Guess subscriptions must be down again for the Sun Prairie STAR, because recently the STAR's managing editor. wrote an OpEd piece casting aspersions on the Sun Prairie School Board's actions...and more directly at President Tom Weber.
Chalk one more up on the list of whiners in the "Bryan Davis for Superintendent" fiasco. Or is it that outgoing SuperNintendo Tim Culver is trying to sow as many seeds of malcontent as he can during his final weeks (can't we just put him on paid administrative leave and avoid this nonsense?). We wonder what the good doctor's correspondence records would show.
The coconut (emphasis on "nut") telegraph tells us that our local editor-in-cheek has either filed or is planning to file a massive open records request. When you cast a net that large, be careful what you are fishing for! You might find that some of your buddies are far more worthy of an investigative journalism article than the school board or its President.
Our money is on Mr. Weber and the board landing squarely on their feet. They did what the community wanted...went through a process. The process ended poorly. Then they went out and found a perfect fit for our district. Instead of crying foul, why don't you thank them? What? You wanted ANOTHER lengthy, time consuming process that would drag into summer when most residents are gone? Your thought process is misfiring! They found a perfect fit, and the board was unanimous. Note as well that when it came to RE-considering Bryan Davis, only John Whalen was a fan (and you understand that his vote has no value...right?). They averted a potential train wreck and turned it into a huge success story.
In fact, even new board member Marilyn Ruffin voted against considering Mr. Davis. You don't think THAT caused some interesting dinner conversation in the Ruffin household after Jerry Ruffin pleaded with the board, on behalf of Sun Prairie African American Parent Network (AAPN), to hire Mr. Davis? (Hi, honey,I'm home...and hey...I didn't vote to hire Davis. Sorry!).
And we hope, Mr. Managing Editor, that if you do get those Open Records, that you'll spend as much time exposing the multitude of district staff who we are willing to bet will be discovered to have spent much staff time involved in some grass roots lobbying for Bryan Davis...all on the taxpayers' dime. If anyone should be worried, it's those folks.
Showing posts with label STAR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label STAR. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2015
Monday, February 21, 2011
Open Meeting Violation?
We hear the following from a community resident:
Last week a similar violation was alleged because notice was not found in the STAR -- the district's official newspaper-- in the usual location (back of section 2, with other notices). We learned that on this occasion, the STAR published the Notice in question in the "LifeStyles" section. Seems logical to us (NOT!).
So...at the very least does the district have to consider whether or not the STAR is adequately serving us in its role as the official newspaper? Should the meetings be cancelled tonight?
The state's Open Meetings Law Guide states the following:
Neither tonight's meeting nor the negotiations meeting tomorrow have been properly noticed in the Star. I called the Star this morning to see if I overlooked it. The person I talked to verified that there were no notices and said they must have made the request too late to make the deadline. I don't think the board can hold a legal meeting.The issue at hand is: does a public notice have to actually appear in the paper? Or can the district just SEND it to the paper? One can argue that with the wide availability of the Internet, by virtue of posting a meeting Notice on the district website (BoardDocs) is sufficient. The district also posts notices at the District Office. The District send notices to the library, but we learned recently that the library doesn't always post them.
Last week a similar violation was alleged because notice was not found in the STAR -- the district's official newspaper-- in the usual location (back of section 2, with other notices). We learned that on this occasion, the STAR published the Notice in question in the "LifeStyles" section. Seems logical to us (NOT!).
So...at the very least does the district have to consider whether or not the STAR is adequately serving us in its role as the official newspaper? Should the meetings be cancelled tonight?
The state's Open Meetings Law Guide states the following:
Note, however, that the requirement to provide notice to the officially designated newspaper is distinct from the requirement to provide notice to the public. If the chief presiding officer chooses to provide notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium, the officer must ensure that the notice is in fact published.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Third Time to be the Charm for Pepsi Contract?
The Sun Prairie STAR's headline regarding Monday night's Beverage Bid vote appears to suggest that it will be coming back to the board yet again.
Board delays district-wide beverage bid for second time
http://www.sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=21&ArticleID=6399
Our friends at Merriam-Webster tell us that the word, "delay" means to "put off", "postpone", or "to stop [for a period of time]"
...as in "this is just a temporary setback"?
Hello! What part of a second board NO vote didn't the STAR hear?
No means NO...doesn't it?
Or...does "No" mean that if you want something bad enough you get to press forward until you get it?
Just wondering...
Board delays district-wide beverage bid for second time
http://www.sunprairiestar.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=21&ArticleID=6399
Our friends at Merriam-Webster tell us that the word, "delay" means to "put off", "postpone", or "to stop [for a period of time]"
...as in "this is just a temporary setback"?
Hello! What part of a second board NO vote didn't the STAR hear?
No means NO...doesn't it?
Or...does "No" mean that if you want something bad enough you get to press forward until you get it?
Just wondering...
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Conflict of Interest?
Typically we withhold the names of ALL who write into SP-EYE to protect them from even the potential for retaliation. Those that don't march in lock-step with Tim Culver and his supporters live in fear of administrative reprisal. That is a grim reality. We hear it nearly every day, "I'd love to speak out...but I fear for my job..." We see it most clearly at the annual elector's meeting. With district administration present in force, which district employee wants to come to the meeting and raise their hand in favor of anything that district administration opposes??? So, this past week, SP-EYE received an anonymous letter. Hard copy with no identifying marks... delivered to a go-between's address. Is this what our fine country has come to? Someone so fearful of backlash that they don't even want to rely on their First Amendment right to Free Speech to shield them? Sadly, at least in the Sun Prairie School District, yes.
We offer the following because at its root, it represents a concern shared by many--albeit not a concern that is freely vocalized. Some allegations are made. We neither support nor refute the allegations.
An interesting opinion, no?
The Law.com dictionary defines conflict of interest as:
The American Business Media, Editorial Code of Ethics states that,
We will add one observation that we made years ago, and it still rings true today. File it under your "Things that make you go 'hmmm'" directory.
Longtime readers of the STAR we're sure have noticed that during every election year, the candidates which are endorsed by the STAR are decidedly Republican by trade. Kinda strongly says that either Mr. Mertes, the STAR, or both have a Republican lean on issues. Then there's the School Board races. Now...we know...the office of School Board is non-partisan. Yeeeeaaaaah...right. There are NO politics in school issues. Please! School Board races only non-partisan because you don't have to declare a party for them.
Go back and check the STAR records, and the STAR inevitably supports school board candidates that are (A) supported by the teacher's union and (B) those that don't come off as fiscal conservatives. Anyone remember a couple of years back when the STAR endorsement column was titled, in bold, "Anyone but Gibbs" [for school board]? Gibbs did, notably, go on to win re-election with the highest vote total in SP history for a school board race. Gibbs was (and is) a strong fiscal conservative that deeply supports education...but didn't particularly care for the fluff built into school district budgets. Mertes might say that his dislike for Gibbs was due to [opinion] the tone of board meetings at the time. But someone else might say that Gibbs provided the lone voice of 'common sense' and that he had to struggle mightily to even have his opinion heard.
Why would Mertes almost routinely support Republican candidiates for elected offices and then support candidates of a more Democratic stance when it comes to school board? Is he just a staunchly pro-education Republican? Or is it that the Mrs. is a member of the teacher's union whose star is on the rise and supporting pro-union board candidates ensures nice raises? This is where things get a little squidgy. Particularly now that Ms. Mertes is on the SPEA Negotiations team, what may have been a clouded appearance of potential conflict of interest is getting a little clearer as to the potential. It would not be out of line for someone to express concern that the STAR will be less inclined to vigorously report transgressions of the school board and school district when it may be feared that doing so may hamper Ms. Mertes' chances for continued advancement, or negotiations with the teacher's union.
With respect to politics and teachers unions, an article from the Brookings Institute states
Politicians generally view teachers unions according to their political affiliation — Republicans are critical, Democrats are supportive.
An article from the Rasmussen Reports states
While 78% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliated voters say teachers’ jobs are the chief focus of the unions, only 55% of Democrats agree. Two-thirds of U.S. voters (66%) say the teachers’ unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – are more interested in protecting their members’ jobs than in the quality of education. Only 23% of voters say educational quality comes first for the unions, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey.
Only time will tell. But clearly people are watching and putting two and two together.
We offer the following because at its root, it represents a concern shared by many--albeit not a concern that is freely vocalized. Some allegations are made. We neither support nor refute the allegations.
Dear SP-EYE
I am a district employee who wishes to remind the SP-EYE people that there is a strong conflict of interest between the STAR and how it deals with school issues. As you know, [STAR editor] Chris Mertes is the husband of Janice Mertes, a high school teacher.
How stories are written, the positions the STAR takes on all school issues [sic]is strongly influenced by what the Mertes's feel will best promote the agenda of Janice Mertes. There are countless examples of this in the past. Janice Mertes is an expert on self-promotion. The reason Tim Culver praised Janice Mertes in his first blog was to win the support of the only newspaper in town.
I would love to sign my name but [I work in the district and] I don't want to be harassed.Thanks for listening.
p.s. Janice Mertes is the chairperson of the SPEA [teacher's union] negotiations committee; watch how the STAR reports on negotiations.
An interesting opinion, no?
The Law.com dictionary defines conflict of interest as:
a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties.Clearly, a case can be made that the STAR frequently reports on school issues, as is expected in a "small town" newspaper. Certainly, Chris Mertes has written editorials on school district issues. Editorials are given a little more latitude, as they are covered by the disclaimer that they may not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper or its parent company. Generally speaking, coverage of school district business and meetings is handled by a STAR reporter. But of course that can be countered with an argument that, as editor, Mr. Mertes reserves the right to edit how that information is reported.
The American Business Media, Editorial Code of Ethics states that,
Editors, reporters and writers employed by American Business Media publications adhere to the highest standards of journalistic practice. In doing so, they pledge to:Certainly, there could be an appearance of conflict, of which we're equally certain Mr. Mertes is well aware. I think a ship's captain might say, "Proceed with caution".
a. Maintain honesty, integrity, accuracy, thoroughness and fairness in the reporting and editing of articles, headlines, and graphics.
b. Avoid all conflicts of interest as well as any appearances of such conflicts.
We will add one observation that we made years ago, and it still rings true today. File it under your "Things that make you go 'hmmm'" directory.
Longtime readers of the STAR we're sure have noticed that during every election year, the candidates which are endorsed by the STAR are decidedly Republican by trade. Kinda strongly says that either Mr. Mertes, the STAR, or both have a Republican lean on issues. Then there's the School Board races. Now...we know...the office of School Board is non-partisan. Yeeeeaaaaah...right. There are NO politics in school issues. Please! School Board races only non-partisan because you don't have to declare a party for them.
Go back and check the STAR records, and the STAR inevitably supports school board candidates that are (A) supported by the teacher's union and (B) those that don't come off as fiscal conservatives. Anyone remember a couple of years back when the STAR endorsement column was titled, in bold, "Anyone but Gibbs" [for school board]? Gibbs did, notably, go on to win re-election with the highest vote total in SP history for a school board race. Gibbs was (and is) a strong fiscal conservative that deeply supports education...but didn't particularly care for the fluff built into school district budgets. Mertes might say that his dislike for Gibbs was due to [opinion] the tone of board meetings at the time. But someone else might say that Gibbs provided the lone voice of 'common sense' and that he had to struggle mightily to even have his opinion heard.
Why would Mertes almost routinely support Republican candidiates for elected offices and then support candidates of a more Democratic stance when it comes to school board? Is he just a staunchly pro-education Republican? Or is it that the Mrs. is a member of the teacher's union whose star is on the rise and supporting pro-union board candidates ensures nice raises? This is where things get a little squidgy. Particularly now that Ms. Mertes is on the SPEA Negotiations team, what may have been a clouded appearance of potential conflict of interest is getting a little clearer as to the potential. It would not be out of line for someone to express concern that the STAR will be less inclined to vigorously report transgressions of the school board and school district when it may be feared that doing so may hamper Ms. Mertes' chances for continued advancement, or negotiations with the teacher's union.
