Another Bailout

Greed

Big salaries and golden parachutes

Mismanagement, incompetence. and lack of accountability

Finger pointing

Scare tactics

Bailouts

And the taxpayers are left paying for it all!

Am I talking about the 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout plan that was passed this week and signed by the president?NO. I'm referring to the 13.5 million dollar bailout of the Marshfield School District passed earlier this year. The similarities between these two bailouts are amazing and deserve a closer look. After all, we learn by our mistakes.


GREED

The Wall Street tycoons are greedy bastards, there's no denying that. And the mortgage lenders preyed upon people chasing the American Dream and the chance to own a nice home. But a lot of these dreamers also reached beyond their means and purchased homes they could never afford.

Our schools also reach beyond their means. They want it all and they want the best. When they found out they couldn't pay for it all, the logical thing to do was look for what could be cut from the budget. But nobody wanted to give up anything. A good example is the AP courses. We live in a community that has a university and a technical college. Yet the school district decided to, in effect, build a small university within the high school so that students can take AP courses and earn college credit and in fact compete with MSTC and the UW. And the taxpayers pay for all three. Before this, high school students were able to take AP courses through the UW and their parents paid for it. It's an example of greed. Our school district, our students and parents want it all, and they want the taxpayer to pay for it.

Watch what happens with the Middle School. Do you think the district is really going to do something sensible and find a way to utilize what we already have by making room for the middle school at the high school? Or are they going to pitch a plan to build a brand new $25 million complex, complete with a new football stadium? Greed is alive and well within our school district, and there's going to be a lot of pork added to the middle school project.


BIG SALARIES AND GOLDEN PARACHUTES

Who isn't pissed off that some of these Wall Street CEOs make millions? And then when the bank goes belly up, they leave with a huge golden parachute worth even more millions! And now we have to bail them out?

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance released a report comparing the salaries and benefit packages for school districts. When the Marshfield News-Herald reported this, they compared the Marshfield School District to other area school districts and, not surprisingly, Marshfield not only has some of the highest salaries for our district's "CEOs" but we have the best benefit package. Marshfield pays 95% of the health insurance premium for all school district employees and their families. We're also the only school district that also pays as much as 50% of the deductible. While other school districts are negotiating contracts and asking their employees to take a bigger share of their health insurance, Marshfield continues to bow to the unions and refuses to engage in negotiations. A small shift from a 95/5% split to a 90/10% would save millions! Other districts are doing this successfully.


MISMANAGEMENT, INCOMPETENCE AND LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY

There were plenty of warning signs that our economy was in trouble. As far back as 3 years ago, economists were raising red flags. Some in the government were listening and a few spoke up about Freddie and Fanny, but nothing was done to intervene until it was too late. And now we're paying the price for bad management, bad decisions, and incompetence on Wall Street and in Washington.

While Marshfield has pretty good schools, we have a track record of some pretty bad management within the school district administration and on the Board of Education. The board always rubber stamps everything that comes from the central office and goes along with whatever King and Saucerman lay on the table, and there have been plenty of mistakes and blunders in this administration! The biggest problem, however, is the lack of accountability. No one is ever held responsible. No one questioned how and why our school district budget has a 2 or 3 million dollar shortfall each year. Oh, a lot of excuses were given, but it came down to the taxpayers as it always does. The mindset of the administration and board seems to be "Spend , spend, spend...and when the money is gone, we'll go to the taxpayers for more." When are the taxpayers going to say enough is enough?

This summer our school board discussed the food budget. Higher food and transportation costs were not covered by the federal and state funds that are used to provide hot lunches at our schools. The finance director predicted the district will lose 25 cents on each meal each day during this school year. The board's brilliant idea was to raise the lunch prices by a dime, and take a 15 cent hit on each lunch. That will leave the district with a six-figure deficit in the food budget. And how will they make up that deficit? The board suggested selling snacks after school and at sporting events. Sounds like another bad idea that will only lead to a big budget deficit and another bailout by the taxpayers!


FINGER POINTING

The democrats blame the republicans and Bush, the republicans blame the democrats, and fingers were pointed at Wall Street, at the banks, and even at the people who took out loans they knew they couldn't pay for.

When the school district found itself in a financial bind, they were quick to point their fingers at Madison and say that is where the problem is. The school funding system is broken, they said. They blamed it on revenue caps and the QEO. They also blamed it on high health care costs.Marshfield School Watch and the NO Committee not only points a finger at Madison, but also one at Marshfield. The funding system is broken on both ends. Mismanagement, incompetence, lack of accountability are alive and well in our district. Are we going to sit back and watch the finger pointing and wait until the next financial crisis before we do anything about it? The next referendum is already being drafted and can appear on the Spring ballot!


SCARE TACTICS

Doom and gloom. Recession. Another "Great Depression." The collapse of Wall Street. A run on the banks. Losing your 401k. These scare tactics were used to change the tide of public opinion. Many of us were mad. Why should we bailout Wall Street? The House of Representatives voted down the first proposal. The stock market tanked (thanks to speculators) and low and behold the tide of public opinion began to change. Now the bailout bill is a done deal, but the economy is not out of the woods yet.

Crime will skyrocket. Gangs will form on our streets. Students will leave the district in droves if we cut any student clubs or organizations. No new businesses will come to Marshfield. If we cut overtime from the custodial budget, our schools will become so dirty that students won't be able to learn. If we cut the buildings and grounds budget, our new schools would collapse into a pile of rubble. These were some of the actual arguments offered by the school district, by teachers, and the Yes Committee. And who can forget the pity parade before the school board? The tears and the fears and the board pretending like they have no other choice.

The entire threat to cut sports and music and AP classes was all a scare tactic. How do we know this? What was the first thing the school district did within weeks of the 13.5 million dollar bailout? They added sports! Weeks before they didn't have the money to sustain what they had, and then miraculously after the bailout, not only can we afford all the sports, we can add more! One of the proposed cuts was to eliminate one administrator. After the bailout, they added two! There was a proposal to freeze administrator salaries. After the bailout, everyone got a raise!

The sports, music programs, student clubs and activities were never really in jeopardy. Our school district has money to pay for all of this. What they don't have money for is continuing to pay high salaries and Cadilac benefits. These had to come first. So that put the student programs on the cutting board. They knew there would be an emotional response, and there was. This shifted the focus. The bailout, then, was "for the kids," and anyone who didn't support it was against the students and teachers. The district knew they couldn't say they needed money to fund their retirement plans. Some area school districts actually had referendums on this and they were defeated soundly. But by making sure their salaries and benefits were covered first, our district put the student programs on the chopping block knowing that we'd fight for them. It was a scare tactic. And people fell for it.


THE BAILOUT

Whether baling out Wall Street or our school district, the taxpayers get screwed. But hopefully we learn from this. Governor Sarah Palin, in the Vice Presidential debate, raised a good point. In referring to the Wall Street bailout she said we all need to take personal responsibility and to stand up and say never again will we let them take advantage of us. And she's right. There is plenty of blame to go around and in the end we are responsible for what we do. That includes how we manage our money and personal finances and how we vote and who we vote for. It also includes standing up and demanding accountability, oversight, and better leadership.

What applies to Wall Street and the federal government also applies to our school district and our local government. We have plenty of property taxes in Marshfield. What's lacking is oversight, sound management, and accountability. This is true for City Hall and it's certainly true for our school district.

Our school district administration and Board of Education took advantage of us and used scare tactics to switch the focus of the bailout referendum so that it was "for the kids." After what we now know, the reports from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance about salaries and benefits, and the actions of the school district to add sports and give administrators raises weeks after the bailout, it's very clear that the 13.5 million bailout was not really about the kids.


SO NOW WHAT?

It's a done deal. The Yes'ers keep telling us to move on. But if we do that, we risk falling into the same trap again. Our school district is losing money on lunches. They're adding sports. They're raising salaries and continuing to offer those Cadilac benefits. They're going to build a new middle school and football stadium. They're going to need more money.

Instead of waiting for that next bailout referendum, we need to demand more transparency, accountability and oversight when it comes to the school district budget. We need to elect new people to the school board. We need to keep our eyes and ears open. And we need to speak up.

Real reform and change are coming!

Did the school district ignore it's own hiring policies?

The Marshfield School District recently promoted current staff at Marshfield High School to fill vacant positions for principal, assistant principal, and athletic director. These promotions were appointments. The job openings were not posted, there were no interviews, no other candidates were considered. Gordy Sisson replaced John Blankush as MHS principal. Len Luedtke, Sr., who was previously the district athletic director, was promoted to assistant principal, no questions asked. The School Board rubber stamped the Superintendent's decision and made it official.

Some critics of the school administration questioned this move. In an online forum on the Marshfield New-Herald website, some posters asked whether or not this violated any equal opportunity for employment (EOE) laws. Adam Rodewald, education reporter for the Marshfield News-Herald spoke with Patrick Gasper, communications officer for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, who confirmed, "Hiring practices are up to the individual school board and district administration. The DPI has no authority or oversight in the hiring process at the local level."

So what exactly is the hiring process for the Marshfield School District?

The following is taken from the Marshfield School District Policy Manual:

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND HIRING

The School District of Marshfield will secure the highest qualified personnel through an effective recruitment program following good personnel practices. A personal interview will be required of all individuals employed by the district. All candidates must furnish appropriate evidence of preparation and experience and of licensure or certification, if required.

PROCEDURES FOR STAFF RECRUITMENT AND HIRING

The School District of Marshfield seeks to recruit, employ, promote, and retain as employees those persons best qualified to fulfill the needs of the students of the school district.

When a position becomes known in the district a Vacancy Posting Notice shall be completed by the appropriate administrator. The information from that form is used to ensure that correct information about the position is known to the office of the superintendent for posting purposes as well as to provide information to applicants.

Vacancies will be posted externally and internally.

Upon receiving a letter of inquiry for a position, an applicant is mailed an application form as well as a brief synopsis of the application procedures for the School District of Marshfield. On receipt of the application, resume, transcripts and credentials, the certificated candidate's file is considered complete and the applicant will be considered for current or future vacancies for which he/she is qualified. Candidates for support staff positions will be required to complete the district's application form and may choose to submit other supporting materials.

Supervisors or building principals shall screen the completed files to determine an interview list. Where sufficient applicants are available, at least four or five candidates are to be interviewed for each vacant position.

An interview team of at least two members shall be established.

A common set of questions shall be used to interview all candidates for a given vacancy.

The superintendent and the administrator from the interview team shall confer to make an assessment of the finalists and to determine a final candidate. The Board will be informed as soon as reasonable. The superintendent is responsible for recommending the final candidate to the Board of Education.

Legal Reference:
Wisconsin State Statute 111.335

It's also worth noting the policies governing school district administration. The following again comes from the district's Policy Manual:

RECRUITMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATORS

An administrator is defined as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, coordinator, or any other certified personnel who have staff evaluation responsibilities.

An administrator or coordinator shall possess an administrator or coordinator's license issued by the Department of Public Instruction.

Legal References:
Sections 111.31-111.395, Wisconsin
Statutes
118.24
121.02(1)(a)

So, this leaves three questions:

1. Does Len Luedtke "possess an administrator or coordinator's license issued by the Department of Public Instruction" as required by the Marshfield School District's own Policy Manual?
2. Did the school district ignore their own policies in the recent hiring of these individuals?
3. Did the school district act irresponsibly by not holding interviews and ignore their obligation to taxpayers to conduct a fair search for the most qualified candidates?

We'll all be paying more for hot lunch next year!

Move over corn dogs, mac and cheese, and catsup that counts as a vegetable. A new item is being added to the school lunch menu: debt.

At a recent meeting, School Board members got out their trusty rubber "yes" stamps and once again made a unanimous decision. Students will pay 10 cents more for hot lunches at Marshfield's public schools starting in September. Increased costs, including transportation, make the price hike necessary.

But here's the kicker. That dime increase will not be enough to cover the expected shortfall in the school district's food service budget. According to School Board member Harry Dolan, the price for lunches should be raised 25 cents to balance the account.

Other Board members felt that high of an increase would be too much for some families. In their discussion, the Board actually acknowledged that the recent $13.5 million budget override referendum, combined with the sluggish economy and higher costs, is a hardship for the district's tax payers. Back in January and February, however, they told us the raise in property taxes resulting from the referendum would be insignificant. "Just the price of a cup of coffee a day," many Yes'ers claimed. But now, it's recognized as a hardship, and therefore lunch prices shouldn't be raised too much.

The Board feels it's better to run a deficit than raise the prices enough to balance the budget. After all, this deficit can be the starting point for the next override referendum. I can hear it now: "Yes, we know all you tax payers gave us $13.5 million to balance the budget, but we didn't want to raise lunch prices too high, and now we have a debt so we need another budget override. It's for the kids. Give us the money or we'll cut all the sports!"

One would think that the school district's business manger would be concerned about running a deficit in the food budget, but not Pat Saucerman. "I think honestly, from a fiscal standpoint, my recommendation would be that we do raise the prices, but from a political or ethical standpoint, I don't know if it's right.," he said at the meeting. Wait a minute! Isn't it the business manager's job to consider all decisions from a fiscal standpoint? And since when is he concerned with the ethical standpoint of anything? Perhaps, honestly, he can create a PowerPoint presentation with some skewed bar graphs showing that the school lunch deficit won't look as big as it actually will be next year. Since this is the food budget, maybe he'll get creative and make it a pie graph.

But Harry Dolan warned about the seriousness of the budget shortfall: "My inclination is to take the bull by the horns and find out what we need" to balance the food budget, he said. "To me, it looks like we're not even going to come close. I think we're really going to take a hit."

Then, after nearly a full minute of heated debate, the Board came to it's unanimous decision: raise the lunch prices 10 cents, even though a 25 cent increase is needed to break even.

So here's the $13.5 million dollar question. How is the district going to make up the 15 cents it loses on each hot lunch every school day? How many students eat hot lunch? If it were 100, the district would only lose $15 a day. If it's 1000, they lose $150 day. If it's 4000, then they lose $600 a day. Multiply that by 180 days and you get $108,000. Is that how much the food service budget will be in the hole by the end of the next school year? Where is that money going to come from? From what budget will that amount get transferred? Buildings and Grounds? Maintenance?

School Board President Tim Deets had a brilliant idea. He suggested not raising the lunch fees at all. That way the district could lose 25 cents per hot lunch per day. For 4000 lunches, that would make the food service budget deficit climb to $180,000 next year. He says the district could balance the budget with alternative revenue sources such as selling snacks after school. "Hey kid, wanna buy a $30 twinkie?"

To sum up:

• School Board now acknowledges higher property taxes resulting from the recent referendum will indeed be a hardship for many families.
• Rising costs will cause the school district to incur a deficit in the food service budget unless lunch prices are raised next school year.
• To cover the shortfall, a 25 cent per lunch increase is needed.
• Board unanimously votes to raise lunch prices 10 cents in favor of losing 15 cents per lunch per day and running up a six figure deficit.
• The district can sell snacks after school to make up the difference.
• If that doesn't work, there's always another override referendum that can be placed on the ballot.
  

And you wonder why I'm so critical of the school district?

OK all you Yes'ers. Let's hear you spin and explain this one!

The Saucerman Skew

Have you seen the commercials for DirectTV? It's a board room of cable executives trying to figure out how they can trick customers into staying with cable and not switching over to the superior DirectTV. In one of the commercials, one of the board members at the meeting starts making up statistics that they can use to spin their company in a better light. He says he read it in a book once that "90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time."

Every time I see that commercial I think of Pat Saucerman, Director of Business Services for the School District of Marshfield.

Saucerman went out with Superintendent Bruce King to sell the 13.5 million dollar override referendum to community groups and organizations. They even came to where I work and gave a presentation. Saucerman had a lot of fancy charts and graphs in a PowerPoint. Some of those same graphs were used in a brochure about the referendum that was mailed out to every household in the Marshfield School District. Here's an example I scanned from the brochure:

Notice anything odd about it? If you're like most people, and not accustomed to reading bar graphs, it might look like a normal graph. A bunch of columns representing data, in this case, a comparison of the tax rate among area school districts. At first glance you might conclude, "Marshfield's school tax rate is really low compared to the other school districts ... it's practically nonexistent."

Bar graphs have an x and y axis along which data points are plotted, creating a graphical representation of the data. But by manipulating the axis, you can can change how the data appears in the graph. The graphs created by the school district to present data to the public utilized what I call "The Saucerman Skew." That's where you manipulate the y axis of the graph to skew the data in your favor.

In the above example, the x axis runs horizontally along the bottom of the graph and contains the names of nine area school districts, including Marshfield. The y axis runs vertically on the left of the graph and shows the tax rate. Notice it starts at 7.16. (That translates to a mill rate of $7.16 per $1,000 of assessed property value. For a home/property assessed at $100,000, a tax rate of 7.16 means that the home/property owner pays $716 a year in school taxes). In 2007, the school tax rate for Marshfield was 7.22. That's only .06 above the point where the x axis intersects with the y axis. That's why the green column showing Marshfield's tax rate is so short.

This was a deliberate manipulation of the data to spin it in favor of the school district. They wanted the public to get the impression that Marshfield's school tax rate is extremely low compared to other school districts.

"90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time." This is the principle of the Saucerman Skew.

Lets look at that same data a few different ways:

Let's start the y axis at zero in order to get a true representation of the data comparing the tax rate among the school districts. You'll notice it changes dramatically.

It''s still the same data. But when we are shown the whole picture, the differences between the tax rates are not nearly as dramatic. It is obvious that our school district wanted to manipulate the data in their favor to "trick" the voters into thinking Marshfild's tax rate was very low.

I tried to recreate their graph using the same data, applying the Saucerman Skew:

The result is remarkably similar to the graphs the school district used in their referendum presentations and propaganda.

Now, how different would have things looked if Pat Saucerman tried an honest approach to representing the data? Strip away all the fancy 3-dimensional graphics. Make it a simple bar graphs, with the y axis starting at zero. Here's what it looks like compared with the one the school district actually used:

Same data, but it looks quite different!

Now Mr. Saucerman recently admitted he "miscalculated" the tax rate needed to raise the $2 million the school district needs to balance the budget. He says he didn't account for the lagging economy and the decrease in the tax base. Originally we were told that the referendum would raise the school tax rate by approximately 1.0 (that's $1.00 per $1000 of assessed value, or $100 for a home valued at $100,000). But now the tax rate will need to increase at least another 0.22 (that's $0.22 per $1000 of assessed value, or an additional $22 on a home valued at $100,000).

And this is only the first year of a 5 year override referendum. And the next referendum for a new Middle School is already in the works.

Will the school district present honest data to the public? Or will they continue to apply the Saucerman Skew to once again manipulate the data in their favor, trying to trick the taxpayer into thinking the tax rate isn't as high as it actually is?"

90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time." Many gullible voters (many of them not tax-payers, by the way) fell for that last time. But Marshfield School Watch is here to say "WAKE UP PEOPLE!" Next time, voters will hopefully recognize when the Saucerman Skew is misrepresenting the data.

Conflict Resolution!

Finally, after more than 2 months, we have conflict resolution. Amber Kiggens-Leifheit, the newest member on the Board of Education, confirmed to me by email today that she resigned from her position as coordinator of the Pathway Partners mentor program at Marshfield High School. According to state statutes and the code of ethics set forth by the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, it is a conflict of interest to be an employee of the school district while at the same time serve on the school board.

Marshfield School Watch called Kiggens-Leifheit on her conflict of interest prior to the election on April 1, 2008. The following day in a News-Herald article, she was asked about the potential conflict and stated two things: 1) she consulted with school district administration prior to running for the school board who told her there was no problem with her holding two positions within the district, and 2) she said she would consult with the school district's attorney just to make sure. Then after that, all was silent.

Apparently a press release was submitted and published in the Marshfield News-Herald on April 16, announcing her resignation (even the education reporter had to go back and look for it, and no where in the article does it mention her appointment to the school board nor does it give the reason why she resigned from the mentoring program). Still, two months later, she remains listed as the program's coordinator on the school district's web site. She also sill has a school district employee email address (which she is still using, as she received and replied to an email I sent recently to that address). She also remains listed among the staff of Marshfield High School on the district's web site. For someone who is (and claims to never have been) an employee of the school district, you wouldn't know it by looking at the district's web site. Let's see, is George Bush employed by the school district? Nope, his name isn't on the staff listing, he doesn't have an employee email, and his paychecks don't come for the central office. Yet for Kiggens-Leifheit, all of these things were true, yet she wasn't an employee? If it swims like a duck, and quacks likes a duck...

Kiggens-Leifheit's resignation from the mentor program, however, does at least prove that Marshfield School Watch was correct in calling this a conflict of interest (she wouldn't have resigned otherwise). But what about her other ties to the distinct? Kiggens-Leifheit describes on her resume that she is a substitute teacher who has received several "long-term" assignments. She also serves as treasurer for the Yes Committee, the school district's political machine responsible for some rather shady and questionable tactics that helped force the last school referendum to pass. I am happy to report that Kiggens-Leifheit confirmed to me today by email that she has also resigned from these positions as well.

Marshfield School Watch is satisfied that these conflicts of interest have been resolved, and we commend Kiggens-Leifheit for doing the right thing.

At the same time, however, I seriously doubt that she would have resigned from any of these positions had it not been for Marshfield School Watch bringing it up publicly and repeatedly. We stayed on it and wouldn't give up until the conflicts of interest were resolved. Along the way I personally took a lot of bashing form the "yes'ers" and the school district supporting smear mongers who hide behind anonymous screen names and secret, un-named sources. They said I didn't know what I was talking about. Well, chalk this up as another "I told you so moment" brought to you courtesy of Marshfield School Watch. I was right... I was right... I WAS RIGHT!

Don't get me wrong, I would have rather Kiggens-Leifheit resigned from her position on the School Board, but I'll settle for her resigning from her positions as coordinator of the mentor program, substitute teacher, and treasurer of the Yes Committee. And yes, I'll take credit for it. But I won't gloat too much. There's a lot more work to be done, and some more resignations we'd like to see. Mr. King, I think you're next.

Kiggens-Leifheit approves her own salary?

Amber Kiggens-Leifheit, the newest member of the Board of Education, is still an employee of the Marshfield School District. In the weeks prior to the election in April, Marshfield School Watch cried "conflict of interest!" A reporter from the Marshfield News-Herald even asked Kiggens-Leifheit about it the day after the election: "A potential conflict of interest may arise for Kiggens-Leifheit, who is a substitute teacher in the district and the director of Pathway Partners, a non-profit student mentoring program in the high school. She said she discussed the issue with school district administration prior to filing candidacy and will now be contacting a school board attorney for advice."

Not another word was said after that.

But this past week, Amber Kiggens-Leifheit voted with the rest of the school board to approve salaries for school district employees, including "personnel not covered by negotiated agreements" for the 2008-09 school year. In other words, she just approved her own salary. Did she get a raise? Was this ethical? No one knows, because the normal "checks and balances" that should be in place are nonexistent. This is why there are laws against this sort of thing. It is a conflict of interest.

Even the Board of Education's own policies on "Ethics/Roles and Responsibilities" of school board members state: "I must avoid all conflicts of interest, both pecuniary and nonpecuniary." They also state; "I will avoid being placed in a position of conflict of interest, and refrain from using my Board position for personal or partisan gain."

Wouldn't it be great if we all had the power to negotiate, determine, calculate, present, vote on, and APPROVE our own salaries?!

But in the case, we're talking about an elected official doing this. And that's against the law:

"The code of ethics for local governmental officials prohibits any local public official from using his or her office to obtain financial gain or anything of substantial value for private benefit for himself or herself, or his or her immediate family, or for an organization with which he or she is associated. Further, board members are prohibited by a criminal statute from having private, pecuniary interests, either direct or indirect, in school district contracts of more than $15,000 in any year. Some limited exceptions to this prohibition are enumerated in the Wisconsin statutes (see s.946.13). The state common law also may prohibit school board members from being employed by the school district where they are on the board and may restrict other private activities of board members." (Wisconsin Association of School Boards).

We did our homework. There is precedent for this. According to Dr. Keith Fuchs, Superintendent of the Menasha Joint School District, they had a similar conflict of interest situation arise, only in reverse. In their case, a sitting board member had to resign her elected position in order to take a paid position to manage the district's after school and mentor programs. It was a conflict of interest for her to be a paid employee of the district and continue to serve on the Board that approves salaries for district employees.

If it's a conflict of interest in the Menasha Joint School District, why isn't is a conflict of interest in the Marshfield School District?

So, for once and for all, let's settle this. I emailed Amber Kiggens-Leifheit using her official school district employee email address:

From: Marshfield School Watch marshfieldschoolwatch@yahoo.com
To: leifheita@marshfield.k12.wi.us
Subject: conflict of interest?
Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 7:58 PM

Amber:

I see you are still listed as the program coordinator of the Pathway Partners mentoring program. And this week, as a member of the Board of Education, you voted to approve salaries of school district employees, including those not covered by negotiated agreements. How is this not a conflict of interest according to Wisconsin state statutes and the code of ethics set forth by the Wisconsin Association of School Boards?

In an article published in the Marshfield News Herald the day after your
election, you were quoted as saying you were going to seek advice from the
school district's legal team. Nothing more was said after that.

I would like to know how and why your status as both a school board member and an employee of the school district is not a conflict of interest.

I await your reply.

I'll post any replies I get from her or the school district. Stay tuned!

Survey reveals revenue caps "harm education"

A recent survey of superintendents, released by the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, told us something we already know.

We have a broken school funding system in Wisconsin.

The Marshfield School District and their Yes Committee made that clear when they pointed their fingers at Madison and told us that's where the problem is.

The revenue caps were passed as legislation over 15 years ago. So what has the Marshfield School District done to help fix this broken funding system? We know they work hard to get referendums on the ballot and make sure they pass. Marshfield taxpayers have been socked with 3 passing referendum in the past 4 years for a total of over $40 million. But "these extra dollars only fix the problem temporarily and put extra strain on taxpayers."

Instead of waiting until the next referendum is on the ballot (and we all know there is one coming soon because Bruce King himself said the district will be back if things don't change in Madison) Marshfield citizens and taxpayers should be asking questions now. What has our school district done to help fix the broken funding system? What is their long-term plan? Are more referendums the only answer? How high will Marshfield's property taxes be raised by the school district over the next 5 years?

The Marshfield School District, their Yes Committee, and the Board of Education are all good at pointing their fingers at Madison. But now, thanks to Marshfield School Watch, the taxpayers of Marshfield are pointing one finger at Madison and one finger at Marshfield and saying that the school funding system is broken on both ends.

Call or write the Superintendent. Call or write your elected school board members. (Click here for their contact information: http://www.marshfield.k12.wi.us/IntroductionOfBoardMember.cfm). Let them know you are concerned about the broken school funding system in Madison AND in Marshfield and ask them what they are going to do about it. Let them know that you will not support another school referendum if that's their only answer. Hold them accountable for finding a long-term solution to the problem---not just another "temporary fix" at taxpayer's expense.

Check out the Marshfield School Watch web site for more information: http://www.marshfieldschoolwatch.org/

Kiggens-Leifheit now admits she might have a conflict of interest!

The Marshfield News Herald reported this the day after the election:

"A potential conflict of interest may arise for Kiggens-Leifheit, who is a substitute teacher in the district and the director of Pathway Partners, a non-profit student mentoring program in the high school. She said she discussed the issue with school district administration prior to filing candidacy and will now be contacting a school board attorney for advice."

The good thing is, Kiggens-Leifheit finally admits that she needs to consult with a lawyer and clear this whole "conflict of interest" thing up.

What's disturbing, however, is the fact that she discussed the issue with school district administration prior to filing candidacy and they either 1) don't know the State statutes regarding conflict of interest or 2) they didn't care and just ignored it hoping no one would notice.

Fortunately, someone did notice---the Marshfield School Watch group. This admission by Kiggens-Leifheit was the first public response by her or the school district amidst repeated attempts by Marshfield School Watch to get them to address the issue before the election.

Some community members posting on the Marshfield News-Herald blog expressed their concerns:

• One would have thought Kiggens-Leifeit and administration would have contacted an attorney for the school board prior to filing papers for running for school board. Makes you wonder if they thought they could get away with it. Will she also have to leave substitute teaching for the district and the Yes committee as well?

• The reason Kiggens-Leifeit or the school district did not confer with a lawyer before she ran for the board was because she and the school district did not see her employment with the district as a conflict of interest. But Marshfield School Watch called her on it. