Has Anyone Noticed....

• ...Tim Culver seems to have quietly dropped the "Superintendent" title?
• ...John Whalen still says, "All in favor say 'aye'; all opposed same sign"?
• ...that there are 2 classrooms in Creekside Elementary (opened fall 2008) that have never had a class in them!
• ...People are up in arms about the Governor potentially selling power plants without bids, yet the Sun Prairie School Board didn't bid the architectural work (~5% fee) for any of the last $150-$200 MILLION of school construction projects?
• ...speaking of architects, one reader astutely points out that in each of the many meetings regarding high school design, we were told that we didn't bid out the work because our architect "knew what we needed".  So how come we now need $76K for different bleachers and diving boards?
• ....during the 2-28-11 board meeting, board President John Whalen let many folks speak freely with no time limit, yet he tried to cut off the one gentleman who offered a critical perspective to the contracts issue?
• ....we seem to have had a lot of issues with construction (bleachers, pool, diving boards, to name a few)...didn't we pay a Construction Manager $7500 per month to make sure this DIDN'T happen?
• ...the school district has provided a financial boon to a number of companies and individuals, yet some are glaringly missing from the list of "sponsors"?

This last one is off the topic, but another alert reader pointed it out: ... [Sun Prairie Alderman] Zach Weber and Governor Scott Walker look like they could be brothers

Somebody's Awake - A Response to the 11th Hour Contracts

Somebody is awake and alert.  We received this from one of our readers..

Tim Culver, Editorialist for the SPEA newsletter

Instead of the usual senseless drivel and vacation photos, Dr. Culver took the opportunity in his latest installment of underwirED (Dispatches from the District Doorknocker) to tell us how bleak the future is for our children because of laws proposed and yet to be proposed. The double whammy of “extreme changes” and “foreshadowed massive cuts to schools” promises to lead to much gloom, despair, and agony on us. Deep dark depression, excessive misery is also a distinct possibility.

According to Culver (channeling Martin Luther King, Jr., who once faced a similar situation when people beat his friends, burned their churches down and crosses in their yards, and lynched them), “…we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems to close around us.” Though Dr. Culver may be minimizing his abject suffering compared to the trials of Dr. King, he is right about one thing—the administration and the board are in the dark, and trying to find a way to bring the community in too.

Culver tells us that “we need your informed involvement and we need your voice.” What he doesn't tell us is that there was a Friday night closed session to exchange contract proposals with SPEA and Local 60 that, as of Thursday night, had not been drafted yet. There is also an item on the school board agenda for Monday night for "Action Regarding Governor Walker's Budget Repair Bill".  This leads inquiring minds to wonder why the Negotiations Committee would find it so urgent to exchange contracts, when the only thing to bargain under the proposed law is wages.  Surely that is not notice for the ratification of two new contracts to slide in under the wire (Hmmm...underwirED) before the legislation gets signed.

If that is the plan, the resulting contract may need to be approved Monday, with less than one business day for review. Over the course of his blog entry, Dr. Underwire preaches (much like Martin Luther King, Jr.) the essential role of informed involvement of the community, but neglects to mention that he and the board are on the verge of committing millions of district dollars on absolutely no notice or time for input by essential stakeholders. If that is the plan, it kinda' sounds like his criticism of the budget repair bill, now doesn't it?

The last time a complicated document that had a drastic impact on our district and was rammed through with no notice or opportunity for input, it was cause for half of the district's teachers to violate their contract and force the district to cancel school for the day. Many of them cut class to walk in circles around the Capital condemning the lack of openness, transparency, and deliberation in the actions of the Governor.

Greasing a contract through under the wire might be a good idea, but there is no way for the community to ever know. For Dr. Culver to go into such great detail about the new law and it's impact on the district without mentioning the impending contract would be dishonest. It would be sleazy. It would contradict everything he says about the need for informed opinions from the community. If the board goes along with this and slides a contract through without community involvement, they will hear about it in October. And two of them may hear about it in April.

Then again, that may not be the plan.  Maybe I am just paranoid due to the many other times that the district has slid major actions under the wire by closed session shenanigans, obfuscation, and lightning-strike action.  I guess I'll have to check the Star's website on Tuesday.

Stipends: Swollen Memberships

(Part 1 of a series)
Preface
It is important to note from the start that we recognize the value that memberships in professional organizations and societies offer in terms of networking, resources, and professional development.  But like anything, it must be in good measure.  Maybe you agree it's a concern, maybe you do not; but in  the wake of a serious economic downturn, all stones must be turned to at least evaluate potential savings for the district.  The sheer number and cost of these memberships is mind boggling.  But perhaps what stands out most is that these are intangibles; we can theorize that having these memberships could possibly result in a better district....yet we cannot prove it.  Where are the metrics?  How do we assess the return on our investment?   More to the point....many of these memberships are provided for individuals who are already very well compensated.  At what point does it become too much, and if individuals wish to maintain these memberships, they pony up the membership fee out of their own amply lined pockets.

It's time someone took a look at how many professional memberships we pay for in the district.

Teachers continue to have to supplement their classroom materials out of their own pockets because building budgets have been reduced.  That's just plain wrong.   Get past teacher pay for just a moment and ask yourself:  should ANY employee ANYWHERE have to provide their own materials to do their jobs?  We don't think so.

Interestingly enough, teachers' building budgets have been reduced by about $50,000. That reduction only means that teachers have to dig further into their own pockets to provide classroom materials to teach our kids.   Wanna take a guess at how much we spent in the last 12 months on professional membership dues?  Yup...a little more than $50,000.

General "district-wide" memberships:  24, totalling a bit over $27,000
Individual memberships:  104, totaling a bit under $25,000
Of those individual memberships, 72 (69% of individual memberships) were for the 28.5 FTE administrators, accounting for a bit over $21,000 (86% of individual membership costs).
That's an average of 3 memberships per administrator at a cost of just under $1000 per administrator.

24 of the 29 administrators have at least one membership paid for by the school district.  Two administrators take the prize for most individual memberships, with each having 7 membership dues/fees paid for by the district.

District-wide memberships include 17 different organizations. Individual memberships include 40 separate organizations.  That's a total of 57 memberships!