With respect to politics and teachers unions, an article from the Brookings Institute states
Politicians generally view teachers unions according to their political affiliation — Republicans are critical, Democrats are supportive.
An article from the Rasmussen Reports states
While 78% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliated voters say teachers’ jobs are the chief focus of the unions, only 55% of Democrats agree. Two-thirds of U.S. voters (66%) say the teachers’ unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – are more interested in protecting their members’ jobs than in the quality of education. Only 23% of voters say educational quality comes first for the unions, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey.
Only time will tell. But clearly people are watching and putting two and two together.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Journalistic Integrity be (expletive deleted)
Sorry, Chris and Gina, but this might be viewed as us taking another "potshot" at you. While you got the BoardDocs issues dead to center, we have a few problems with the article, "SP4K: Finding a 'common ground' with childcare partners".
Clocking in at nearly 2500 words, it was a monster article. But rather than an article based on facts, about 80% of the article consists simply of direct quotes by Marggie Banker, the district's Instructional Program Manager for Resource Development (though the article states her title is, "SPASD 4K Program Manager").
As journalists, you are obligated to be as fair, balanced, and accurate as possible in your reporting. With the exception of editorial commentary, writers must present their stories as accurate accounts of the events without injecting personal beliefs and/or interpretations. We don't think you did that. Sure, there's a quote or two from Wes Korenic (Gingerbread House childcare) as well as one quote each from Ginger Fisher (Director of La Petite Academy), Barb Mulhern (Director of the Sun Prairie Nursery School), and Jill Haglund (early childhood consultant for the Department of Public Instruction)--but overall the article is very clearly a school district sales pitch, with a kumbaya, feel-good style. Additionally, nearly all of Bankers' quotes are preceded by "I think..., I feel..., or I believe...".
Where's the balance of perspectives? Where's the hard data or facts to substantiate statements made? Did you put any time into an independent review of the data available? Three citizens spoke out at the board meeting...but you didn't ask them their thoughts. The article reads like one of the propaganda communiques sent out be the school district.
Let's look at some of the quotes included (all quotes attributed to Marggie Banker):
On the impact of a 4K program on childcare centers:
"I think that's hard to predict right now [the impact on the childcare centers]...,"
"We don't have any research or evidence that brings to bear any grave impact on a business that I'm aware of ..."
On the community desire for a 4K program...
"We knew that our families were hungry for 4-year old learning opportunity here ..."
"I think it was not so much a matter of should we do it; it was a matter of how we do it. "
"We've done some research on how other districts have compensated their childcare partners ..."
On the issue of whether the district will be ready in time for fall 2009...
"We have a phenomenally committed staff, and I think that together, with the childcare providers, we feel like we will be able to work together and find solutions to some of these big questions..."
On whether Model 2 (see below) is still an option...
"We haven't eliminated any possibility. We've just looked at what the best practices and research has said and it has said that the model three community approach works best..."
"We've heard that model two has been the least successful model throughout the state, though it's not off the table really."
"I think all options are on the table. I think that this discourse will be ongoing into the future. And that's the strength of how SPASD operates their program. "
[Pardon the ( SP-EYE) interruption: Hello! The budget process for 2009-10 is quickly gathering steam. In order to implement Model 2, we would have to be getting serious about adding teachers, which would cost a lot more money and was NOT factored into the proposal. The school board voted on the proposal presented. So...why didn't the district be honest and just say that Model 2 is NOT going to be done in Sun Prairie? Because it will NOT be an option.]
On why the HeadStart program was not involved in the proposal...
"Though they were invited to the discussions this fall, I don't think they were ready to go forward as a partner yet..."
"I heard the waiting list was in the forties of families who want access to this program and there are just not enough spaces available..."
You THINK...? You FEEL...? You've HEARD...??
Good Lord! Whatever happened to making decisions driven by data? Remember? The district mission statement?
