Whalen Hail Marys; Shimek Costs Us $140K

Oh...what a night...

Except it wasn't late December, wasn't back in 1963, and it certainly wasn't a special time for anyone. Last night the school board showed the form that reminds us of the Boundary Wars. It was like the Keystone Cops play school board member for the night.

OK...there were some good moments ( very few...more on that to come)....but the fumbling and bumbling which led to incomprehensible decisions was maddening...and embarrassing.

Whalen's Hail Mary

Sadly...this was not a Doug Flutie to Gerald Phelan moment. Not even close. more like fingernails on the chalkboard.

The first major folly came when Al Slane requested that the recommendation to hire another Assistant Principal (read: $ new $100K club member) be considered in a separate motion from the additional teaching and support staff. John Whalen made a motion to approve the hiring. His motion was seconded by Jill Camber-Davidson.

As board members spoke--before the vote--, it was clear that Whalen, Davidson, and Diedrich supported the new assistant principal. Stackhouse (We're a year away), Shimek (We need to try [going without it]) and Slane would vote "NO".

Wait a minute....since ole Seabass McCourt was absent --AGAIN---that would make the vote a tie at 3-3-1. Tie votes fail and the assistant principal would not be hired, saving us $100K.

Tim Culver to the Rescue!

Quasi-board member [we know...that's not possible] Tim Culver practical leapt out of his slouch and cried, "This is a critical decision! I recommend that you table this until the full board is here. I think everyone should own that decision."

We all saw the light bulb go on over John Whalen's head. "Yeah, that's right....um....I move to ...um....table this until the March 22nd board meeting", Whalen stammered.

RIP: Robert's Rules of Order

Roberts' Rules state that a motion to table shall have no discussion. Well...that must be the "modified" Roberts Rules that the school board follows,m because discuss it they did. Al Slane courageously called out Whalen's move for what it was ...a desperate move to hold off until Seabass McCourt could be present. We all know that he'll support anything King Culver wants, thereby breaking the tie. Of course, that would depend on McCourt actually being present for the next board meeting. He's missed 2 of 5 (4o%) in 2010 to go along with missing 25% in 2009.

Uh oh...It seems Jill Davidson will likely not be available for the 3/22 meeting! Gadzooks! Back to a 3-3 tie!

Motion to table fails!

Incredibly, the motion to table the item failed on a 3-3-1 (McCourt!) vote, with Stackhouse, Slane and Camber-Davidson voting AGAINST the notion to table the issue.

Shimek Flip-Flops Worse than John Kerry

...and suddenly the tide turned. Terry Shimek completely reversed everything he has said earlier, and it became clear that he was now fully in favor of supporting the hiring of an additional Assistant Principal. Of course there was a minor Goober Pyle moment when Shimek asked, [Well gee whiz...]can't we hire an administrator for like $40,000? Newsflash Terry...the school board set a policy that basically means we hire assistant principals at a MINIMUM of $75,000 per year. Most make close to $100K.

And that's how it happened, sportsfans...Terry Shimek flipflopped his vote ensuring that King Culver got the additional administrator [ one more minion to control!]...and the taxpayers are now on the hook for yet another salary nearing $100K. With benefits, we're looking at more like $140K per year.

Thanks Terry. Be VERY glad you aren't up for re-election on April 6th.

Oh...and did we mention that Jim McCourt missed yet another school board meeting last night? And this was likely the most important board meeting of the year.

More Letters

Dear SP-EYE,

I've heard people talking about voting strategies. Some of the terms used are "bullet vote" and "under vote".

I firmly believe we need change on our school board. They just do not seem to be, nor want to be, in touch with the community that elected them.

I'm intrigued by the prospects of the write-in candidate, John Welke; but isn't it really hard to win an election if your name isn't on the ballot? Is there a voting strategy to ensure we get change on our school board? If so, what is it, and is it legal?

Thanks for your help!

--Wondering in Sun Prairie

---

Dear "Wondering". Thanks for asking! And yes, there certainly are strategies to improve a write-in candidate's chances of getting elected.

An undervote occurs whenever, for a given office, a ballot is submitted which contains less than the maximum number of choices which can be made. In this year's school board election, 3 seats are available, two 3-years terms and a 1-year term. The candidate receiving the 3rd highest vote total will get the 1-year term (the remainder of Jim Carrel's original term).

So any ballot for this year's school board election on which an elector chooses only 1 or 2 candidates, will represent an "under"vote.

A bullet vote is an undervote in which only a single candidate for a given option is selected, even though the option to select two or more candidates exists.

There most definitely can be strategy involved in undervoting. The bottom line is that if you want Candidate "X" to be elected, any vote for the other candidates merely dilutes, or cancels out your vote for Mr. X. Political junkies and strategists will often discuss for whom and when an undervote or bullet vote represents a good strategic move to improve the chances of election for a given candidate. And, yes, undervoting and bullet voting is perfectly legal.

If you want change on our school board and you believe John Welke is THE guy to help effect that change, then we would suggest you consider a bullet vote for Welke. Simply write in "John Welke" next to the first blank line for School Board which sometimes contains "(write-in)" in small text. Then connect the arrow. That's all you need to do. That will ensure that ONLY Mr. Welke receives a vote. Remember, by virtue of being listed on the ballot, the 3 incumbents already have a better chance of being (re)elected.

Also bear in mind that undervoting can effect change in another way this year. The candidate that comes in 3rd receives only a 1-year term and must run for re-election next year. If you really want to effect change on the board, Welke needs to either receive the highest or 2nd highest vote total. That way, one incumbent will be "voted out" and another will be on a very short leash with the prospect of having to run for office all over again next year.