Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lies. Show all posts

Monday, August 23, 2010

Tall Tale Terry

On Monday August 9, school board member--and acting president-- Terry Shimek professed that he was "offended" by remarks made by community resident Rick Mealy.

Tall tales
During his tongue-lashing, Mr. Shimek told --for the TV cameras and the general public-- the very tall tale that he had "taken Mr. Mealy out to lunch and had several phone conversations with him regarding the Finance Committee".  That didn't happen, Mr. Shimek...and (unless senility is rushing in) YOU KNOW IT!  Without a doubt Mr. Mealy told us that you told him that you PLANNED to take him out to lunch, as you had the other citizen representative.  But...and perhaps because you were a tad miffed that the SP-EYE blog exposed another tall tale...said lunch meeting never was scheduled.  Can you tell the public WHEN and WHERE you and Mr. Mealy had this alleged lunch?  Of course not...because it did not happen.

Those phone calls
Now tell the truth, Mr. Shimek...isn't it also true that the only time you spoke with Mr. Mealy on the phone was in returning HIS call to YOU last September regarding the board meeting of 9/14/09? Is it all coming back to you now?  Remember the subject: how you voted on the issue of whether or not to use $183,060 of fund balance to pay the issuance cost of the Qualified School Construction Bond dated 9/28/09.

Allow us refresh your memory:
http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2009/09/meeting-minutes-should-help-jog-shimeks.html

Mr. Shimek KNOWs that was the only time he spoke with Mealy by phone.  Actually, after Mr. Mealy had had enough of Shimek, his wife spoke with Shimek for about 45 minutes.  It's a wonder Shimek has any backside at all left after the butt-chewing he received that night.

We understand how easy it must be to forget that you never took someone to lunch when you can't even recall how you voted on a $183.000 issue!

The thing about tall tales is that the devil is in the details.  Once you started providing details to the fairy tale (all the phone calls, the lunch, the orientation you provided during these "events"), you were trapped.

Do NOT tell us fairy tales, Mr. Shimek.  Save those for bedtime stories for your grandkids.
Would you prefer "Shimekkio"?
_______________________________________
The text of Mr. Mealy's statement to the board is provided below.  Mr. Mealy emphasized three main points:

1. Board Policy () requires that citizen representatives be nominated by the board president for approval by the full board.  How can the latter occur if the appointments are presented on the agenda as "Information Only" (no action) items as was done for the 8-9-10 agenda.?

2. Mr. Mealy also pointed out that board committee chairs SHALL provide citizen representatives with orientation.  Mealy stated that in terms on both the FTT and Finance Committees, no orientation (or discussion whatsoever regarding duties) was provided.

3. If the board doesn't follow it's own "rules" (policies) why should staff or students?

" The Board shall appoint the citizen members of each committee upon nomination of the Board President. If one or more Board members need to discuss substantive issues related to the appointment of committee members and such discussion might reasonably be construed to have an adverse impact on the reputation of specific persons, the Board may convene in closed session as permitted by law to consider such information. The closed session will be held prior to the nomination(s) being considered by the Board in open session. " 
--Board Policy BCE (clearly showing intent that board members discuss and vote on nominations)
______________

Statement from Rick Mealy 8/9/2010
First, I wish to thank the board for allowing me the honor of serving as a citizen representative on the Finance committee for the past 2 years.  Appointment of citizen representatives to committees is offered as an "Informational Item" tonight instead of "New Business" or "Consent Items".  A fine slate of individuals is being nominated from a very qualified pack.  Unfortunately, you do these people a disservice by failing to follow your policies, just as you did last year.  One would have hoped that you would have learned from your past mistakes.

These appointments have historically been --as required by your policy BCE-- voted on by the full board under New Business.
In fact, policy BCE states, "The Board shall appoint the citizen members of each committee upon nomination of the Board President".
How can the Board "appoint" without a vote???  Or was their a closed session that wasn't noticed? 

