SPASD Wall of Shame Announces 2013 Inductees...

...Dr. Culver and the SPASD Management Team!

Which we understand to be comprised of:

     Tim Culver
     Phil Frei

     Alice Murphy
     Jenifer Apodaca
     Annette Mikula


And it's really a downright shame, because we genuinely like and appreciate at least a few members of the Senior Management Team.

Why are they being awarded this dubious distinction?
Because they are responsible for reviewing and approving all budget proposals that are brought forward to the pubic and the school board.  And Athletics & Activities Director Jim McClowry prepared a 4-part budget proposal (including hiring himself an Assistant AD!!! ) which was incredibly poorly written, incomplete and lacking any real substantiation or supporting data/rationale in most areas.

DOESN'T ANYBODY REVIEW THIS CRAP?!

Somebody should be keelhauled and hung from a yardarm for even allowing this to be presented.  Why expect good quality work when you are clearly accepting of piss poor shoddy performance?

We don't know what the vote was within the Management Team ranks, but we're willing to bet that there was not unanimous support for including Mr. McClowry' proposals.  That means it falls on Dr, Culver's head.  Funny....at one point during the meeting Dr. Culver even asked "It says see attached data.  Where's the data?".  Hello!  It wasn't there the first go around and you let this fly.  NOW you want to know where the data is?  Maybe you should have read the proposal MONTHS ago!

What's especially troubling is that Culver recently made a decision, based on the poor quality of data presented, that ALL reports and data to be presented by Mr McClowry would require Management Team review.   Gee...guess that was a hollow sanctioning.  And once again...SPASD Administration says one thing and does another.

Newsflash Dr. C....that's not how you go about building community trust.  And you just might need the community to trust what you say when you say you need to go to referendum for an 8th elementary school in the next 1.5-2 years.  Might want to ponder that a bit.

What we do  not know is where Lisa Heipp fis in here.  As Mr. McClowry's 1st line supervisor, one would THINK that she reviewed his proposals first.   But there's something about Mr. McClowry that makes us suspect that Ms. Heipp was bypassed.  But we could be wrong.

Bad Data Leading to Bad Decisions?

At this past Monday's Facilities, Technology, and Transportation (FTT) meeting, the district was presenting their case to support a Buildings & Grounds budget that has come under a great deal of scrutiny of late. And for good reason.

Just when the spotlight is shining at its brightest, one would reasonably assume that the district's best foot would be positioned forward. In reality, the district shot itself in that particular foot in what turned out to be a culmination of a growing trend of providing bad (or at the very least, questionable) data.

The district marched out a survey they conducted regarding buildings & grounds budget costs of various school districts. The data seemed to suggest that Sun Prairie was providing its community with savings of over $1.25M over "average" districts. Unfortunately, the whole shebang came down like a house of cards when it was exposed that:

• the "savings were based on an error where data for Verona was credited to Sun Prairie
• the data were "censored": the district had a survey of 42 districts, but "cherry-picked" 10 from that list. We never got to see what was culled. Would they have made SPASD look bad? What the public saw gave no mention of the difference.
• Some columns were totaled; others not. It is speculated that columns not totaled were avoided because the data did not reflect what the District wanted us to believe.
• The survey indicated that SPASD has 75.5 FTE grounds workers---50% more than the nearest district. Then we're told the number of staff is only 65.5. No explanation...no data to substantiate the "correction". RUFKM?
• It was yet another apples-to-pineapples comparison. Some district data was based on last year; others this year.
• An over-inflated Capital Projects budget (more on this to come)

To Err is Human...BUT...
To err may be human, but to err as frequently and as egregiously as this school district administration has is simply unacceptable. We've encountered so many errors, we've lost track. Frankly, it's become the expectation...and that's just plain wrong. Just off the top of our head, we had the 4K transportation cost errors (the number changed 3 times), the busing cost errors for the Wyndham Hills subdivision last summer, the failure to include the most critical attachment as part of a signed $10M transportation contract. And countless others. Tim Culver says he is accountable for the district...but when is he going to man up, take ownership of the problem, and FIX IT??! Oh...that's right...he's been busy negotiating sweet little tax shelters into his contract. Even Phil Frei was completely non-plussed when the errors were pointed out to him by board and committee members. He just simply said, "Oh, yeah, that's an error."

Now nobody on the board is going to declare "Bad Data!" publicly...you know...with decorum and all....but you KNOW they have to see this and privately be fuming. We suspect, however, that there have been a lot of back room discussions of late regarding the lack of quality, reliable, accurate data coming out of the district.

Beware the Ides of October!

The sad part of all of this is that this district wants us to sign of on what will be at least $72M budget. We have John Whalen suggesting that a 4.5% mill rate increase is plenty good enough. And they base all their fancy projections on poor quality data such as what they have presented to date? Really? REALLY! How quickly the board seems to have forgotten the day the taxp-ayers had had enough of their spendaholic ways and voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M.