Memberships may be a good thing...but why are we paying for multiple memberships to the same organization?
The district pays for FOUR (4) SAM's Club memberships:  one each for Nursing, Elementary schools (ES?), and --not one, but --TWO memberships for high school athletics!  While the cost is fairly minimal, why do we need FOUR?  Can't the district purchase just ONE membership?  We purchase a "business" membership, which includes, " one Membership for you and one for a household member over 18 years of age.   Business Members also receive a company card that may be used by an employee for business purchases. "   Hmmm...who gets the second membership?  And since we receive a company card that may be used by an employee for purchases, why the need for more than one membership?

The bottom line is that these costs add up to a non-trivial amount.  There's an old adage that reminds us that 100 "1% costs" add up to 100%.  And these dollars can be put to better use paying for direct educational material costs that are being paid out of teachers' pockets at the moment. And need we remind you of the requirement that each middle schooler supply a ream of paper as part of their 'school supply list'?   http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2010/08/even-more-school-supply-shenanigans.html

Other Questions

• Do we need pay for 18 separate AWSA [Association of Wisconsin School Administrators] memberships?
•  Do we need pay for 17 separate Administrator memberships to ASCD [Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development]?
•  Do we need pay for 9 separate NAESP [ National Association of Elementary School Principals] memberships?  We only have 7 elementary schools!  Why are we paying for membership in an ELEMENTARY school organization for two MIDDLE school administrators?  For the half-time principal of SP4K? 
•  Do we need to pay for 4 separate NASSP [ National Association of Secondary School Principals] ?
• Why are we paying for 2 memberships to NCTM  [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics ] for an elementary school principal and  a Staff Development Program Manager?  A math teacher?  Math department head?  Maybe...but two administrators?

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION
Documents we have obtained from the district indicate that most stipends...such as Dr. Culver's $125/month for Dane Co. travel costs and $325/month for "miscellaneous" costs...are paid out along with salary.

So....if we are paying these people a stipend of $1,375-$2,000 per year to cover things such as memberships, why is the district writing so many checks for memberships?  Hmmm?  We didn't see any re-imbursement checks in the Deposit listings to cover these costs Does that mean that, in addition to these memberships, they are paying an additional $1,375 to $2,000 out-of-pocket for others?  Hmmm?  Enquiring minds are interested in knowing.

Wait!  It's all OK.  It's part of an Administrator's Compensation package!
That's right, folks.  It's all above board...right?  After all, the administrators' benefit package (which school board members have voted to approve) includes the following:

C. Professional Development Stipend

1. To promote professional growth each administrator shall be provided with a professional development stipend as follows:

a. $2,000 per year for Building Principals; Assistant and Deputy District  Administrators; and Directors of Student Services or Human Resources.

b. $1,375 per year for all other administrators. 

3. The professional development stipend:

a. Must be related to each administrator’s annual professional growth plan goals;

b. Will not be subtracted from the administrator's operational or building budget;

c. Will be carried over annually, up to a maximum amount of $4,000 per administrator;

d. May be supplemented by funds from the administrator's operational budget;

YIKES! eh?  Not only do they get up to $2,000 per year ON TOP OF THEIR FAT SALARIES...but

• they get to spend it pretty much anyway they like,
• they get to carry over and "stockpile" up to $4,000 per year,
• they can supplement the money from their own personal department budget,
• and there doesn't appear to be any real oversight.

Is it just us?  Or does anyone else smell at least the potential for shenanigans?


What exactly is a Stipend
(1) a sum of money allotted on a regular basis; usually for some specific purpose
   -- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(2)  a fixed or regular amount of money paid as a salary or allowance, as to a clergyman
[ from Latin stīpendium, from stips (a contribution) + pendere (to pay out)]
-- Free dictionary online

June 25 is deadline for School Board Committee Applications

Got a few hours a month?

Concerned or interested in the inner workings of the school board?

Frustrated with the "3-minute" rule yet want to have input on school issues?

Hugely supportive of all the school board shenanigans and want to be a part of it?

If any of those rings a bell for you, please consider sending in an e-mail letter of application for one of the four (4) Citizen Representative seats available on School Board Committees.

....................................................

School Board Committee Positions Available

There are currently four standing committees of the Sun Prairie Area School District Board. Each committee is made up of school board members and two community members. Terms of appointment are two years beginning August 1, 2010 – July 31, 2012. We are currently seeking individuals to fill the following Citizen Representatives for School Board Committees positions. Application Deadline: Friday, June 25, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Click here for Application. Facilities, Technology & Transportation 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Facilities, Technology and Transportation Committee reviews maintenance and construction projects, bus routes and transportation program, and district technology plans. Committee meets the second Monday of each month. Finance 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Finance Committee reviews budget, investment portfolios, bids obtained by the school district, and purchases. Responsible for long-range financial planning. Committee meets the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Education & Policy 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Education and Policy Committee reviews curricular and instructional programs and services offered to students. Responsible for long-range educational planning. Committee meets the first Monday of each month. Human Resources 1 vacancy for a 2-year appointment - August 2010 - July 31, 2012 The Human Resources Committee reviews new staffing recommendations and makes recommendations to the Board on human resource matters, excluding bargaining unit negotiations. Committee meets the first Monday of each month. Any adult resident in the Sun Prairie Area School District is eligible to apply for appointment. If interested, please mail (or deliver) the attached application (or a letter) containing your name, address, telephone number, and a statement not to exceed 500 words with your qualifications and interest in appointment to a specific committee. You may mail (or drop off) the letter to the Sun Prairie Area School District Office, 501 S. Bird Street in Sun Prairie. You may apply by separate letters for appointment to more than one committee. However, if selected, individuals may serve on only one committee. The deadline for filing applications is 4:00 p.m. on June 25, 2010. Copies of policy BCE, Board Committees, and procedure BCE-R, Board Committee Procedures, are available upon request at the District Office weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. or on the District website at www.sunprairie.k12.wi.us. (To locate the specific policy or procedure, choose “Seach Policies & Procedures” on the right sidebar of the School District website. When searching policies, enter policies “BCE” or “BCE-R.”)

NUMB3RS

"We all use math every day; to predict weather, to tell time, to handle money. Math is more than formulas or equations; it’s logic, it’s rationality, it’s using your mind to solve the biggest mysteries we know."
---from the CBS TV show, Numb3rs

Math is a priority goal for the school district. As a community service effort, then, we offer a very simple lesson in statistics, specifically linear regression and correlation. It all starts with a hypothesis, or theory. Our theory for today is that SPASD teachers salaries are so well correlated to years of experience, that we can generate a valid mathematical formula to calculate future salary!

