big ticket venture, one might want to foc on putting one best and most quality foot forward when it comes to information.

And who exactly IS the district "Management Team"?  We assume it would include Tim Culver, Phil Frei, and Alice Murphy.  One would hope that HR Director Annette Mikula is also part of the team.  But that makes only 4 and most teams have an odd number to ensure no tie votes.  Is there a 5th?  Perhaps Student Services Manager Jennifer Apodaca?

Our next question is...do they vote on issues like this?  Knowing these folks, SOME of them HAD to take issue with Mr. McClowry's report.  Did they simply get over-ruled?  Really?  Someone actually thought the Athletics and Actvities Budget Proposals were well written and supported by data?  Or did some members of the Team simply not read it (and we can understand why)?

See attached ( Non-existent ) data
Two out of Jimmy Mac's 4 budget proposals, in response to the instruction, "2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal." were annotated with "See attached data".  Yet there was no data attached...at least any data that remotely responded to the directive.

Really?  Nobody caught that?  Who's responsible?  (ahem...Tim Culver)

Let's take only the left front wheel instead of a complete  turn key operation
Mr. McClowry...the district?....is proposing to add girls varsity lacrosse next spring.  Yippeee.  Seriously ...that's great.  And there's even a proposal to add boys varsity lacrosse th year after.  But hat about JV?  Freshmen? Lacrosse is by and large the number one growing sport in the country (although Jimmy Mac's report includes nothing about that).  It already would be better populated than several existing school sponsored sports...but we'll take just girls varsity and then boys varsity?  Really?

From the Why Don't We Show Growth Numbers That Don'T Support Our Proposal Dept.
...and then we have the request to add two assistant coaches each for swimming and cross country. Swimming...we get  The data bears that out.   But just look at the cross country data.   It does not support ANY additional coaches!

McClowry Needs Help
Out personal favorite is batting in the leadoff position.  In which McClowry asks for a half FTE (at a hefty salary) an Assistant Athletics and Activities Director.  Mr. McClowry has publicly stated that he's really, really busy.

At .50 FTE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include:
Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade nonconference athletic events.

Hmmm... not seeing much about activities there?

We hear Bon Jovi's releasing an updated version of one of their old hits.  It will be called "You Give SP A Bad Name".

Super-Size Me. Ashley Field Plan Now Projected at $5. to $57 MILLION

Sorry folks.  We WISH this were an April Fool's joke, seeing as this is on the agenda for tomorrow's Planning Committee meeting.

Who knows....Maybe it IS just a [Athletics Director]  Jim McClowry joke.
We're afraid it's no such thing.

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=95YJA84C332C

Stackhouse is tossed underneath the bus, ran over and then the bus put in reverse and run over him again.  Granted, the "Stackhouse plan" was a tad swiss cheesy, but we dont think he deserves to be hung with all this.  This plan has gone from $1.6 M to $5.7M.  Even the STAR's Chris Mertes has got to come off of the fence and rip this one to shreds.

It' our understanding that the entire cost of ALL the fields at the new high school came to about $6M.
But that's a number that Jim McClowry didn't provide.  We get it though.  His numbers haven't been...shall we say...overly impressive.

$5.7MILLION?

Are you fricking kidding us?

Screw Ashley Field!

Screw Ashley Field!

And we're not referring to some vulgar act with some coed by that name.  Shame on you for even thinking such a thought.

It's simply time, people.  Hell...it's long past time.
There's clearly some hidden agenda that's operating behind the scenes, and like Mr. T, we ain't got time for the jibbajabba.

Just over a year ago, the spectre of Ashley Field renovations was raised yet again.  In that episode, we learned that not one penny had been collected towards the "Turf Ashley Field" project.  David Stackhouse became the scapegoat.  But, you know what?   Stackhouse's plan is starting to sound a whole lot more reasonable!   And yes...that IS pretty scary.