To maximize each student's learning by...using data to drive instructional decision-making;
Refer to the full district vision and mission statement.-
We interrupt this blog post to bring you some actual data:
Ms. Banker said very clearly that, "...research has shown [model 2]to be a weaker approach".
Gee....that's interesting, because the DPI website has a spreadsheet of all the districts in the state that have implemented 4K, and 75% of them are using the Model 2 approach. So...we're saying that 75% of the state has it wrong, and we have it right? Hmmmmm. Note also that the approach we've chosen: about 90% childcare; 10% school exists in only 25 of 329 (7.5%)Wisconsin school districts.
THIS underscores why community members that are awake and Wes Korenic pleaded with the district to SLOW DOWN!
Breakdown of 4K program settings in Wisconsin
School only__________________249
School+ChildCare______________25
School+HeadStart+ChildCare____21
Other_________________________12
School+HeadStart______________11
HeadStart+ChildCare____________7
ChildCare only_________________3
HeadStart only_________________1
TOTAL________________________329
---Source: DPI website
Although it may look that way, we do not fault Ms. Banker in this process. Unfortunately she was the messenger for the district's message in this article. We're certain that she was simply trying to be good troop.
• Model 1 programs are classrooms that are taught by a school district employed teacher, assisted by a school district employed educational assistant, and located in a school district building.
• Model 2 programs are classrooms located in a community agency facility with the children taught by a school district employed teacher and supported by either a school district employee or community agency employed educational assistant.
• Model 3 programs have classrooms located in a community agency facility and taught by a community agency employed educational assistant.
Clocking in at nearly 2500 words, it was a monster article. But rather than an article based on facts, about 80% of the article consists simply of direct quotes by Marggie Banker, the district's Instructional Program Manager for Resource Development (though the article states her title is, "SPASD 4K Program Manager").
As journalists, you are obligated to be as fair, balanced, and accurate as possible in your reporting. With the exception of editorial commentary, writers must present their stories as accurate accounts of the events without injecting personal beliefs and/or interpretations. We don't think you did that. Sure, there's a quote or two from Wes Korenic (Gingerbread House childcare) as well as one quote each from Ginger Fisher (Director of La Petite Academy), Barb Mulhern (Director of the Sun Prairie Nursery School), and Jill Haglund (early childhood consultant for the Department of Public Instruction)--but overall the article is very clearly a school district sales pitch, with a kumbaya, feel-good style. Additionally, nearly all of Bankers' quotes are preceded by "I think..., I feel..., or I believe...".
Where's the balance of perspectives? Where's the hard data or facts to substantiate statements made? Did you put any time into an independent review of the data available? Three citizens spoke out at the board meeting...but you didn't ask them their thoughts. The article reads like one of the propaganda communiques sent out be the school district.
Let's look at some of the quotes included (all quotes attributed to Marggie Banker):
On the impact of a 4K program on childcare centers:
"I think that's hard to predict right now [the impact on the childcare centers]...,"
"We don't have any research or evidence that brings to bear any grave impact on a business that I'm aware of ..."
On the community desire for a 4K program...
"We knew that our families were hungry for 4-year old learning opportunity here ..."
"I think it was not so much a matter of should we do it; it was a matter of how we do it. "
"We've done some research on how other districts have compensated their childcare partners ..."
On the issue of whether the district will be ready in time for fall 2009...
"We have a phenomenally committed staff, and I think that together, with the childcare providers, we feel like we will be able to work together and find solutions to some of these big questions..."
On whether Model 2 (see below) is still an option...
"We haven't eliminated any possibility. We've just looked at what the best practices and research has said and it has said that the model three community approach works best..."
"We've heard that model two has been the least successful model throughout the state, though it's not off the table really."
"I think all options are on the table. I think that this discourse will be ongoing into the future. And that's the strength of how SPASD operates their program. "
[Pardon the ( SP-EYE) interruption: Hello! The budget process for 2009-10 is quickly gathering steam. In order to implement Model 2, we would have to be getting serious about adding teachers, which would cost a lot more money and was NOT factored into the proposal. The school board voted on the proposal presented. So...why didn't the district be honest and just say that Model 2 is NOT going to be done in Sun Prairie? Because it will NOT be an option.]