First we plot the data: salary ($/hr) on the "y" or vertical axis, and years of experience on the "x" or horizontal axis. Then we perform a linear regression analysis on the data. We will "regress" the dependent variable, salary, against the independent variable, years of experience. The result of a linear regression is the equation of a line, in the form Y= mX+b (remember that?).

For SPEA, "Y" = salary ($/hr) and "X" = years of experience. Our data yields the regression equation, Salary = 0.8752 × years + 20.311. Recall from your math days that the "b" term is the 'y'-intercept. The "y' intercept represents the value on the "y" [salary] axis where X [years] equals zero. Here our "y" intercept is $20.311 per hour. Converting that to annual salary (multiply by 1520 hrs/yr), we get a salary of $30,873. Fancy that! That's just about precisely the base salary on the SPEA grid for 2009-10: $30,800. This is the bottom run of our SPEA salary grid. So far our regression equation is looking pretty accurate.

Another way we can evaluate the accuracy of a regression equation is to review the "correlation coefficient" for the data. The correlation coefficient is a mathematical equation that represents how well two variables [e.g. salary vs. yes of experience] correlate to one another. The value of the correlation coefficient is limited to values between −1.00 and +1.00. A perfect, positive correlation, where both variables rise at the same rate, is represented by a correlation of +1.00. Our correlation coefficient, denoted by the mathematical symbol "r", is 0.943. For a dataset of 540 points, a correlation coefficient of 0.943 is like having a credit score of 825. Money in the bank.



So, folks...wanna calculate your future earnings? Since contracts have been like clockwork, just multiply the number of years of service for that date in the future by 0.8752 and add 20.311. That represents your projected salary ($/hr) at that point in time.


Why should you care? Because here is the proof that it's not just a few lucky souls that earn a salary of over $70,000 at retirement. Just follow the arrow up from where it begins at the 30 years experience mark until it hits the (red) regression line. Then follow an arrow straight across to find a salary of about $46.50/hr, or $70,680 per year. So...you come out of school at age 24, work 30 years, and you're not even 55 and earning a salary over $70,000. And those are TODAY'S dollars.


As we continue the status quo, actual salaries are certain to continue to rise.
And that's why this should be more aptly termed, linear DEpression.

Houston, we have a Pool Manager

...or so we're told by a community member who appears to be "in the know".
Word is that the offer was made and accepted this past Monday.

" The job was offered at a very high salary originally, but the second closed session was due to Caren Diedrich flipping her vote and [the Board] did not want it to be offered and then pulled when it came to open session. Not sure where the offer ended up. "
---The Cigarette Smoking Man

Assuming our source has good information, we're wondering if all the school board members are aware of this update. Apparently, at least SOME of the school board members know...for how else would a community member know?

Also interesting is that this indicates that Caren Diedrich was effectively the "swing vote", which means that the original votes was 4-3. Hmmm...the board member who claims to be a staunchly fiscal conservative? Wonder which way she voted???? Oh wait...she most have voted BOTH ways.

If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem...

Our posts related to salary and retirement information have generated a pretty sizable level of...shall we say...discussion? We received this e-mail commentary. This is a great example of someone offering solutions. Instead of just mentioning that there is an 800 lb gorilla in the room about which n o one wishes to speak, here's someone at least suggesting ways to deal with said gorilla. And that's what SP-EYE is all about. Let's get everything on the table so that we can take stock of our situation , and deal with it. While others ENRAGE the community, we prefer ENGAGING the community. Get the community informed. Nothing will change with an uninformed electorate. Knowledge is power.

Power to the people!

SP-EYE

.......................................

Now that we’ve exposed a little of the 800 lb. Gorilla, we may as well starve him, poke him with a stick, and turn him loose in the city. Let’s talk about salaries-

We have an elementary school librarian making $88,435, or roughly double what a new teacher gets paid (and roughly what the Director of the Library of Congress gets paid http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Library-of-Congress-Director-Salaries-E22696_D_KO20,28.htm). I don’t know this individual, nor do I begrudge this individual for reaping the benefits of his/her dedication to the district. What I will say is that I think the district could go further towards educating children with a brand new librarian and a brand new teacher. Two for the price of one has always been a deal I could never pass up.

Now there is nothing we can (nor should) do about this salary in particular. It’s just an example. Promises were made when people were hired and should be kept (although, in fairness to the contrary argument, promises were made when this person was hired that by now we’d be taking our high-speed floating car from domed city to domed city http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/24/what-will-life-be-like-in-the-year-2008/). So what’s the answer?

One humble suggestion (in 3 parts)-

1) Increase starting salaries to attract the best students right out of college and early in their teaching careers.

Once a teacher gets established in a system, they are less likely to leave for small differences in pay. The costs of moving and learning a new system and changing textbooks and finding the last remaining safe place to sneak a smoke are high, and it’s easier to just stay put for the small amount of difference.

2) Compress the step pay schedule.

To fund the higher starting, make each salary increase smaller and really compress it on the top end. That difference between $42k and $47k means more to a young teacher trying to start a family and buy a house and pay off student loans and take care of aging parents than the difference between $82k and $87k means to someone with a few more years (and, if they are like the rest of us, pounds) under the belt. Also, the extra money is less essential to retaining someone with a couple years left, since they are less likely to leave in their last few years.

3) Skip steps in the pay scale for a significant number of great teachers each year. I know that this sounds a whole lot like merit pay, and maybe it is. I know that teachers will scream about being judged on test scores and administration will scream about not being able to properly evaluate in a fair manner. Too bad. You people are in the evaluation business. Administrators used to be teachers, and somehow they figured out a way to determine which kids did well and which ones didn’t. For the most part, people know who the good teachers are, and a combination of parent feedback, student evaluation, administrator evaluation, student progress, extra contribution, and other factors would give a pretty good idea of who deserves the extra carrot. Will this cause some veteran teachers who get passed over to leave? Maybe, but that would let us hire a superstar anyway, and it makes the salary step compression more palatable for those doing great work. If each step raise were cut in half and the top 50% of teachers get to double their progression (4 new steps), then this would be more-or-less budget neutral. It would also give a superstar the motivation to go the extra mile to teach kids and work with administration and families to improve the school.

If anyone is still reading, they are probably well aware that this would take an effort more monumental than even that required to build a pool with a door on the first try. Old teachers, not bright-eyed young dynamos, run teacher’s unions and if there is one thing that the entrenched power knows how to do it is stay entrenched.