Click to enlarge and see the budget

We leaned this summer that the "plan" would result in the loss of the baseball field portion of Ashley.  And we also learned that replacing said field would cots about $375,000 MORE than the already estimated cost of $2.4 MILLION. $3M? $4M? More?

Now we're hearing its going to cost EVEN MORE!

What really bothers us is that each of this years (2012-13) and next year's budgets included $25,000 for the Ashley Field entrance.  We also understand that $25K won't even put a dent in the actual cost for that part.  We're not seriously going to dump that money into the Ashley Field money pit...are we?

The football people have not raised anything.  Zip. Zero. Zed.  There are rumors that the baseball people are holding the plan hostage until they are assured of getting a replacement field.  Interestingly enough, SPASD Athletics Director Jim McClowry serves on the Board of Directors for SP Little League (http://www.eteamz.com/sunprairielittleleague/board/).  Not that we're suggesting that presents a conflict of interest or anything.  Hmmm...wonder if he also serves on the youth football board?  Hockey?...oh...wait...probably not; never mind.  Apparently people way smarter than us have reviewed his serving on the SPLL board and don't see a problem.  But..do you really think this plan has a snowball's chance of coming to fruition?  We do not.  We say...

Hell's Kitchen, 53590

We've got our own quasi-Olympic logo going, complete with flames.
The school board is going to have their hands full juggling all these frying pans.
Someone(s) may wind up grilled and charred before the smoke clears on these issues.
Memo to board members Whalen and Diedrich:  THIS is what happens when you're asleep at the switch armed only with a rubber stamp.

Who's in charge of this zoo?  Tim Culver likes to say that he's accountable.  But all this has either happened or festered under his watch.  Perhaps instead of spending so much time pushing for trips to China and full-immersion language (sssh...Mandarin Chinese) programs, he needs to do a little housework.  There are a couple of closets beginning to smell ripe.  Should it be the school board's job to police this stuff?  NO!  But sadly, Mr. Whalen, you never took any action regarding the inaction, so now it's a whole lot messier.

So that we're all on the same page, let's re-cap what we've learned over the summer so that you can see why we believe it's hotter than Hell's Kitchen here at SPASD:

2 fields x 13 hrs/day x 67 days is TOO MUCH!

Policy KG (Field Use Rental)
Thanks to school board Veep John Welke's attention to detail and investigative prowess, the public learned that the high school softball fields had been reserved ALL SUMMER LONG from 7:30 am to 8:00 PM.  Talk about a monopoly.

Um...who's paying for the exclusive use of those fields?  Sure the SP Little League ponied up $75,000 initially, but how far does that go?
The cost of reserving the varsity softball field for 67 days at $300/day (12 hrs/day x $25/hr)= $20,100.
Add in the JV field and that comes to $40,200 JUST for the summer of 2012.

Shouldn't SOMEONE be
saying "Nay, Nay"?

We didn't receive a dime. Who's watching this?  Who would have allowed one "renter" to reserve two complete fields for 12 hours or more EVERY day for 67 days this summer????  We're think that SOMEONE with some common sense should have said, "Nay, Nay".

 AD McClowry
The whole hockey fee fiasco hasn't settled completely yet.  Add to that the fact that Mr. McClowry not only personally reserves fields for his own use (for which we could not locate a record of payment), but he's theoretically in charge (to some extent) of all these athletics/activities listed here AND Title IX compliance.  So we think he's got s spot reserved in the center frying pan.

 Athletic “camps”
We also heard publicly this week that a large volume of athletic camps use SPASD fields and facilities, yet we haven't found the deposits we should see for the cost of using these facilities.

Another doubled edged sword here.  We appreciate the value of these camps and the dedication of the coaches.  But at the same time, all evidence points to the fact that fees charged for these camps are paid directly to the coaches.  It's great extra income for the coaches, but where is the taxpayers' share?  We ALL paid for these fields and facilities, and we look forward to revenue generated to help defray the cost of upkeep.  Oh yeah....and according to district policy KG, Procedure KG-R, and exhibit KG-E, they should be paying for the use of these fields.