Are SPASD Administrators Textually Active?

Is ANYONE looking at district cell phone bills?
Are ANY of the district policies and procedures followed?
District policy/procedure (GBCBB-R: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION RESOURCES USE) states, "Employees must reimburse the district for any charges that accrue from unavoidable personal cellular telephone use. Such reimbursement shall be made within the regular billing cycle"

It occurred to us that we see a few "reimbursement for personal use of cell phone" items in each month's deposit listing. (Does anybody ever look at those?)


The district's monthly cell phone charges are about $675.
17 district administrative staff have reimbursed the district for some degree of personal cell phone use in the past 12 months.


We have nothing but questions:

• Exactly HOW MANY district employees have district paid cell phones?
• Of those, how many really use them?
• Could we save money by cutting out those that have phones but don't use them much?
• Procedure GBCBB-R also states that, "Cellular telephones may be provided to employees whose job functions require mobility and immediate accessibility. Cellular telephones should not be used if a conventional telephone is readily available. " Arguably, a principal is pretty immobile. Shouldn't they be pretty much tied to their school and therefore close to another phone? Do they even NEED a cell phone?
• Neither of the "dynamic duo" (Culver and Frei) have paid a personal use of cell phone reimbursement in the last 12 months. Does that mean they haven't made a single personal call? Or do they not have a cell (which would seem weird).
• Reimbursements of $84.77, $119.40 and $140.19 seem a tad high to be related to "unavoidable" personal calls..dontcha think?
• Not a single reimbursement was recorded in September. So NOBODY used a district cell phone for personal use in August?
• In fact, even the 'usual supects' don't seem to be making monthly re-imbursements. Are they not following policy? Luessman wins for at least making reimbursements in 8 of the last 12 months.
• Ms. Dawes wins the award for highest amount of personal cell phone use racking up well over $400 in reimbursable charges over 12 months. That's an average of over $35 per MONTH! Kinda makes one wonder if she doesn't bother paying for a personal cell phone at all...perhaps choosing the less expensive option of (infrequently) payinging a reimbursement.
• What kind of plan does the district have, anyway? $35/month seems to suggest a very high per-minute charge.
• At what point does this represent a taxable benefit, if employees pay only for their calls (minutes?) and taxes on those calls? No basic charges? As taxpayers, aren't WE paying for this? How do WE get a piece of this action???
• We've been told that some employees have a long drive to Sun Prairie and use their phones to "work while commuting". If administration is tacitly approving such a situation, doesn't that pose a potential liability issue. The insurance industry tells us (and those of you that talk and drive know...don't you) that even using a 'hands free' phone, drivers are distracted by a phone conversation. If an accident should occur while performing district business by cell phone, could the district have some liability?
• What about district liability in the case of an accident which occurs while the driver is using a district-provided cell phone for personal use?
• Is it 'micro-managing' for the school board to look into this?  Or is it apathy?

We're just askin'.....which is really what somebody ELSE should be doing. Or is this like the District-wide beverage contract....nobody complies... and nobody cares.

It's time for ACCOUNTABILITY!

Admin Support vs. Dept. of Labor Statistics

Ok...so simply put, here's the issue.

Many of the 30 "Administrative Support" positions have parallels outside of the high-priced world of school districts. SOME school district--a leader perhaps-- has to finally take a stand and re-evaluate these positions.

A simple check of the US Department of Labor Statistics website can provide median and mean salary data across the nation, or even just for a given position and state.

The following comparisons are taken directly from the May 2008 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Wisconsin. It's likely a safe bet that wages have not increased significantly since that a year ago May. Food for thought, school board members.
..............................................
Program Managers (Special Ed. and Instructional Services)
We have 10 employees classified at this level.
Current salary ranges: $39.29 to $45.52 per hour (1680 hr/yr positions
Proposed salary ranges: $41.21 to $46.63 per hour
Proposed raises: $1.11 to $2.90 (3.1 to 7.2%)
Compare to: Education Administrators, All Other. Median salary: $30.50/hr.
..............................................
Business Services Manager
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
2007-08 salary: $31.72 per hour
Current salary: $34.22 per hour (2080 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $36.43 per hour
Proposed raise: $2.21 (6.5%)
Compare to: Business and Financial Operations, General. Median salary: $24.72/hr.
..............................................
Communications Specialist
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $23.39 per hour (1462 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $25.10 per hour → %26.19/hr on 7/1/10
Proposed raise: $1.71 (7.31%) + $1.09/hr on 7/1/10
Compare to: Media and Communications Workers, All Other. Median salary: $20.66/hr.
Compare to: Writers and Artists. Median salary: $20.48/hr.
Compare to: Technical Writers . Median salary: $25.38/hr.
Note: This position is much less challenging than that of a Technical Writer.
..............................................
District Health Nurse
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $32.67 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $33.98 per hr
Proposed raise: $1.31 (4.01%)
Compare to: Registered Nurse. Median salary: $29.27/hr.
Compare to: Licensed Practical and Vocational Nurses. Median salary: $19.06/hr.
Note: We have no information as to whether the employee is an RN or an LPN.
..............................................
Accountant
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $23.50 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $24.20 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.70 (2.98 %)
Compare to: Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks . Median salary: $14.96/hr.
Compare to: Accountants and Auditors. Median salary: $26.48/hr.
Note: We might be missing something, but we don't see this position as equivalent to an accountant as in CPA.
..............................................
Custodial Services Night
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $22.79 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $23.60 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.81 (3.55%)
Compare to:
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers. Median salary: $17.08/hr.
..............................................
District Administrator Secretary
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $21.85 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $22.30 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.45 (2.06 %)
Compare to: Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. Median salary: $17.49/hr.
..............................................
Administrative Assistant
We have 6 employees classified at this level.
Current salaries: $17.04 (1), $18.72 (1), and $19.27 (4) per hour (2080 hr/yr positions)
Proposed salary: $17.87, 19.31, and $19.80 per hr
Proposed raises: $0.53 to $0.83 per hr (2.75 - 4.87 %)
Compare to: Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. Median salary: $17.49/hr.
..............................................
Payroll Specialist
We have 1 employee classified at this level.
Current salary: $19.27 per hour (2080 hr/yr position)
Proposed salary: $19.80 per hr
Proposed raise: $0.53 (2.75 %)
Compare to: Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks. Median salary: $16.52/hr.

---

We're just sayin'....

Life is good: Admin Support Raise Proposal

In our last episode related to Administrative Support staff pay increases, the school board's HR committee tabled the discussion until its August meeting--but ONLY after district residents voiced concerns [Read: pick and nit and nit and pick] that the information for the meeting had only been made available a couple of hours prior to the meeting.

That leaves about 2 weeks to prepare any comments you'd like the HR committee and board to hear. Speak now...or forever hold your piece.

SP-EYE asked for the complete proposed pay increases per staff member as well as their current salary. There's no real reason to put individual names to the position boxes, although those are certainly available. Some of them you know already.

Remember-- we were only provided with the following at that meeting:

1. a new pay grid,

2. a statement that increases would amount to a "3.8% total compensation package increase", and,

3. The total cost for the 30 employees would be $79,000 for 2009-10, or an average of $2633 per person per year.

Now you have the whole ball of wax with which to make your own assessment. Do these seem reasonable? Did YOU get a 4.3% pay raise for next year?

Note that the only position that did not get a raise (the new PC term is "red-circled") is the Energy Educator Manager. Look...we've "outted" some of the concerns with the whole energy management game in the past, but the question which can't be ignored is this: why is it that out of 30 positions, the ONE that you "red-circle" (freeze their pay) is the ONE position which theoretically saves the district a bundle of money every year? Make sense?

A follow-up question: if that position is so overpaid relative to the comparison districts, why did Admin and the board approve the pay grade initially? As a member of the $100K club, shouldn't we expect our HR manager to establish more reasonable salaries than that? And if the answer to that question is, "No"...then what's the chance that these other positions are being overpaid as well?

As always, click on the graphic images to obtain a larger, higher resolution image.

Is Lack of Oversight an Oversight?

Who's the captain of this ship? In theory, it's David "I'm a Leader Not a Follower" Stackhouse, current board president .

Well, Captain....your board policy says that the board will receive a quarterly report of all bid items between $10 and $25K.

Since this quarterly report has not been included with any board package, are we to conclude that you aren't following this policy?

Or is it that you aren't following the policy which specifies that bids are required?

---

POLICY DJ PURCHASING
1. Bidding Approval
The Board shall approve any bids or quotations as required by state or federal law, and all quotations and/or bids greater than $25,000, except as otherwise provided. Any bid needing Board approval will first go to a Board sub-committee, when practical, for approval and then to the Board, unless it is an emergency purchase.

2. Budget and Purchases
All school district purchases shall conform to the current fiscal year budget. All unbudgeted purchases shall be submitted to the School Board for approval.

3. School Board Oversight The Finance Committee shall ensure that all district purchases are in compliance with board policy, the proposed or approved budget, and state and federal laws, then forward their recommendations to the School Board. A quarterly report will be given to the School Board on bid items between $10,000 and $24,999.

Chickety Ch-Check Yourself...Before you Wrickety Wreck Yourself

The school board's Finance Committee is desperately in need of a major overhaul. This committee is charged with fiscal oversight of the school district's $65M budget. Certainly, some aspects of the committee are working. One aspect of the committee's duties that is decidedly dysfunctional, however, is the whole issue of "Check Approval".

The district writes hundreds of checks each month, totalling millions of dollars. In fact, the check total for the April 13, 2009 meeting was a whopping 400+ checks for over $9.5M. One of the reasons that the Finance Committee meets twice each month is so that checks can be "approved" twice each month, instead of piling up.

The one definition of "approve" to which the school board apparently subscribes to is the concept of rubber stamping approval of checks. The committee can ask for additional information about checks, but the only action they have at their disposal is to Approve". There is no "Not Approved" or "Rejected" button.

Perhaps what's really needed is to add (what many thought was intuitively part of this process already) the words, "Review and ..." in front of "Approve Checks". When your bank statement comes in each month, one hopes that you review it for accuracy, rather than just "approve" it by filing it away untouched. Occasionally, banks (and check processors) DO make mistakes. In our own homes, by reviewing one's statement, one occasionally might learn that one's spouse has gone out and purchased some toy or other which the "management team", so to speak, had not jointly agreed. Regardless of the situation, the proper procedure is to review the check register, ask the difficult (but necessary) clarifying questions, and THEN "approve", those checks that qualify, for payment.. In rare instances, we CAN find that unacceptable purchases had been made.

Check writing is the world's most fertile ground for misappropriation of funds. We say that because it's a fact. Your school board will get either defensive or queasy about this topic. But that attitude is what has gotten numerous businesses--and school districts--into trouble. Don't believe us? Try googling "school district" along with unsavory terms like "embezzlement". We are NOT suggesting that any of our district employees are dishonest. In keeping with the principles of "trust but verify", however, it is simply common sense to build visible, structured, and defensible systems to monitor the check writing process. It has been shown time and time again that the best deterrent to financial shenanigans is to have a very visible, operative system that checks and double checks things. Look, we all understand that bad things sometimes happen to good people. And what follows is that sometimes basically good people make poor decisions. Usually, however, when it comes to financial accounting, the probability of someone reaching for the forbidden fruit is inversely proportional to the perceived level of deterrent activities. Some of you know exactly what we're talking about...right?

OK...this is getting too serious. Time for some levity. Remember that old "Knock Knock" joke?

Joker: Knock. Knock.

Target: Who's there?

Joker: Banana.

Target: Banana who?

Joker: Knock. Knock.
Target: Who's there?
Joker: Banana.

this repeats until sensing frustration, the joker finally changes to:

Joker: Knock. Knock.
Target: Who's there?
Joker: Orange

Target: Orange who?

Joker: Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

Where are we going with this? Well...this joke is so very much like an ongoing discussion within the school board's Finance Committee between Caren Diedrich and citizen representative Rick Mealy. Except it goes something like this.

Mealy: I move to separate check numbers "X" and "Y" for a separate approval vote.

Diedrich: So...you're voting to not approve those checks. But the services have been rendered. We need to pay the vendors.

Mealy: Caren, are you telling me that my only option is to approve ---to rubber stamp--- all checks?

Diedrich: We can't not pay a vendor who has provided the district with something.

Mealy: Oh but we can. The board/district CAN make whoever made an inappropriate purchase reimburse the district. Perhaps the school board should take the employee who made the inappropriate purchase on an all expenses paid trip to the " 'Splaining Room ". Perhaps the employee needs to pay for the item out of his/her pocket. This is the only way people will learn what is and what is NOT an appropriate purchase.

The problem is that neither the school board nor the Finance Committee offer any option or protocol to "not approve" any particular check for payment. Even if there's 1 or 2 dissenting votes on a check at the Committee level, the full school board then unanimously rubber stamp approves full payment an hour or so later at the board meeting. There's no dis-incentive for anyone that violates rules governing spending. In fact, the "rules" themselves are loosey goosey at best.

The procurement system (and not just checks) needs to be re-worked from the top on down. Rules need to be established and followed. There has to be consequences for those that don't follow the rules. The Management Team needs to be the enforcers, so the school board does not have to micro-manage. And lastly, the Finance Committee has to develop a real, sound policy for reviewing and validating checks being generated. Payment --by the taxpayers--must not be an absolute. Yes. it will be tough to do this. But good things don't come easily.
- Rick Mealy

You get the point. This discussion has gone on at too many Finance Committee meetings to count. What makes the whole process so ridiculous is, as Mealy pointed out to Diedrich this past week: "Caren...you have the votes. It's going to be a 3-1 vote to approve these checks as it always is. You're gonna win. So why continue to argue this?" Mealy then suggested that if Diedrich didn't like his approach of voting to not approve certain checks then perhaps she could suggest some other alternative approach that would address the issue.

This past week was a little different; Diedrich actually responded to Mealy in their regular "Point - CounterPoint" session that she "would have to think about a way to cope with this". We'll see what THAT means.

No Policy. No Procedure.

Here's what really underscores the issue. "Checks" is an agenda item at EVERY Finance Committee and School Board Meeting. In fact, Finance Committee members are told to submit their "check questions" to Rhonda Page in advance of the Finance Committee meeting (preferably on Friday....geee we wouldn't want folks to take too much time to review 400 checks, eh?). Of course the check runs aren't even available until late on Thursday. Usually check questions don't come in until the weekend or early Monday. Then a response is provided by Rhonda, typically between 4:00 and 5:00 pm on Monday...often less than an hour or two prior to the meeting. Nothing like having no preparation time...right?

You know what's great? For such a detailed procedure, it doesn't exist in ANY of the board's policies or Administration's procedures! In fact, "check approval" doesn't even appear as one of the Finance Committee's duties and responsibilities in Policy BCE.

Of course, we're just waiting for the school board's response to be something like, "You're right. Check Approval does NOT exist in policy....so we're going to discontinue the practice. We're taking bets that this is their response to resolve this problem. Any takers?

SP-EYE: This is yet another example of where school board members like JohnE Whalen hide behind the "Micro-management" immunity shield. It's their carte blanche to do nothing. And it's wrong. Current (and past) practice is not how these board members would handle their personal finances (gulp...we hope) or their businesses. And it's not how the school district should operate either.

How Wrong Is This? ...Let Us Count the Ways

First...let's be crystal clear upfront in very simple terms:
1. AcaDec good.
2. AcaDec preparation past practice "policy" bad.

What is AcaDec? It's the Academic Decathlon...a kind of Survivor Meets Who Wants to be a Millionaire without the desolate territory, poor hygiene (well....we guess that depends...), and the Million Dollar Prize. It's a fast-paced, oral and written exam based school competition that begins at the local level, progresses to Regionals, then States, and finally to a National Competition. We think this AcaDec concept is great as a sports-alternative club/team building opportunity. Where we draw the line, however is the costs that have gone into it because of "past practice" (see what happens when you aren't informed as to how tax dollars are being spent?)

OK...so why is it so wrong? For starters, how about $1,575 in hotel room costs for a 3 night WEEKEND stay (Sat., Sun., Mon,) for a competition that is (A) about 10 miles away, and (B)began Monday morning and ended Tuesday afternoon? OK...if the contest were in some distant land like Hedapimp, Idaho...and they needed to get settled the night before...then fine. But this was in MADISON during the week!

Oh...and toss in $132 for a brunch for 10 students and 1 advisor. We'll do the math for you...that's $12.00 apiece! And the board has imposed a $6.00 per meal limit for staff? Oh...wait...that doesn't include students!


Administration was asked to provide more information on this expense. Rhonda Page, SP Business Manager, responded with the following:

3 day hotel stay for Academic Decathlon: This is the response we got from [Athletic Director] Jim McClowry: Sun Prairie is one of the schools that doesn't tie the Acadec program to a semester class. Instead the kids essentially take 3 days to "cram" a semesters work into those days. They work from dusk until dawn to prepare for the event during those days. As this information was given to the School Board in prior years, the practice was continued this year. If so directed by the School Board, this practice will be eliminated. Management Team will be revisiting this topic in the near future.

REALLY?! So now Administration is tossing the BOARD under the bus? It's the Board's fault? Because they were asleep at the wheel and rubber stamped this like they do everything else? OK. You're right. It IS their fault. It is the board's duty to rein in wayward administrative spending. Of course, since the administration is, in theory, composed of intelligent tax-paying adults, we'd like to believe that the board doesn't have to back up the goalie on this one. Admin should have denied this expenses years ago. Oh...and this was the one that on Monday night Phil Frei and Jim McCourt were trying to hang on Paul Keats!

Wow! We could market and make a mint off a Sun Prairie version of the old board game, "Clue". Aha! It was Colonel Keats! In the Doubletree Hotel. With a graphing calculator! Get it? Get a "clue"? Huh?! Huh?!

Do you hear that, school board? Administration is going to "revisit" this topic in the near future...but ultimately, they're relying on you to say "NO". Honestly...this is like a 2-year old that tests his/her parents by stretching the lines of what he/she can or can't do ...not stopping until mom or dad firmly says NO!".

Oh...and NOW the Management Team is going to "revisit" the topic? Shheeeaaaah! Hello! This was complained about LAST year (again, only by a citizen or two). So, what is it...One complaint you ignore...but two complaints in a row and you "revisit the topic" ???

And exactly what message or life lesson does this pass on to the children in the school district?

So...here are the top 5 best defenses to the AcaDec expense "rationale"

5. It costs less to stay in a hotel than to heat up a school for 2 days.

This was priceless...and it came from none other than Phil Frei. We like Phil. He's really a nice guy. Our criticism though is that he has to learn to say nothing rather than coming up with a quick offhand excuse for these things. That approach isn't working well for him (see the whole building permit fiasco).

Do you REALLY want us to even remotely believe that, Phil? I don't think so. Not that we even for a moment considered it, but nevertheless we looked at the heating bills during that month. There's just no way you can convince us that it would have cost $1600 to heat a zone within a school like Creekside for 12 hours on each of Saturday and Sunday.

And imagine the possibilities...instead of being cooped up in that awful hotel for 3 days, you could have had the kids in Creekside and made use of those awesome new SmartBoards as part of their cramming session!