Imagine the position you would put one of these citizen representatives in if they had already participated fully in a committee meeting prior to being formally appointed by the board!.  One cannot expect new citizen representatives to be familiar with the details of board policies. But we do expect it of you.

Policy also dictates that citizen representatives are provided with an orientation to their new role.  And if it doesn’t happen before they start…what’s the point really?  So I hope you’ll schedule orientation for new committee members before they participate in a committee meeting.  I served on two board committees without ever receiving a moment of orientation, so that has been another weak area for you. 

Perhaps your excuse is that you simply ran out of time; terms begin August 1 and you were still interviewing candidates after the last board meeting.   But that Hail Mary would land out of bounds. Like the old adage goes, "Poor planning on your part does not allow you to break the rules to meet deadlines."

Some of you may be inclined to think, "What's the big deal?  These are just committee appointments."  But it's not that simple. 

Serving as a Citizen Representative is often a proving ground of sorts for future school board members...as many of you board members know.  This IS important....if not to you, then certainly to the citizen representatives.  They want it done right.  So should you.

It's one thing to write policy, but it's a horse of completely different color to actually follow them.
And if you have such a hard time following your policies, what is the use of even having them?

If the board does not follow it's own "rules", how can it expect staff members to follow district policies?
How can anyone expect students to follow rules in the Student Handbooks?
Or is it just a case of "this one we have to follow....that one...not so much?"

You rightfully take pride in the district's bond rating, but that rating is in part related to perceived strength in fiscal management policies. 
How do you think that perception may change if you continue to ignore your policies? 
What if an underwriter concludes that while you have nice policies, they're worthless because you don't follow them?

One of the underlying allegations in the district's upcoming arbitration hearing regarding the removal of girls basketball coaches is that the district did not follow its policies.  Is there really any surprise to that?   I wonder how much these continued incidents of failure to follow policy may further erode the district's position in the arbitration hearing?  And that decision could cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

The bottom line is that failure to adhere to board policy is just another symptom of the real illness:  lack of accountability.
And it starts at the top.  If you want people to be accountable, you must lead by example.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

As Paul Harvey used to say: and now here's the rest of the story...

Two weeks ago, the school board and district had their first 2010-11 "budget summit" meeting. In typical rah-rah fashion, the district slide show painted the district in the best possible light. They offered this slide:
This data purports to show that Sun Prairie exercises great fiscal restraint when compared to the other 15 Dane County school districts. 14th lowest "spending" out of the 16 districts!

Step 1 is to show ALL the data. The DPI website doesn't offer any reports on "spending". It DOES offer a report called "shared costs", which is the sum of general fund (basic district operations) plus the debt service amounts divided by the enrollment. DPI also offers "comparative cost" and "comparative revenue" reports. The comparative cost report is broken down into actual education costs, transportation costs, facility costs, and even food and community service costs per student. This is what that picture looks like for the 16 Dane County schools:


The problem: Sun Prairie is not LIKE the other Dane County school districts. It's like comparing apples to pineapples! Of them, we bear resemblance only to (grrr) Middleton-Cross Plains.
Solution: Stop comparing apples to pineapples. Four (4) of the 16 Dane County school districts have less than 1000 students! Madison has nearly FIVE times our enrollment. So why don't we compare the 20 school districts closest to us in size? Wouldn't that allow us to better evaluate our position?
We looked at the 20 schools closest to SPASD in size (10 bigger, 10 smaller). Take a look at how Sun Prairie stacks up in the "Shared Costs per Student" spectrum when comparing apples to apples:


Gee whiz! We went from 14th out of 16 to 6th out of 21! Son of a gun! Note also that we rank 4th in terms of Revenue Limit per student (how much money we are allowed to spend) and 3rd highest in terms of mill rate. Now to be fair...as we have said before, mill rate doesn't mean much without looking at the median property value per district. Certainly, some of these districts have median house values greater than Sun Prairie...like Oak Creek-Franklin. But our mill rate is nearly 30% higher than theirs! If our median house value is $235K, that would mean that for us to be a "more expensive" district, the median house value in Oak Creek would have to be just over $300K. Is it?
Not even close. In 2008 the median house price was --surprise, the same as ours---only $235K. That would mean, using these figures, a median value house in Oak Creek would pay $1818 in school taxes, whereas in Sun Prairie, a median home would pay $2350.