Can’t stop us from dreaming, though.

These opinions not necessarily shared by SP-EYE. I’m sure there are problems with this theory, and I’d like to hear them. Agree/disagree, drop SP-EYE a line and let them know how you feel. All comments anonymous unless requested otherwise.

More Budget Whoas!

Our reader writes again!


I went down to the presentation..
to get my fair share of bad news.
They said they need to raise Granny’s taxes
So the purse strings can stay fast and loose.

I say (to paraphrase the 20th century philosophers Jagger and Richards), you can’t always get what you want, so figure out what you need and forget the Chinese grade schools.[1]

In good times, school funding is insulated from the basic economic principle of “scarcity” (a little help for you administration types can be found here: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/economics/scarcityandchoices1.htm ). I suspect that the administration and board understand what scarcity is, because many of them have budgets of their own. The problem is that they don’t think it applies in a school setting outside of Business Ed. They have the budgetary process broken down into 3 easy steps:

1) Make a list of what we want;
2) ?????????????; and
3) Buy what we want.

Couldn’t be simpler, as long as you don’t get too bogged down in Step 2. And they don’t. In good times this really doesn’t matter much, since with all the new construction and rising home values and full employment in good paying jobs the money comes in without a lot of grumbling. People treat the school board and administration like they treat their children, by just grimacing and forking over the money when asked and making a half-hearted attempt to encourage the beneficiary of their largesse to spend it wisely (though none but Roger Fetterly are naïve enough to ask for change back).

When the new concrete stops flowing and people start losing their jobs, it’s a different story. ATM visits get further apart and checkbook balances start hovering near the red and, as much as it hurts us to say ‘no’ to the children, we say ‘no’. And our children adapt. They adjust their budget, vending machine visits get further apart and they get used to going through life with the pocket change supply hovering near zero a little more often.

When things get bad, our children still get what they need. We still feed them, buy them clothes, and keep shelter around them. We just cut out the extras that are kinda’ fun but don’t directly contribute to our #1 worldly obligation of raising good young people. We focus on the essentials, and recognize the nonessential for what it is—nonessential.

The board and administration need to do the same thing. The things they buy that are nonessential are keeping families from providing the things that are. If they want to make their mark on the world by doing something revolutionary, then develop a way to keep costs down so that we can provide our children with more for less. Who knows, the observant students might even see what we are doing and learn from it. Lessons ripped right from the pages of Business Ed…
............................................................
[1] Unless you are prepared to go full-immersion Chinese grade school and have the students spend a couple hours each day rolling fireworks to pay for school books. Me either.

BBall: Stage 5 Shenanigans Alert!

We declare shenanigans.

Thanks to a few of our school district employee friends, we obtained a copy of the internal posting of openings for coaches in the girls basketball program.

Hmmm....Varsity head coach position is "open"? Um....just a sec there Shrek....but in our last episode, were we not hearing that a grievance had been filed against the administration's action to "remove" Liz Hrodey? And wasn't there even a hearing before the school board scheduled--and then postponed?

Isn't it possible Ms. Hrodey could WIN the grievance and be re-instated?
So...isn't this just a tad too assuming?
We're just sayin'......

And what about the other coaches? This list seems to be the whole shebang. Including Jay Swanson's position. We don't recall his being involved in anyway.
And hasn't that guy been screwed enough already?

Again...we're just sayin'

The clip art is a nice touch, though. Very tasteful. And we kinda dig that it has clipart images of a tennis racket and a girl diving (not shown) even though all the positions listed are for basketball.

Isn't that what that feng shui happy crappy is all about?
Ok...you got us...we just like to say "feng shui". You should too. Let's start a movement. See if you can somehow work "feng shui" into your converstaions a couple of times a day. We're bringin' it back.

Turf on Ashley Field...how feng shui!

Dew Tha Math: Appliance Fees Don't Add Up

The more questions asked about the controversial issue, "personal appliance fees" (PA Fees), the shakier the ground on which the board and administration sits appears to be.

The question has been asked on the record and through e-mail: The budget projected we would collect $6,000 in appliance fees a part of the Budget Reduction Movement...so...how much have we collected? We have an unconfirmed report that the entire sum collected from Bird elementary totalled less than $200.

Question: Could I get for, each school/building, the amount of revenue generated to-date from appliance fees?
Phil Frei's answer: " The money was recorded into one district-wide revenue account. "

What kind of accounting rationale projects a certain amount of income from a particular source and then has no means of assessing the accuracy of the projection? With that kind of logic, how do we ever know if we've incorrectly budgeted?

We're trying to "do the math"
The district says that they expected to collect $6,000 via appliance fees (less than 1/100 of percent of the $68+M budget, mind you)
We assume most of the people that have these awful energy sucking appliances are those nasty teachers...right? Of course we should add in the Administrators and Admin Support. That's about another 50-60
so what's that...like 600 staff? Or about $10 per staff member in revenues?

Then our excessively paid admin were projecting that virtually every staff member had at least 1, and many TWO of these energy sinks? Hmmmm

Budgeting 101
Budgeting requires monitoring the cost of doing business as well as the revenue generated from the business. One hopes that revenues will exceed expenses at the end of the day.

We can't seem to get clear answers on a number of questions. So we'll ask them here.
We're wondering: How much did it cost to...
1. INVENTORY the evil appliances? (someone had to physically identify what was out there and record it somehow...right?)
2. to INVOICE for them (staff had to be formally "invoiced". How much cost was involved?)
3. To BUY stickers and put them on the appliances once "fees" were paid (again, someone had to (A) purchase/make special "stickers" and then someone had to go around and place the stickers on PAs)
4. to follow up on all those slackers who didn't pay up (e-mails? phonecalls? a visit to the 'Splainin' Room?
5. to "discuss" with SPEA the appropriateness and accuracy of the fees (we know there were several meetings/discussions related to this subject....how much in lost salary dollars was involved?
6. To reduce fees by 50% (after some creative SPEA members actually MEASURED energy consumption by various devices, "PA fees" were quietly sliced in half. Gee...kinda suggests that the initial fees established were we......umm...let's just say BOGUS!)
7. To determine and issue "refund" checks for $5 each for microwaves...35 checks issued for 4-26-10 school board meeting.

It would seem to us that even if everything was done by the lowly paid Local 60 folks, it STILL cost a heck of lot more to IMPLEMENT and MONITOR the PA Fees than is saved in the budget by the revenue source they provide. Good businesses cut the cord on programs and initiatives that LOSE (COST) MONEY. And that doesn't even consider the damage these fees have done to the relationsship between Administration and staff.

PA Fees: GAME ON for 2010-11 Budget
...and Admin insists they are doing it all over again for next year. Yep...appliance fees WILL be assessed for the 2010-11 budget. Except now that PA fees have been cut in half, the projected income is about $3000 (which is likely still very high) on a budget of $72,000,000+. Yup...those appliance fees sure are a critical part of balancing the budget, eh?

Ashley Field Proposal: Lots of Handouts; Few Questions Answered

So many questions surround the 11th hour Ashley Field Artificial Turf/Locker Room Proposal.
The more you dig into it, the more questions arise...questions that are not answered in the documents provided.

But of course not.
That is status quo with the world in general.
When something is being given the full-court press, it's human nature to point out the POSITIVE aspects, and ignore the negative. Sometimes, in our haste to get things moving, we even forget to include some costs or facts that perhaps need to be considered.
And that's the case with the Ashley Field proposal. Sure...now....3 years after the high school decision...a case is being made to improve the quality of facilities at Ashley Field.

Question No. 1: Why weren't these same concerns raised earlier?
Costs could have been built into the $100M project which is now winding down.


Timing

Clearly plans for this were drawn up last summer. Question#2: Why is it that not a peep was heard until now?
...even AFTER any opportunity for referendum money?


The Busing Problem
So the issue seems to be the concern over the cost of transportation from the new high school to Ashley Field.

Problem #1:Athletes from the new high school will need to be transported from the new high school to Ashley Field for competitions. The locker facilities that have been used in the past will now be used for the Upper Middle School. The locker rooms in the SOAR building are too small to allow an entire team to meet, so many members are left out of the team meetings and need to congregate in the gym area. The cost is estimated at $3,000 to $5,000 to transport the athletes for home games. Athletes and officials have slipped on the floor in the gym, which can expose the district to liability.

Here's another newsflash. Madison has 4 high schools and only two of them have fields. LaFollette has Lussier Stadium which [ahem] was donated by the Lussier family. How do you suppose the other schools get to their "home" field?

Question#3: Why, again, do we need to dress at the new high school and bus over to Ashley?
Players now drive separately up to the high school dress in the locker room. Why can't that continue to happen? Can't the equipment be shuttled over to Ashley on Friday afternoons? Certainly we have enough district-owned vans and trucks...right?

The Locker Room Space Problem
Question #4: Why, again, can't players dress at CHUMS---just as they have in the past?
SPHS has locker space for 1800 kids. CHUMS will have less than 1000. Did we delete locker space as part of the renovations? And....even if they did...locker space for 1000 kids HAS to be enough for 80 football players....right?

“I’ve been told there’s inadequate locker room space for the teams to change into their uniforms” at the upper middle school"
--David Stackhouse

You've been "told"? Oh, REALLY"....Isn't that nothing more than conjecture, then? Don't we make DATA-driven decisions in this district?

Liability Problem? Really?
"Athletes and officials have slipped on the floor in the [SOAR building] gym, which can expose the district to liability."

Umm...did we miss something? The proposal appears to be to design a new locker room for SUN PRAIRIE...NOT for visiting teams or officials....right?
Question #5: So how does this proposal even address the liability issue?

Use of Ashley Field By Other Groups
Question #6: Seriously...would Ashley Field EVER be made available to other sports groups in the community?
The Ashley Proposal Situation Report opens with:
It is our goal to respect the wishes of Mr. Ashley and create a field that will be used by more youth in the community, as well as an additional focal point of the excellence in Sun Prairie Schools and Athletics.

That's OUR goal too! [ when you read that, if you've seen the film "Stakeout", recall Emilio Estevez and Richard Dreyfuss crying in unison, "Stickley's OUR favorite too" to Rosie O'Donnell]

Seriously...people have screamed for years to use Ashley field...and always been rebuffed. Thou shalt not play on thy hallowed ground! How exactly does putting turf on it increase the likelihood of letting other teams/groups use the field? The next thing we'll hear--after it's installed--- is that we have to minimize the utilization to prevent costly tears in the surface. And don't say that want happen. Let's keep it real and not offer any pronouncements that--after all--can only come from the school district.

Inflated Savings Estimates?
Question#7: How realistic are the "rough" estimates of maintenance costs?
The "rough cost estimate" shows cost of annual maintenance of current field to be $60K per year. Are you kidding me? Web-based estimates and case studies show more like $20-30K per year...Are we REALLY spending $60K/yr (and if so, why?). If not...why is the budget inflated?
The proposal doesn't include any annual maintenance costs for a synthetic turf field.....cost are estimated at LEAST $5K/yr. The proposal doesn't include cost of disposing of artificial turf (8-10 yrs) of about $130K. That's $13-16K/yr to budget for right there!

Maintenance cost savings over 15 years........................$240,000 (that's a far cry from $600K/10 yrs)
--Schuylerville Schools, IL (Feb. 2010)

There ARE maintenance costs for artificial turf:
---Repairs (seams)
---Replacement every 8-10 years
---Disposal cost upon replacement – Infill systems filled and topdressed with crumb rubber material that is typically made from ground automobile tires may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated to be $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.

Just Keeping Up with the Jones...er...Middletons...and Waunakees...and Veronas?
A funny thing happened while reading the paper this morning...we came across
this article about schools looking at turf fields

Waunakee: A $700,000 field — part of a proposed $1.5 million remodeling of the district’s outdoor facilities including seating, a visitor’s side concession stand and lighting — would be paid for entirely with donations, just as the field at Middleton’s Breitenbach Stadium field was.

Well...it seems the Joneses are doing THEIR projects entirely with donations. Hmm...fancy that.

LOST: One school board member, reported to be fiscally conservative
Where is the fiscal conservative David Stackhouse who said this:

[on Charter School] Where I have a problem with this right now, we’re opening a new high school, we just opened 4K, we have enough things going on in my eyes. We need to take a step back and bring it under control before we go forward with another. I think a year from now we’ll be in a better situation to look into it.”
---STAR 1/14/2010

or this:
That seems like an awful lot of fixtures for baseball and softball,” Stackhouse said. “That’s a lot of energy.” He added that the district with 56 lights around the track and soccer field, “it sounds like we could host football games there.”
STAR 3/11/2010

or this:
Stackhouse voted against the recommending these projects to the board because he believed the bleachers still had life in them. "I don’t think that’s a wise investment at this time. Other projects need to get done,” he added.
STAR 3/11/2010

Suddenly Stackhouse is all onboard with spending money again. Hmmm.

More on the Artificial vs. Natural Turf Debate

Another ViewPoint: Natural Turf is Better

In 2008 survey conducted to evaluate the preferred playing surface among NFL players, Out of 1565 players from all 32 teams, 71% preferred to play on natural grass fields.
---Sportsturf Managers Association

Another cost analysis:

Yet another maintenance cost comparison

---

Look...you'll get no argument here. The field turf looks nice....arguably a little TOO nice for high school (makes us think Badger lite)...but nice. If the quarterback club is game, we say, "Have at it!" Rob Hamilton didn't come looking for money when turf was desired for the baseball field...he just went out and quietly raised it. That being said, if the locker rooms are truly the issue, the QB club wants to invest its fund-raising on building the locker room they seem to desire, and leave the turf for the future.

Whatever is decided...
Let's agree to be 100% above board.
Let there be NO undisclosed or "forgotten" costs.
Consider a FAIR 10-15 year cost comparison.

Stackhouse pushing for a $475K Ashley Referendum?

Good news, folks...the recession's gotta be over.
"What?", you say. You didn't get that memo?
Well...it must be over if School Board member David Stackhouse is pushing for the district commit $475,000 MORE money to improve Ashley Field.

Read the Situation Report for the Monday 4-26-2010 meeting

Ok. Stand down (for now, anyway). It's only an "informational" agenda item--meaning the board cannot take action on it---but it's clear that the intent is to bring it BACK for action at the Board's May meeting.


But this is one loaded potato. The Stackhouse-Kaminski Report contains 13 attachments (several with multiple parts) and a total of over 50 MEGAbytes in downloads. Geez...think of all the Itunes you could get for that!

Seriously...we get it. We love football too. But you know what? Here's just the top tier of reasons why the school board needs to politely say, "NO, but thank you for bringing this forward".

1. The initial intent was to siphon off some of that referendum surplus (Hmmm...does that explain Stackhouse's opposition to several of the other projects proposed?). But the legal opinion was that referendum funds cannot be used for Ashley Field. Stay tuned though, because we hear that "they" are asking for a second opinion on that.

2. Talk is turning toward a referendum specifically for Ashley Field improvements. Stackhouse asked Tim Culver to research how much revenue could be generated by a one-year tax levy equal to $12 on a home valued at $200K. A referendum SOLELY to improve a sports field? Is Sun Prairie trying to be a great SPORTS district...or a great SCHOOL district?

3. Contrary to popular belief, there ain't no fat lady singin' and the recession most definitely is NOT over. The budget was tough to swallow last year, resulting in an unprecedented taxpayer vote to slash the levy by $2M. Newsflash...the economy isn't much better, and the proposed budget already calls for a nearly 8% rise in the mill rate!

4. The locker rooms at the existing high school were always sufficient. How could there be LESS space when the school will now house 50% fewer students?

5. If these changes were so sorely needed...why were they not part of the CHUMS modification plan 2 years ago?

---

A good school board separates "wants" from "needs". Like Caren Diedrich once said, There are many wants; [the board] provides what is needed".

As Al Borland would say, "We don't think so, Dave"

Is This BBallGate the next episode?

UPDATE

*** MEETING/HEARING CANCELED! ***

We have just learned that last Friday the grievance hearing below has been canceled due to "some new info the lawyers and SPEA wanted to review"

Stay tuned for further developments

Meeting:
04/20/2010

SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Closed)

6:00 p.m. at the District Office (Room 220),

501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.

President: John Whalen

Category: 2. Closed Session

Agenda Item
2.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of conferring with legal counsel regarding a Level III SPEA grievance, followed by hearing and deciding said grievance; and taking action on closed School Board minutes of March 15, 2010, and April 13, 2010 [Wis. Stats.19.82(1) and 19.85(1)(a), (c), (e), (f), and (g)].

But....won't that be heard by a school board member who will no longer BE a school board member after the swearing in on April 26th? (and technically one whose term ended on election night?)

More concerns...are there other sitting board members who have a conflict of interest? Hmmmm?

Now a sudden rush to justice? How much sense does it make to take such significant action with the concerns raised here....which by the way, for you school board members who are reading this...are well known within the community. You may THINK the community doesn't know "all the facts"....and certainly there ARE things that are unknown....but a scant few. If you don't think people talk, think again. Mayhaps this might be a meeting you wish to postpone until all your little ducklings are walking single file.

Chooo! Chooo! Is that the sound of the railroad that we hear?

Not ONE Thin Dime...

Last Monday the school board played their own version of the once popular gameshow "Supermarket Sweep". This was more like "Referendum Sweep". As reported previously, just shy of $1.2 MILLION dollars was left after all construction was completed and we took over ownership of the $100M new high school, pool, and conversion of the existing high school to an upper middle school for grades 8 and 9.

Given the demeanor of taxpayers who came out in droves to the annual meeting last year, you might think our school board became educated enough to "throw 'em a bone" and return some of the surplus.

Not happening.

In fact, the only non-incumbent candidate for election to the school board next Tuesday, John Welke, has made a case for returning SOME of the surplus funds to the taxpayer. OK...Al Slane has more quietly discussed the idea...but no one heard ANYTHING about giving any back to the taxpayers last Monday night.

Of course, the board will tell you that it's not a good thing to do because it cuts your taxes by only pennies. What they don't tell you is that is we put some of that $330,000 "reserve fund" against debt services, we would reduce 20 YEARS of interest. And that, folks, matters.

Endorsements Are All The Rage...

Yep...it's that time .... anyone who's anyone is handing out endorsements.
Well....maybe it's time that SP-EYE got in the game.

Let's start with a summary look at the candidates...

John Welke
John made a more than respectable run as a write-in candidate last year. Since then, he's kicked it into overdrive. He secured a position as citizen representative on the school board's FT&T Committee, and presented more situation reports than any board member in the past 3 years. This is a guy that not only wants to TALK about the issues affecting Sun Prairie, but also DO something. What he doesn't puff his chest out about is even more credit-worthy. He IS involved in the schools as a WATCHDOG and with the community through youth ministries. In addition, his law enforcement background makes him a top-shelf candidate that is beyond reproach. He's clearly a proactive guy vying to change the operating philosophy of a very reactive board. Welke will demand accountability from district administration and will speak loudly and clearly for board transparency and being good stewards of our tax dollars.

Al Slane
SP-EYE has had a "Love-Like-Wanta Smack Him Upside the Head" thing going with ole Albert. There are many times when Al has stepped up to the plate, and a few others where we want to throttle him--figuratively speaking, of course. Mr. Slane took a brief vacation a few weeks back--first in some time, we understand--and he seems to have come back all re-energized like a US Cellular battery swap. Subsequently, we like what we have seen. The fact that he and his ideas are not getting a lot of love from fellow board members perhaps underscores the merits of his ideas. They want the status quo...and Al seems to be stepping out from their shadows. Good for him. We are very hopeful for Al's future, but need to see a little more from him in terms of making sure that things get on the table and discussed.

Caren Diedrich
When she's not sitting at the board table, Caren is a genuinely likable woman. Unfortunately, when she IS at the board table, the Koolaid flows mightily through her veins. On the one hand, we like that she speaks her mind freely...rather than some other board members that just look at what the majority does and then echo that sentiment. On the other hand, a lot of what she says is really out there. Or...if things don't go her way, she gets a little bit pouty with a "I'm going to take my basketball and go home" 'tude. Case in point the vote this past week regarding the piano. Seeing the other 6 had voted to fund a piano (which she did not favor), Diedrich's response, when called for vote, was , "It doesn't matter...I'm not going to vote". We also have a bit of a problem with her recent statements that she and the board "shut off certain community members when they get up to speak". You may not like their message, Caren, but they ARE community residents and you OWE them your attention. Ms. Diedrich also did not provide any response to questionnaires provided by both SP-EYE and The Isthmus/Dane Co. League of Women Voters. That indicates either a sense of entitlement, or less than valiant effort to be reelected. Neither is good. Finally...we think 12 years of one person's opinion on ANY board is enough.

Jim McCourt
It's abundantly clear that Mr. McCourt would much prefer to be either dining on sea bass or working on his latest business project than putting in even a half-hearted effort on the school board. He misses too many meetings (more than 25%) without a real reason. He's been absent for some of the biggest issues taken up by the board. We simply have too many significant issues to resolve in the district to continue to accept a board member that can, at best, offer only 3/4 of his attention. Like Ms. Diedrich, McCourt also did not provide any response to questionnaires provided by both SP-EYE and The Isthmus/Dane Co. League of Women Voters. He is also is quoted to have been very lukewarm about even running for re-election. He clearly is not actively campaigning in any way. Actually, only Welke is showing any real interest in running for the position. Perhaps all 3 incumbents are running on a sense of entitlement. This is not a guy that is serious about the school board...so why should we seriously consider him as a candidate?

...and the vote goes to...
Whatever you do, cast a vote for John Welke. This board needs change, and Welke has proven that he's a leader that can effect positive change within the district.

IF YOU WANT TO SEND A MESSAGE LOUDLY & CLEARLY:
Vote John Welke
Write-In: Al Borland
Write-In: Jill Taylor

Which ONE Incumbent Deserves your vote?
Al Slane clearly and distinctly has earned another kick at the cat. He's only had a year, and has shown the most growth as a board member. Toss Albert a bone, but either leave that last space blank...or better yet...cast your 3rd vote for Al Borland or Jill Taylor. You know those two are not afraid to say, "I don't think so, Tim!"

SP-EYE's ballot
We're sending a message to the board. We're afraid the board might have forgotten last fall and the fact that WE elect THEM to represent US. We think ole' Al(bert) Slane will be just fine without our vote. Unlike the board, SP-EYE has faith that the community is far smarter than the board gives them credit for, and we're sure the community knows that Al Slane is worth saving.

Girls Basketball: GAME ON!!!!

************************ PRESS RELEASE *****************************
Date: 3/23/2010

Subject: Sun Prairie Girl's Basketball

The Sun Prairie Education Association will be filing a grievance regarding the non-renewal of basketball coach Liz Hrodey in the very near future. The grievance will look into the proper application of the collective bargaining agreement. We believe some of the provisions of this agreement may not have been followed in this situation. This is an unfortunate situation for everyone involved but it is important that proper evaluation procedures are followed to insure situations like this do not occur in the future.

No further comments will be made public until the grievance procedure has been completed.

Respectfully Yours,

Brad Lutes
S.P.E.A. President

Dash For the Cash!

aka "Race to the Top".

Is the 4.35 BILLION dollars available in federal money through President Obama's "Race to the Top" education reform initiative really going to reform education?

Or is it just a pile of cash that has school districts scrambling over themselves in order to jockey for position to get the biggest slice of the pecuniary pie?

Sun Prairie has on its Monday 1-11-10 school board agenda
a letter indicating "intent" to apply for a share of the bonanza.

Strings attached?

There is no free lunch folks. This cash is not just going to handed out like treats on Hallowe'en. It comes with a cost. And a lot of questions. Questions like....

Thanks for the cash....but is this like a bottomless cup of coffee? Or does the spigot get turned off at some point [Yup] . And who pays for this stuff once the cash is gone? [John Q. Taxpayer, that's who].

Can existing programs qualify for the cash? Nope! It requires new programs or expansion/enhancement of existing programs. And guess what? That means an investment of additional resources...likely HUMAN resources. And we know what that means...right?

Is it true that teachers must be evaluated based on their performance? Yes...but. And it's a rather lardacious but. Yes, it is true that school districts who want the money must incorporate a teacher evaluation system which " ". But that doesn't mean WKCE scores will or have to be used. The other catch is that each district must NEGOTIATE the performance measures to be used with its teacher's union.

A WSPRA (Wisconsin School Public Relations Association article states:

All state applications require attention to a comprehensive approach to four key education reform areas: standards and assessment, improving data collection/use, improving teacher effectiveness, and support for struggling schools.

Applications must also emphasize science, technology, engineering and math; expansion/adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems; and school level conditions for reform/innovation.

[State School Superintendent Tony] Evers acknowledged that linking teacher evaluations with student test data is “a thorny issue” and added, “There seems to be a real interest in firing teachers or principals and that the school will improve – that’s simplistic and I worry about that type of rhetoric.” U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan said it was “ridiculous” that a state would prevent the use of test data for teacher evaluation. Currently, Wisconsin law prevents this, and state legislators must make this statutory change.

Evers identified other legislative reform changes for Wisconsin including, expanded authority for the state superintendent to intervene directly to improve schools, higher standards for charter schools, and a state requirement for three years of math/science for high school graduation.

Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon) opined, “Sometimes I worry this is a ‘race for the money,’ not a Race to the Top.” The state will receive more federal clarifying guidance on the application in October, with a December application deadline. Awards will be announced in March 2010. A second grant opportunity will be available in June 2010, with awards given in September 2010.

What others are saying about the Race For The Top

Obviously, I’ve been playing the lecturing schoolmarm about RTT, warning that we have to increase our skepticism and manage our expectations.
I’ve been looking for a pithy way to summarize my concern that states are much more interested in getting these federal funds than in pursuing the reforms those funds are meant to support.

I’ve tried “Trojan Horse” applications and other formulations but nothing has stuck. Fortunately, a state representative from Wisconsin has stepped
up. Rep. Steve Nass pointed out that his state’s firewall legislation that caught the Obama administration’s attention actually will do little by way of reform.

Noting that under the just-passed law, data can’t be used to remove the worst teachers from the classroom and that any evaluation process must be agreed to by teachers unions, Nass questioned the real intent of the legislation....

" This bill does nothing for quality education...This is basically a race for the money, not a race for the top. "
- Flypaper article

Read more: Education Week article

Read more: Flypaper (Fordham's Education Gadfly team) article

District Administrator Compensation Under the Microscope

During tight times, every expense should come under the microscope. That should start with an organization's head...i.e., Tim Culver. Recently, Culver graciously asked the school board not to give him any raise this year. Good form, Tim.

But the school board couldn't leave it at that, so they generously raised his vacation days from 25 to 28 per year. Culver's contract is for 260 days, which for most people translates to the standard full-time 2,080 work hours per year. Of course, with 28 of those 260 days being paid vacation days (not to mention holidays), that really translates to about 80% work time.

Folks frequently ask if Culver makes more than the governor. Yes, with all that he pockets, that is true. Folks ask why we pay him so grandly. It's also true that Culver earns more than the State Superintendent of ALL schools, Tony Evers. Truth be told, there are other school "district administrators" in Wisconsin that earn even more! In fact, for districts our size, Culver is paid just slightly above the average. Therefore, any concern over how much we spend should be extended to the broader concern statewide. Yes, Virginia, education does come at a price. The question is: is it time for sweeping change of how these administrators are paid.

Is it realistic to pay Culver $325 per month for "travel around Dane County"? Shouldn't driving within the district be part of his (well compensated) job? Does the school board have evidence that he actually travels $325 worth within Dane County every month? NO! Because he gets this without filing any receipts or paperwork.

The same goes for the $125 per month we pay for "miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses". Why doesn't he get reimbursed based on production of receipts like everyone else?

And then of course there's the $109,963 "separation pay" account that we reserve within fund balance. Ho nice that that money was insulated from the market crash that occurred last fall? Did any of you NOT lose a bunch of retirement money last year (and still haven't gotten it back)? Oh, they'll say it's not for retirement...it's "separation pay". That's right...on TOP of the Wisconsin Retirement System pension he'll receive when he finally hangs up his...whatever he has to hang up.

Change has to start small. Sweeping change begins with one stroke of a broom. Perhaps it's time that our school board "leaders" start leading, by taking a hard and fast look at Culver's --and all administrators' --- pay. Without question, we need teaching staff. THEY educate our kids. Nobody is leading any charge to cut teaching staff. But, in tight times, it takes a strong business leader to start looking at whether or not the business is too heavy at the top. Do we need all the Administrative and Admin Support positions?

Food for thought as the Annual Elector's meeting on the school district budget approaches.

Slippin' It Past the Goalie Pt. 2: Admin Support Raises

Remember last summer when Admin tried to slip one by the goalie and give the Business Services position a $5.00 PER HOUR raise? And the school board was caught flatfooted (ex Prez Stackhouse> "I didn't see anything about a $5.00 per hour raise...")? So the board -- in their infinite wisdom, reduced the raise to only (ONLY!!!!) $2.50 PER HOUR? And then...they agreed to conduct a job survey (which...ahem.. cost us $9,000)?

Fast forward to Monday night's HR committee meeting, because it all comes together when they unveil their new plan for Administrative Support pay raises. The plan...which they have NOT shared as yet...calls for raising the pay grid maximums an AVERAGE of 10.6%. But there's a "lot of spread"...meaning some will increase far MORE than 10.6%!!!!! NEWSFLASH, sportsfans.....if the UPPER end is raised by an average of 10.6%...then so is the LOWER end!!! That's how these grids work.

Yep...you heard it right....pay RAISES. State workers took a 5% cut. Dane County workers are taking a 5% cut. And just this past week, the city of Fitchburg announced plans to furlough employees....or face cuts.

Isn't it grand to live in a bubble in Sun Prairie where the recession has no impact on you at all....if you work for the school district, that is. Family Circle even lists Sun Prairie as one of the nation's top 10 places for families to live. Yup...except the senior members of those families, the ones living on Social Security or retirement investments, will have to live elsewhere and just come to visit.

Had enough yet? Then speak your piece Monday night July 6th. Otherwise it will be rubber stamped by the board on July 13th.

Meeting: 07/06/2009 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE,
5:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.
Chair: Caren Diedrich

Report prepared by: Tim Culver, District Administrator & Annette Mikula, Executive Director of Human Resources
HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS: On August 11, 2008 the School Board authorized an Administrative Support Staff Group Classification and Compensation Study to be done. The study used objective job evaluation to establish internal consistency; strategic market data to pay fairly in your employment markets.

It recognized the diversity of jobs and required levels of knowledge, skills, and abilities. The study also provided plan implementation that will be useful (and which is appropriately flexible) for many years. Charles Carlson presented the findings to the Administrative Support Group on June 30, 2009 which included a new salary schedule structure.

The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.

RECOMMENDATION:
1. Management Team recommends adoption of the new pay plan.
[SP-EYE- But of course they do! ]
2. Management Team recommends that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase which is $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.
[SP-EYE- But they're not saying whhat it is for 2010-11, now are they? ]

Read the Sales Pitch on the Job Compensation Survey

See the CURRENT payscale...how much will these increase?

---