Bottom line: There is no acceptable reason to spend money for 2 nights of hotel stay the weekend before the competition begins...and CERTAINLY not when the competition is only in downtown Madison! We'd even argue that since competitions don't begin until 8 or 9 am Monday and Tuesday, even a 1-night hotel stay is not warranted.

4. We did this last year....and even spent more!

Correct! You spent $2,226 to be exact (check #85470, 3-11-08 ) to stay at the Concourse hotel. And don't even THINK about asking to be rewarded for cutting back on your costs by $500 this year. If you and your teen successfully go to court and argue down the cost of a speeding ticket and the number of points assessed, is that reason to celebrate? Do you think your insurance company sees it any differently? Your surcharge isn't going to be any less.

It's wrong...and being slightly LESS wrong does nothing to validate what was done.

3. Other schools have a semester-long course designed to prep. We cram.
This sounds like a 21st Century response to mom's favorite come back to just about anything: "...and I suppose if Johnny wanted to jump off the ______ you would too".
Perhaps one of the advisors should put together a similar course for us. They would save the taxpayers the hotel costs, and put some money in their own pocket for putting together a new course. It seems like if that's what other schools are doing...geee...maybe THEY have it right.

2. The kids work hard and they're exhausted. They work from dusk till dawn.

Newsflash! That's what life is going to be like when these kids get out into the real world! Perhaps this is a good life lesson.

Come on! The competition day schedules are printed below. The six individual exams are done from 9 am to Noon. That's not exactly dawn. And the afternoon sessions doesn't exactly go till dusk, either (in fact it was already Daylight Savings Time!)

This excuse also begs the question ...if the football [or fill in any sport] team travels to Beloit for a game that goes into overtime, shouldn't all the kids and coaches just stay at a Beloit hotel for the night? Heck, it could be 10 or 11:00 or even later by the time the games over. You don't think THOSE kids are exhausted? Oh...and they also went to school all day. And traveled quite a bit further than the AcaDec Team does.

Do we even need to discuss the whole shenanigans potential? [Remember that classic line from Juno MacGuff in "Juno": "... I'm already pregnant, what other shenanigans can I get into?" ] Three nights times 10 teens plus 1 adult advisor adds up to a googolplex of possibilities for shenanigans. I don't think we need to remind people of recent events. These kids should be at home with their parents, 10 miles away.

Oh...and doesn't every teacher worth his/her salt tell kids that cramming before a test doesn't improve knowledge retention? It just makes you more tired and thus less likely to do your best on a given test. Yeah...many of us did just that in college...but we all know that it didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

1. Two-thirds was paid out of activity club fees.
This is the best one. So....should the French Club hook up with the Aviation Club and charter the Concorde [we know...we know...the Concorde is no more...but you get the point...right?] for lunch at the Eiffel Tower? And the last time we checked, Activity Club funds DO come from the taxpayers, too.

We repeat...COME ON! $1700 is ridiculous. Let's not even start down the road of "Is every club afforded the opportunity to go on a 3 night, $1700 trip 10 miles from home 2 nights before a competition even begins?"?

---

Nice digs, eh? The calendar tells it all

---

This schedule doesn't even reflect the need for a hotel


SP-EYE: Let's face it folks. This was wrong from no matter what angle you look at it. Management Team...don't make the school board micromanage this....you know the very thought of micro-managing makes JohnE Whalen squidgy. Instead, how about doing the right thing, and ending the practice on your own and then reporting such to the school board. How about taking the opportunity to publicly be a role model and tell the students that you made some poor decisions in the past and that you are going to own them and fix them. Of course, you can always do what we have come to expect: quietly (or not) explain to the students that their worldly experience has to end because of just a couple of uptight citizens.

The Many Faces of Tim

If you've been to or watched a school board meeting, you KNOW what we're talking about. And if you haven't, you should see it first hand.

The big question most people have is "What is he doing sitting at the board table, anyway?" Roger, that. Anyone want to take their 3 minutes and ask the board that question.

Oh...yeah...back to Tim...Culver, that is.
It's like, if you're going to sit at the big table , in the public eye, then you just might want to look like you at least have a pulse. But, like you can count on drowned worms littering the sidewalk after a rain, it's a sure bet that Dr. Culver will very quickly sink down in his seat and his head will droop. There have even been allegations that he's fallen asleep during board meetings. Yep, model employee and leader there.

Enough words...let's let the pictures do the talking (our apologies for the picture quality...distance shots with a lousy camera and worse cameraman) . Board members...is THIS the image you want to portray?

---

---

The Rest of the Story on the "Intent" to fund a 2nd PLO

Let's be clear that SP-EYE is not questioning the need for a 2nd Police Liaison Officer (PLO) at the new high school. What we question is how this whole deal transpired, after it was reported in the STAR 2 weeks ago that Chief Anhalt had received verbal commitment from Tim Culver that the district would cover 70% of the cost of the 2nd PLO when the COPS grant expires in 2012.

We are a little concerned about where the authority lines are drawn. Does Administration really have the authority to even agree to INTENT to fund something 3 years down the road without discussion at a public meeting?

Let's get real here....Chief Anhalt and Pat Cannon are trying to formulate a budget. The COPS grant would fund a 2nd PLO for 3 years. But they need to know what happens after that, because if they want to continue it and the district does not, that is a budget item the City needs to prepare for. It would seem that they need something firmer than "intent". Now, a draft letter dated April 13, 2009 is on the school board agenda for tomorrow night (4-13-09). We wonder if this would have happened had questions not been asked.

The school board "approves" each annual budget, but it is the ELECTORS that actually VOTE approval of said budget. Dr. Culver and the Management Team can put anything in a given budget. The electors (us... the taxpaying district residents) get to authorize a budget amount each year at the annual meeting. The electors don't get a say on the budget parameters; the only control we have over the budget is to send a message by voting a budget amount LESS than what the district wants. Then the school board and administration have to decide what to alter or cut in order to fit the budget within the budget ceiling voted on by the electors. So...if you disagree with a particular budget item...it is best to tell the board early and often.

4-8-09 E-mail from Tim Culver to Rick Mealy responding to questions about the COPS grant.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:41 AM
From: Tim Culver
Re: COPS grant

Mr. Mealy,

Sorry for the tardy response; I have been away the past week. I have had conversations with Pat Anhalt and Pat Cannon about this issue on March 20 and 27. They asked, if the district was interested in adding a second school police liaison officer (SPLO). I told him we were...that it was part of the conceptual planning for when the news HS opens in the fall of 2010. Pat asked for a letter of support in making a stimulus grant request that would fund a second SPLO for three years and asked if I would indicate that the school district would intend
to continue funding the position (as we do with the current one position... at 70%) when/if the grant funding ends. I indicated to him that I would be willing to do so, as long as it was clear that a future School Board would be setting parameters on the budget and while we can intend to do something in 2012, we could not guarantee it. That seemed acceptable to both. I informed the School Board on March 21 of this matter (see below). I will be sharing a draft of my letter to the City with the School Board for information under the District Administrator's report next Monday in case they wish to comment.

The three year school police liaison contract with the city expires at the end of this year and it will come to the School Board for consideration of renewal, likely in June. The contract will not specify the number of SPLOs.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Tim Culver

3-21-09 E-mail from Tim Culver ...ostensibly to school board members
>>> Tim Culver > 3/21/2009 8:54 AM >>>

To: ?School Board??

I met with Police Chief Pat Anhalt yesterday. We agreed to get together periodically and share perspectives.... he is seeking to have the police be more connected with the community. Interesting discussion about the challenge of hiring minority officers...they have similar challenges and have been less successful than us.

An opportunity exists now as the city considers how to use their federal stimulus funding. One idea they have is to add a second school police liaison officer (SPLO). The Management Team has been intending to include a second SPLO in the budget for fall of 2010 with the idea of basing one at the 10-12 building and one at the 8-9 building then "zoning" the other schools between the two. This would be a natural part of our growth as a school district (and has been requested for a number of years by the principals).

The city's stimulus funding would completely fund such a new position for three
(federal budget) years. [ Pat is getting me the exact calendar of funding based on their stimulus regulations so we can compare it to our funding cycle]. The city would like a letter of intent from the school district that (a) we are interested in a second SPLO and (b) when/if the federal funding runs out the school district would "intend" to fund the position similar to the current agreement we have with the city for our current SPLO position. One purpose of
this district letter (in my opinion) is to protect the city from the backlash they got when the (several years back) 'cops in school' funding was eliminated and they had to pull the 4 neighborhood officers out of the elementary schools.

Our opinion is this is something we need anyway as we grow; it gives us three years without cost; and then we can plan to absorb the cost two years after the new HS school opens instead of in the 2010 school year (when a lot of new costs come due). We could also decide at that time to eliminate the second position...we would have to own that decision based on our budget and any potential community/school concerns. The second SPLO would likely come into existence sometime during the next school year, which would also be useful in our last overcrowded year at the former SPHS.

This letter probably does not need Board approval (it is just an interest and intent). However if anyone wishes, I would be pleased to place this on the April 13 board agenda if you wish to discuss it. Just let me know. Also, if you have any questions, either for now or which you would like discussed on April 13, please let me know. Pat would like our letter by April 15 to meet their funding proposal timeline.

Tim

More Decisions Made Beyond the Watchful Public Eye?

It wasn't even listed under school board business. But, if you read closely what was written about the recent City Council meeting in the STAR this week, there it was, innocently buried within a discussion of the "COPS" grant.

4-2-09 STAR, City Council COPS grant discussion

And...before we get mis-interpreted, let's get something clear. We firmly believe that something needs to be done about the problems and violence occurring at the high school. Perhaps additional Police Department liaison officers ARE required. If that's what the community wants, fine. Our issue is HOW these decisions are being made. There are rules, and if the story is correct, someone doesn't seem to be following rules. Someone's committing to financial obligations for which they lack authority. And THAT is a problem.

Police Chief Pat Anhalt was authorized to apply for federal stimulus funding through the federal COPS Grant program for three new police officers; an additional school liaison officer for the new high school, a detective for the department's Neighborhood Task Force, and a regular detective.

If approved at the federal level, the three positions will be federally funded for three years. Anhalt said the school district has agreed to fund 70 percent of the school liaison officer once federal funding ceases three years from the time the position is created. The city will have to fund the other two officers and the remaining 30 percent of the liaison officer.

We don't think Chief Anhalt is one to mi-interpret commitments made to him.
The problem is that the cost of funding 70% of an additional liaison officer is a FUTURE BUDGET line item We haven't even seen a draft of the 2009-10 school district budget, let alone anything further out.

Furthermore, it is the ELECTORS who have final approval of a budget. No one in the school district administration office has the authority to commit to budget provisions. Budgets are prepared for school board approval and then go to the electors for a vote at the annual meeting.

First we had Phil Frei on local TV announcing his plan to spend federal stimulus money (that never materialized) on ballfield lights. Now someone is committing to financial costs without taxpayer approval or community input.

When is the school board going to reel their employees in?

Gimme a break...

...gimme a break
Break me off a piece
of that Kit Kat® bar!
(that Human resources sends to all district employees on their birthdays...along with a card)

$72 of taxpayer monies for "3 months worth of birthday KitKat bars".
Let us say that again...for the record...

$72 of taxpayer monies for "3 months worth of birthday KitKat bars".
...and neither district administration nor school board members see a problem with it. In fact, when the expense was questioned (by citizen representative Rick Mealy) at the school board's Finance Committee meeting this past Monday, Tim Culver rolled his eyes and shook his head in disgust/amazement (so much for decorum!). Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt's reaction was to try to stop Mealy from asking all the questions that he wished to ask.


Check# 92821
Amount: $72.00
For: HR KIT KAT BARS FOR BDAY CARDS
Business Office response to check question: The HR department sends each employee a birthday card and along with the card they get a candy bar. This expense was authorized by Annette Mikula.

At what point, exactly, did the public school system cease to be a GOVERNMENT operation and magically transform into a private sector business enterprise? We all are aghast when we hear about the bonuses paid to AIG executives with bailout money, but we rush to defend the purchase of KitKat bars for public employees? The concept is the same...the only difference is the dollar value of the misappropriation.

It's not unlike the old joke that goes something like:

"Would you_____ for $100?"
[Absolutely not!]
"Would _____ for $1,000,000?
[Well......maybe...wait...what do you think I am...a ____?]
"Oh, we've already established THAT. We're just negotiating the price".

Most of us (including district admin and school board members we bet) also get a little ticked off when they hear about the crazy per diems that state legislators get...but still we have school board members having sea bass and steak & shrimp dinners without batting an eye.

If the state gave ITS employees a birthday card and a KitKat bar, the general public would be outraged. And that's why the only acknowledgement state employees get on their birthdays are those presented/shared by co-workers. And you know what? That's OK. So WHY does the school district believe it should be above the standards of the rest of state government?

Do you get a feeling that there's a sense of entitlement? They always respond to these complaints with the "It's only $72" argument, or "It's a small price to pay (from a $65M budget) to buy some employee morale"? Regardless of how you frame it, folks, it's illogical rationalization. And where does it end? When one of these people's child pockets a candy bar from the local store without paying for it, do they shrug it off with a comment of "It's just one small candy bar from a HUGE business". No...I don't think so. It's a fine line, people, and once you cross it, it gets easier to cross it again...and again.

You want to improve employee morale? Then try listening to your employees instead of squelching their input or making them fearful of providing candid feedback. If you think for one minute that a lousy KitKat bar makes the SPASD "Employer of the Year"...then you are seriously out of touch with both your employees and the community. You want to show people they are valued? To recognize them on their birthday? Then how about a personal call or e-mail from Dr. Culver? Or Annette Mikula. Or the school board. That would be FREE and far more meanigful than a KitKat bar...especially if the employee is diabetic or has celiac disease.

It's NOT about the dollar value. It's about doing what's RIGHT.
and NOT DOING what is inappropriate.
It's about ACCOUNTABILITY.

...and we'll continue to have these problems until we get a school board that makes accountability and fiduciary responsibility it's prime objective.

Believe us... the people who complain about these expenditures at school board meetings hate to have to do it far more than you all hate to hear it. It's loathesome. If it's "only $72", then isn't it worth cutting the expense so that you won't get beat up on it at every meeting? Because, if you think the complaints are going to stop, you're very, very wrong. You want members of the public to speak at meetings to praise what you've done? Then do something worthy of praise.

Everyone gets a KitKat bar on their birthday. That's special. Meanwhile yet another fight erupted at the high school this past week. Hey! Maybe if we give these kids a KitKat bar, they'll stop fighting!