Sure, it lightens the wad of bills in their pockets, but at the end of the day, those fields and facilities were not built for the purpose of generating personal income for anyone.

 Title IX
We haven't even begun to explore this one, but it is a major issue.  Again, kudos to Veep John Welke for taking the time to ask the question (although many may have missed it). There are a lot of aspects to Title IX compliance.  Are we confident that our school district administration (gulp) has been paying attention to the information below?  Based on the quality of information and level of detail we've seen to date, we're at little concerned that this may be another weakness.

Compliance is determined as follows:
The Policy Interpretation sets forth a three-part test: 1) whether the number of male and female students participating in athletics is “substantially proportionate” to their respective enrollments, or 2) if not, whether the school district can demonstrate a history and continuing expansion of the athletic program in response to the interest and abilities of the “underrepresented” gender; or 3) if the district cannot establish either of the first two circumstances, whether it can demonstrate that the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender have been “fully and effectively accommodated.”

Title IX: Athletic financing

It is also important to remember that contributions from private entities such as booster clubs are considered public money once they are accepted. Therefore, if a booster club provides benefits or services that assist only a team or teams of one gender, the district is obliged to ensure that teams of the other gender receive equivalent benefits and services, even if that means a reallocation of the district’s budget.

--http://www.asbj.com/MainMenuCategory/Archive/2012/August/Complying-with-Title-IX.html

The Sound of Sun Prairie (SOSP)
 This one we posted....but we don't want to lose sight of the issue.  Love that Sound....but loving it would be  a little easier if we were certain that all the i's have been properly dotted and t's properly crossed.

Jimmy McClowry and the VERY Bummer Summer

Poor athletic director McClowry...
Monday July 30th should have been the last of his 30 day vacation.
But no vacation for him!
Instead he was the guest of honor at a school board work-study session looking into athletic fees and athletics and activities budget.

McClowry came out of the chute smoking, even presenting what some considered a thinly veiled "threat" when he noted the extreme turnover of athletic directors statewide and particularly in the Big 8 conference.  He concluded with, "Ladies and gentlemen, you are looking at the most tenured AD in the Big 8 conference with 6 years."

Over the course of the 2.5 hour meeting, McClowry...

• ...saw his proposed (and originally approved) hockey fees reduced from $375 down past the $200 last year fee down to the "Tier 3" level of $85.
• ...faced a number of questions regarding the inequities in his fee setting logic,
• ...referred multiple times to the need to "gradually change" fees to keep pace with other districts only to have board member Steve Schroeder (correctly we might add) that going from collecting $53K in fee revenue to $89K (a 68% increase) in fee revenue does not constitute "gradual"
• ...suffered the public unveiling of the "true" cost of Ashley Field maintenance (which the district has had for nearly 2 years) --in great detail--as $16K, far lower than the $60K the public had been told previously.
• ...also suffered from another revelation--another closely-held-to-the-vest estimate of $350K to build ANOTHER baseball field.  What we didn't learn was ....WHY.  Hmmm...and Dr. Culver wonders why at the public budget hearing people were concerned about "secret" budget initiatives.
• ...was forced to reveal a little know fact: that the FFA (Future Farmers of America) club has been (for 50 yrs?) the SOLE benefactor of concessions revenue from football games...to the tune of $33K per year!
• ...had to reveal that the DECA club is the sole benefactor of almost $30K in revenue generated from the SPHS student "store"...note that it is not the "DECA" store.
• ...had to reveal that the hockey program is "charged" for ice time and the golf program "charged" for greens fees, while none of the other sports are "charged" for the capital or maintenance cost of THEIR fields//facilities
• ...came under scrutiny by astute board member Mike Krachey for discrepancies in his data for coach stipends
• ...also came under scrutiny of board member Steve Schroeder who also astutely observed that we spend more money on both athletic coach stipends and activities advisors than we do on stipends for staff members writing K-12 curriculum.
• ...had to let it slip that while the district spends a fair amount of money on the Sound of Sun Prairie (SOSP), the district receives NO fee from any of the nearly 100 student participants.  Adding insult to injury, we learned from John Whalen that the SOSP itself charges students a "sliding scale" (increasing from grade 9 to grade 12) of anywhere from $650 to $1000 or more.  Hmmm...isn't that a little like a street dealer giving new customers a little break on the price of the goods to "hook them"?

Yes, folks, it seems that, unlike Judy Moody, Mr. McClowry had a VERY bummer summer.

But lest one think that the hammer came down on Mr. McClowry, the board was quite professional and made it clear that they did not want Mr. McClowry's budget to suffer as a result of their action.

TTYF

Support a ban on penalty shots

We don't mean the normal penalty shots occurring as part of a hockey game.
We're talking about the penalty shot leveled at the hockey program.

This past June we learned that Athletics Director Jim McClowry's operational budget was increasing by $32,679.
He had a plan to recoup that increased cost by changing the fee structure.
Instead of all sport fees being $50 (hockey assessed $200), he proposed a 4 tier structure with participation fees of $65, $75, and $85.  The 4th tier was reserved for hockey at a whopping fee of $550 (275% increase).

The $550 plan
Now mind you, if we look at all sport participants, that number is 1,043.
Of that 1,043 kids, only 30 play hockey (21 boys, 9 girls).
The total sum of the increased fees was $33,052.
Of that figure, at $550,  per kid, hockey was covering 32% of the operations budget increase.
That's right...2.9% of the kids (parents) were penalized into covering 32% of the operational budget increase.  We didn't hear anything about hockey costs actually being 32% of the budget increase...just that McClowry was levying a penalty shot to the hockey program.  Way to kill a sport, Jimbo!

Regrouping: The $375 plan
We suspect the district (and McClowry) received a helluva backlash, so on July 23rd, we heard that the district quietly had dropped the hockey fees from $550 to $375.  A nice gesture, but still a 188% increase.  Yes sports like football, baseball, basketball and soccer, are seeing a 170% increase, but the difference here is that those kids are seeing a DOLLAR INCREASE of only $35, vs. the $175 clam smacker laid on hockey parents.  Strike ONE!

Under this revised scenario, hockey kids (that 2.9% of all athletes) are still paying for about 16% of the total athletics budget cost increase.  Strike TWO!

Strike 3...you're OUT!
Here's the biggest secret the district and McClowry don't want you to know.  The numbers are out there, but they fervently hope that YOU don't put two and two together.


McClowry likes to highlight the cost of ice time....$22,200 according to his own budget numbers as the rationale for firing a penalty shot at hockey kids.  He likes to emphasize that no one else benefits from the ice time charges.


We have a response to that.  Do you know how much it costs annually to maintain and prepare the district's MANY fields?  They can't even tell you!  But what we DO know is data on what it takes to maintain just ONE field...Ashley field....used by ...what?  Football 5-6 games a year, a little for baseball?  Some Sound of Sun Prairie?  A couple of lacrosse games a year?


If we wanted to cherry pick, like Mr. McClowry, we'd use the figure David Stackhouse tossed out--and it held for many years-- $60,000 per year!!!!  That would mean that the cost of maintaining Ashley field is nearly triple the cost of ice time for hockey.  Now...we'd rather bring you real, unfiltered data instead of cherry picking.  Two years back the district determined that the ACTUAL cost to maintain JUST Ashley field, is about $16,000 per year.  (Of course that figure hasn't been widely publicized because Stackhouse's intent behind the $60,000/yr figure was a 10-yr savings of $600K...which he felt the district should contribute to turf for Ashley.  At only $15K/yr, the district "contribution: shrinks to only $150K.)


...and field maintenance is covered out of the general fund...NOT the Athletics operations budget.
...so why is ice time not covered b y the general fund?
...or greens fees?


The cost of maintaining Ashley field ALONE amounts to about 72% of the cost of ice time.
So why are we essentially charging hockey kids for the cost of their "field" when we don't charge other kids for their sport "fields"?


What is the solution?
The school board needs to take the cost of ice time (hockey) and greens fees (golf) out of the athletics operations budget.  The cost of fields and field maintenance is not covered there.  For hockey and golf, those ARE their "fields".


The school district paid about $1.4M for an incredible gymnasium that serves most sports...bit not hockey or golf.  $8.8M was spent on "site work", including the development of Summit fields, the new track, and all those other beautiful fields.  Hockey and golf got zip.  Even the arts program got over $500K for a fly loft.  We built a greenhouse, and added $75,000 towards a concert grand piano.  Hockey and golf?  Nothing.


It's time to make the athletics program equitable.  We need to cover ice time and greens fees under the general fund.
We also need to re-set the hockey fees back to the 3-tier system.  Put it on the highest rung...but charge no more than for any other sport for which the district cannot even begin to tell you the "operational cost" of their fields.  We know Ashley field costs alone are just a bit less than ice time for hockey.


Re-set hockey fees at $85.
Transfer excess athletic program fee revenue to the general fund.
The net "cost" to the district is $8,327.
In a $73M budget, that is peanuts...about 1/100 of a % (0.01%)

What did hockey & golf get?

Monday July 30 is the big school board work study meeting on atheltics and activities:

See the agenda and materials

This all started with Athletic Director McClowry proposing to raise all athletics fees a little bit ($40 max) EXCEPT for hockey.  The hockey kids--girls and boys--got poked with a very sharp stick to the tune of a $350 increase from $200 to $550.

As justification,  Mr. McClowry verbally presented some cherry-picked facts that suggested we were the only district NOT charging that much.  He alluded to the incredible cost of ice time.  We recall him using a figure of $30,000 or more.  The real number seems to be closer to $22K.

10 E 410 940 162223 000 BOYS ICE HOCKEY DUES AND FEES GENERAL 22,200.00

What we want to know is this:
As part of the new high school referendum, virtually every sport BUT hockey and golf got complete new "digs".   They got zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  So...if the taxpayers can cover that and field maintenance, why aren't we covering (taking out of the equation)  ice time and greens fees?

Isn't this all about equity, Dr. Culver?
Or do we just like skewing the data to make a point?


Sorry to say folks, but SP-EYE doesn't even have a dog in this fight.  We're not hockey fans.  But we believe in equity and fairness...and it's not fair to raise the hockey fees one iota.

Halfway is nice...but not good enough

In a surprise move Monday night, the district office announced during the school board's Finance Committee meeting that it was lowering the hockey fee increase from $350 ($200 => $550) down to $175 ($200=>$375).  From the bewildered looks of school board members in attendance, they had no clue.

Hockey fees reduced from $550 to $375!

Don't get us wrong, the reduction is nice, but it's not good enough. Clearly, the Powers That Be simply cut the fee increase in half.  Where was the data that drove that decision?  It sure looks like they got an earful about the increase and decided that cutting it 50% would make the issue go away.  Maybe for some...but not for us!  We need to stop pulling this crap out of our butts and start making sound, defensible, data-driven decisions.

We learned that the Athletics budget was re-instated from 90% to 100%. So that means Mr. McClowry will have more money (and thus need to lean less on hockey people).  What has NEVER been presented is the dollar amount represented by  10% of the athletic budget.  IT seems that the district is telling us that the cost of adding freshman boys and girls soccer plus $175 fee increase for hockey players adds up to 10% of the Athletic budget.  Sorry...we're not buying it.  This $175 reduction was clearly pulled out of somebody's....well...you get the idea.

We say that the hockey fees  MUST go back to $200 until such time as the district can deliver a complete accounting of revenues and expenses for ALL sports.  And that means the cost of field maintenance, transportation, uniforms and everything else.  Then the board needs to establish a clear policy that underscores the extent to which costs are to be recouped via fees.

For example...
let's say football "costs" a total of $100,000 per year
...and total revenues (gate receipts, WIAA reimbursements, etc.) total $50,000.
That means the net "cost" to the district/taxpayers is $50,000.
Then, let's say the board's policy is that fees must be assessed to recoup at least 25% of net costs incurred.
That would mean that football athletic fees must be set at a rate which will amount to $12,500.
Then...if we have 100 kids going out for football (we can use the prior year's real data), then $12,500 ÷ 100 = an athletic fee of $125.00

It's not that difficult people!  We need to change the way we do business.

What we find most interesting is that when the board voted to allow the fee increase it took mere hours to change the fees on the web site.  Now...fully 48 hours later, the website shows hockey fees at $550.  Hmmmm...Mr. McClowry isn't so quick when he doesn't get his way, is he?

Behavior Modification Therapy

When a new puppy peediddles on the carpet, what do you do?  You don't say, "there's a good puppy!", right?  Hopefully you also don't smack it either.  But what you need to do is SOMETHING to alter the course of future events.  Otherwise, young puppy is gonna be thinking, "YeeeeeeHAH, my master doesn't give a rat's hairy tookus if I just lift my leg and let loose on this nice comfy carpet.  And it's oh so absorbent, so I think I will."

Are you with us so far?

Along a similar vein, our school board needs to introduce some form of behavior modification therapy when administration does not produce what is expected.  Like a puppy who pees on the carpet, administration will continue to engage in unacceptable behaviors so long as the board allows it.  Ultimately, of course, it should be Tim Culver that is instituting the behavioral modification therapy (because ONLY Dr. Culver reports to the school board; all others report to the good doctor).  But, if he is unwilling, or unable, it falls on the school board.

In the real world, many people/businesses do something called a "post-mortem" after a decision has been made to evaluate the process and the decision made.  Let's do just that, in abbreviated form, and look back at the decision to raise hockey fees by 275%, when the most any other sport fee was raised was 70% (from $50 to $85; baseball, basketball, football, soccer, and wrestling).


It started with an informational item at the May 14th 2012 school board meeting.  Note that informational items require no action by the board--they just are told what transpired.  In addition, responsibility for establishing athletic fees was delegated to administration years ago (and maybe THAT is a decision to re-consider).

Discussion was had at the May 14, 2012 Board Meeting (https://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/Private?open&login) regarding the changes being proposed by the Administration in fees related to students participating in district sponsored sports.  Fee changes were recommended for all sports, however, the fee for participating in hockey is planned to increase 275% from $200 per year to $550 per year. This would bring the SP Hockey fee into line with other districts in the conference, which range from $450 to $800 and last year averaged $644.

Subsequently board members Jill Camber-Davidson and Tom Weber put together a Situation Report to re-visit the athletic fees for 2012-13 at the School Board Meeting of June 11, 2012.  Now, bear in mind, those that present a Situation Report usually do so for a reason.  This Situation Report, an Action item this time, outlined the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATIONS:Direct administration to research and prepare a report answering questions above and to:
Option 1:  Direct administration to maintain the current $200 hockey fee until further information can be obtained and research completed on a justifiable and appropriate fee adjustment and fee setting procedure.
Option 2:  Propose a modification to policy JN that would include language stating that any fee or fine amount change greater than ‘x’% in a single year be approved by the Board.
Option 3:  Propose that the Board take over the ownership and execution of procedure JN-R and have fees and fines established directly by the Board.
Option 4:  No action on this item

So...clearly a number of options were provided.  This was the meeting at which Athletics Director McClowry provided a long, ramblingly chaotic discussion in an attempt to rationalize his fee increase for hockey.  The problem was that (A) McClowry was obviously unprepared, and (B) the board was given NO hard data to support McClowry's ramblings, and (C) there was no verification of data which would have allowed the board to see that McClowry cherry-picked the data which supported his position.  A more complete analysis and more complete set of hard data would have shown a very different picture than the one McClowry painted.  A lengthy board discussion ensued.  In the end, however, the following motion was made, and you can see how the vote went.

Motion & Voting

hockey fees 4.06 - TO TAKE NO ACTION - (leave fee as in the procedure, but still bring to F[inance Committe] in 2 weeks)

Motion by John Whalen, second by Caren Diedrich.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried

Yea: Caren Diedrich, Mike Krachey, Tom Weber, John Whalen

Nay: Jill Camber Davidson, John Welke

So...ultimately the board decided to take no action, which essentially translated to "go ahead with your fee increase".  It was passive support.  Only board members Camber-Davidson and Welke felt that something else should have happened.  It's not our intent to throw board president Tom Weber under the bus, but we have to ask the question: "why did you support a motion that kept the fee increases when you co-authored the report to re-visit them?"

The next ...actually more of a comment... is for the four board members who supported the motion to leave the fee increases as is:
Your decision to take no action effectively rewarded Mr. McClowry's unacceptable report. (You DO realize that this kind of filtered, oral only information is unacceptable...right?)  This is Behavior Modification Therapy 101.  If you reward the unacceptable behaviors, then they will only continue (and multiply).  You need to get on a long term path to consistently enact consequences to correct (not necessarily punish) inappropriate behaviors.  This is the teachable moment...right?  Didn't we just invest a huge amount of time and money in PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support)?  Did we not learn anything at the board table from this?  You must also see that ultimately these behaviors fall upon the district administrator to correct.  Your role is to make it abundantly clear with Dr. Culver that these behaviors will no longer be tolerated.  Call it tough love; call it whatever you like...but call it.

When administrative student problem behavior is unresponsive to preventive school-wide and classroom-wide procedures, information about the administrator's student’s behavior is used to (a) understand why the problem behavior is occurring (function); 

(b) strengthen more acceptable alternative behaviors (social skills); 

(c) remove antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain problem behavior, respectively; and 

(d) add antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain acceptable alternative behaviors.

Sorry to be hard on you, school board, but if this district is ever going to be what it could be, you need to be doing it better than the other guy.  You need to hold administration accountable.  You can trust...but you must verify.   And, perhaps more to the point...if you can't verify the information, you need to revoke the trust.  Do not let the puppy to continue to pee on the carpet...unless you care to spend an awful lot of money on carpet cleaning and replacement.

Entitlement, Sense of????

Honestly.
Thanks to those who mentioned the existence of this special parking spot for SPHS Athletics Director Jim McClowry right t the gate to Summit field.  Another hint of preference for baseball?

Note that there is no sign indicating "Reserved Parking for SPHS Principal"....although more to come on the subject.

Mushroom Cloud of Questions Looms Over McClowry

A few weeks back, Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry brought forth his...well...jumble of personal notes... supporting a 275% increase in athletic fees for hockey.   The board approved those fees, but, based on comments, it seemed like that decision was not final; it was pending the outcome of a full report to the Finance Committee on June 25th.

Which never happened.

What Mr. Clowry should have learned by now is that his lack of public information and subsequent delay results only in idle fingers.  And idle fingers tend to seek out the Internet to find information on their own.  And that never bodes well.

Initially our quest was to rebut some of the data McClowry presented to support the huge increase to hockey fees.  He raised the cost of ice time, which is a valid issue.  But what he didn't offer was the cost to maintain other sports that he seems to favor.  What is the cost of Ashley Field maintenance?  We have been told as much as $60,000 per year (but have since learned it's only $15,000/year).   But...what other sports than football is Ashley Field used for?   That's a hefty cost for 5-6 games per year.

And what about all that equipment used by football.  Blocking sleds?  Helmets?  Pads.  How much did they cost?  How long do they last?  How much will replacement cost be?  Who's paying for that?  These are all good questions, but we want to talk about some other things that popped out of Google.

Did anyone know that Mr McClowry is on the Board of Directors for Sun Prairie Little League?  We're not saying it's a bad thing.  But is it the only sport with a board on which he sits?  We checked youth football...nope.  We're not going to waste any time checking hockey.  It's clear he's no fan of hockey.  Does THAT pose a problem for someone who is supposed to equally represent ALL sports/activities?  Was that the best decision?  Is it appropriate?  A conflict of interest?

And what about using his school district e-mail as his contact information for little league?  We keep hearing how busy Mr. McClowry is.  We wonder how much of his district time involves Little League matters.  Varsity baseball coach Rob Hamilton is also on the board of directors (which makes sense a s a feeder program).  But coach Hamilton is a model for integrity.  He uses a private e-mail address.  Hmmmm.

Oh...and then we found very interesting the fact that Mr. McClowry has quite frequently reserved the JV baseball diamond (behind CHUMS, field D) for "McClowry Baseball Practice".  Huh?  What's that.  Doing a little digging, we found that McClowry coaches a ....wait for it...BASEBALL team.  Gee...guess we don't anticipate any big increases in baseball fees!

But what of using this field?  Are other teams in his league allowed to use that field??  In fact, we hear some rumblings in the community that this field is not in the greatest shape and the district is trying to limit the volume of use.   Guess that doesn't apply to Team McClowry...right?

There is district policy for using these fields.  And it involves paying a rental fee or "donation in kind".  Is McClowry paying these fees?  Or just piggy-backing on the blanket Little League donation in kind?

We have a few concerns.  And a LOT of questions that seem to be begging for answers.

Sun Prairie Chooses a New Mascot!

Curt the Cardinal forced to retire! (gasp)

They say in sports that what you are defines who you are.  Recognizing both the overabundance of "Cardinals" as state sports mascots, and their own special skill set, district administration appears to be working out a plan to establish a new team mascot and logo for Sun Prairie sports.

What does this district excel in?  Why cherry picking, of course.  And thus it seems clear that we are destined to become the Sun Prairie Cherry Pickers.  Complete with a new mascot: Cherry Chip!

We have only our elected school board members -- and we need FOUR of those--- who have the power to stop the cherry picking and return Curt the Cardinal to his rightful throne.  Do we have a majority of 4 board members who can and will step up, with their big boy (and girl) pants and publicly vow to end the cherry picking and right this listing district?

And while we're at it, why don't we change the Mission Statement to clearly reflect that we require ---DESERVE--- to have all the facts regarding the data used to make decisions.  All data is filtered to some extent (MLB for example, filters baseball stats to include those with only a certain number of at bats.  Otherwise, the guy that had a hit in his only at bat would win the batting title).  But the difference is, that MLB clearly discloses how data has been filtered...and why.

The Sun Prairie school district, on the other hand, filters data until the result proves the case that it wants to make.  Our most recent example had Athletics Director Jim McClowry filtering hockey fee data for the Big 8 Conference.  For hockey, the big 8 includes 8 teams, 3 of which are Madison teams, which all have the same fees and is a perennially cash-strapped district.  Then there's Janesville, which has been hit harder by the recession than most other locales.  Way to make your average hockey fee soar through the roof, Jim!  If one looks at similar sized (to Sun Prairie) school districts, quite the different picture emerges.  Of course that picture doesn't allow Mr. McClowry to tax the hockey players of this community in order to support his plan to add freshman boys and girls soccer teams this year.

Hmm...isn't it supposed to be a plan supported and approved by the SCHOOL BOARD?  It seems clear that McClowry is NOT a hockey fan.

Remember what Donnie Osmond used to sing.... "One bad apple won't spoil the whole darn bunch..."