On why the HeadStart program was not involved in the proposal...
"Though they were invited to the discussions this fall, I don't think they were ready to go forward as a partner yet..."
"I heard the waiting list was in the forties of families who want access to this program and there are just not enough spaces available..."
You THINK...? You FEEL...? You've HEARD...??
Good Lord! Whatever happened to making decisions driven by data? Remember? The district mission statement?
To maximize each student's learning by...using data to drive instructional decision-making;
Refer to the full district vision and mission statement.-
We interrupt this blog post to bring you some actual data:
Ms. Banker said very clearly that, "...research has shown [model 2]to be a weaker approach".
Gee....that's interesting, because the DPI website has a spreadsheet of all the districts in the state that have implemented 4K, and 75% of them are using the Model 2 approach. So...we're saying that 75% of the state has it wrong, and we have it right? Hmmmmm. Note also that the approach we've chosen: about 90% childcare; 10% school exists in only 25 of 329 (7.5%)Wisconsin school districts.
THIS underscores why community members that are awake and Wes Korenic pleaded with the district to SLOW DOWN!
Breakdown of 4K program settings in Wisconsin
School only__________________249
School+ChildCare______________25
School+HeadStart+ChildCare____21
Other_________________________12
School+HeadStart______________11
HeadStart+ChildCare____________7
ChildCare only_________________3
HeadStart only_________________1
TOTAL________________________329
---Source: DPI website
Although it may look that way, we do not fault Ms. Banker in this process. Unfortunately she was the messenger for the district's message in this article. We're certain that she was simply trying to be good troop.
• Model 1 programs are classrooms that are taught by a school district employed teacher, assisted by a school district employed educational assistant, and located in a school district building.
• Model 2 programs are classrooms located in a community agency facility with the children taught by a school district employed teacher and supported by either a school district employee or community agency employed educational assistant.
• Model 3 programs have classrooms located in a community agency facility and taught by a community agency employed educational assistant.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Carrel whines; "Let us wine & dine! (on the taxpayer dime)"
Jim Carrel used the STAR this week to "set the record straight". Kinda sounded a lot like his e-mail about a year ago, where he said, " I'm not sure what his agenda is, but I would recommend you contact me and not others anytime you have a question....".
Only once again, Mr. Carrel says to listen to his facts, not those in "some blog". It was a moving opinion piece. Too bad he got it all wrong (again).
Carrel cites state statute (or law). We only hope he doesn't read critical school board materials like he reads statutes, because he got it all wrong. In fact, the section of statutes he quoted has nothing to do with school boards! He apparently was so driven to find some way to substantiate his $42 steak dinner (and threaten ability to charge more) that he didn't read the introduction to the section he quoted. When he found these sections he surely must have had one helluva case of premature elation.
Here's what the statute language immediately PRIOR to his citations clarifies:
I guess this constitutes another finger pointing. Wonder which one?
Only once again, Mr. Carrel says to listen to his facts, not those in "some blog". It was a moving opinion piece. Too bad he got it all wrong (again).
Carrel cites state statute (or law). We only hope he doesn't read critical school board materials like he reads statutes, because he got it all wrong. In fact, the section of statutes he quoted has nothing to do with school boards! He apparently was so driven to find some way to substantiate his $42 steak dinner (and threaten ability to charge more) that he didn't read the introduction to the section he quoted. When he found these sections he surely must have had one helluva case of premature elation.
Here's what the statute language immediately PRIOR to his citations clarifies:
19.59(1)(g)1. In this paragraph:
19.59(1)(g)1.a. "District" means a local professional baseball park district created under subch. III of ch. 229 or a local professional football stadium district created under subch. IV of ch. 229.
19.59(1)(g)1.b. "District board member" means a member of the district board of a district.
Sorry, Jim...but you're a school district board member...not a Pro baseball or football park district board member. Your facts are in error, and you have no right to threaten that you COULD charge "$2,000 or 3,000" to the taxpayers.
But see for yourself. Don't blindly listen to anyone. Instead, opt to find a source of information and then practice the fine art of "trust, but verify". Read for yourself the sections of state statute he quoted. Several of us are pretty well versed in reading statute and administrative code. It doesn't appear that Mr. Carrel is.
Ch. 19, WI Statutes
Strike 2, Mr. Carrel.
Your 2nd error was your interpretation of the statutes related to reimbursement of school board members' expenses. The statute says:
120.10 Powers of annual meeting. The annual meeting of a common or union high
school district may:120.10(4) Authorize the payment of actual and necessary expenses of a school
board member when traveling in the performance of
duties and the reimbursement of a school board member for actual
loss of earnings when duties require the school board member to be absent from
regular employment.
A. The statute offers an option: "may". That means the electors MAY choose to authorize a reimbursement. If it were a "shall", then it would be something that ONLY the electors can do. But it doesn't address setting a policy for maximum reimbursement. The BOARD does that. Wait. The Board SHOULD do that...since they did for teachers and Local 60 members.
B. It is arguable at best that attending an OPTIONAL conference represents "traveling in the performance of duties". We're pretty sure the duties of a school board member do not say "must attend conferences".
STRIKE 3; YOU'RE OUT!
Carrel stated,
"Some of the blogs are written by individuals or groups full of bitterness and rage and offer nothing more than hatred." and [Chris Mertes] accurately quoted from a local blog which is filled with hatred for the School Board."
For an elected official, Mr. Carrel sure operates off of a lot of supposition. Does that make for a good board member? Mr. Carrel has no idea what emotions drive this blog. In fact he claims he doesn't even read it. When looking for the requisite qualities in a school board member we must have missed the part where it says, "a good board member will subjectively label things of which s/he has no knowledge or without even reading them."
Is SP-EYE frustrated with actions of our school board? Sure. But according to the election results, SP-EYE is not alone in that emotion. What does drive SP-EYE is a profound lack respect for those that cannot simply take responsibility for a bad action on their part. Rather than saying, "You know what? Maybe that $42 steak dinner was a bad idea.", Carrel and others are on a never ending quest to somehow justify what they do. In fact, in this recent editorial, Carrel even (incorrectly) suggested that they COULD charge us for lost wages!
Here's hoping Jill Camber-Davidson and Terry Shimek bring a different approach to these issues.
I guess this constitutes another finger pointing. Wonder which one?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
STAR says: Vote 1. NO 2.yes 3.NO on Sun Prairie High School Referendum
SEE: http://www.sunprairiestar.com/editorial/editorial.html
Question 1 (new 10-12 High School; remodel HS to an 8-9 school)
Question 2 (swimming pool for the new high school)
Question 3 (exceed revenue cap each year for swimming pool operating costs)
Question 1 (new 10-12 High School; remodel HS to an 8-9 school)
The remodeling of the high school into a middle school will allow for construction of a larger high school, which we still think could be constructed for 2,400 students (that’s 600 students per grade) until space demands require construction of a second high school in roughly 10 years. That was always part of the district’s long-range planning for its west side piece of land – and our proposal would not change that. That size is consistent with previous editorials regarding this issue – as is the phasing. Of course, west siders want their own high school and will likely turn out against this proposal because of that.
There are plenty of reasons why we think voters will reject the Nov. 6 referendum, but the failure of the district to recognize the community’s desire for one large high school is perhaps the greatest among them. For those reasons, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE NO on Question 1 to authorize borrowing $96 million.
Question 2 (swimming pool for the new high school)
Although [the STAR] believe[s] the vote will be a symbolic one because [the STAR] believe[s] question 1 will go down in flames, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE YES on question 2 to support borrowing $3.325 million for a swimming pool.
Question 3 (exceed revenue cap each year for swimming pool operating costs)
Did the board make the same requirement when the district’s other athletic facilities were constructed? Did it require an exceed the revenue cap question when gymnasiums were constructed to pay for heat, lights and equipment? No. So why then would the school board require taxpayers to pick up the tab associated with the operation of this facility?It’s a question the board needs to answer – and until then, [the STAR] urge[s] voters to VOTE NO on Question 3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