See how things look when you compare things on a level playing field?

Let's look at Property Tax Levy per student and how we compare to the 20 school districts of similar size.

My, my...#4 with a bullet! Any wonder why the district didn't show THAT slide?
Last but not least, let's look at the "total education cost" per student. Note that this is really just salaries and fringes. This figure does not include transportation costs, facility costs, or food/community service costs. Just what it costs to educate our kids.

Hmmm...here we move down one notch to 5th place, but we still rank right up there in the top 20-25%...most definitely not in the bottom 10-15% as Phil Frei's numbers would lead one to believe.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Why Can't They Just Tell The Truth?

In the district flyer put out to support the proposed budget and tax levy, Phil Frei states the following about fund balance.


" Sun Prairie has a moderate fund balance. More than 80% of Wisconsin school districts have fund balances that are larger than Sun Prairie’s. However, Sun Prairie has received excellent lending rates due to its fund balance.

Actually, if one downloads the fund balance data from the DPI website, it's crystal clear that this "factoid" couldn't be more wrong. More than 90% of Wisconsin school districts have SMALLER fund balances than Sun Prairie.

In truth, based on the most recent data available (2007-08), only 39 of the 426 state school districts (9.1%)have a larger fund balance than Sun Prairie.

* Why can't they be truthful?
* Are they just so arrogant as to believe that no one is smart enough to fact check them?
* Why does our school board--elected to represent US---allow this travesty to continue?

Only the following districts have fund balances larger than Sun Prairie (2007-08 data is the most recent data available on-line from DPI)




Milwaukee (3619) $46,020,802.00
La Crosse (2849) $28,033,005.09
Madison Metropolitan (3269) $24,378,907.20
Wauwatosa (6244) $23,455,390.10
Janesville (2695) $23,311,123.54
Green Bay Area (2289) $22,615,865.40
Kenosha (2793) $21,063,080.93
Muskego-Norway (3857) $18,180,005.61
Eau Claire Area (1554) $17,865,735.44
Elmbrook (0714) $17,697,688.47
West Allis (6300) $17,569,864.47
Hudson (2611) $15,721,418.41
Sheboygan Area (5271) $15,346,663.38
Wausau (6223) $15,045,259.56
Stevens Point Area (5607) $14,319,808.41
Beloit (0413) $13,585,945.19
Hamilton (2420) $13,063,338.81
Racine (4620) $12,549,213.00
De Forest Area (1316) $11,985,921.84
Franklin Public (1900) $11,537,994.99
Oak Creek-Franklin (4018) $11,490,278.35
Superior (5663) $11,396,270.95
Appleton Area (0147) $10,791,418.53
Fond du Lac (1862) $9,896,824.92
Neenah (3892) $9,860,464.21
Rhinelander (4781) $9,766,151.85
Menominee Indian (3434) $9,747,176.75
Middleton-Cross Plains (3549) $9,620,303.78
Menasha (3430) $9,145,445.79
Cudahy (1253) $8,822,676.13
Chippewa Falls Area (1092) $8,071,367.44
Waukesha (6174) $8,070,234.98
Oregon (4144) $7,913,648.66
Mukwonago (3822) $7,834,931.23
Greenfield (2303) $7,790,156.45
Watertown (6125) $7,704,433.87
Marshfield (3339) $7,642,990.12
Hayward Community (2478) $7,443,928.88
Wautoma Area (6237) $7,280,659.81
Sun Prairie Area (5656) $7,240,354.01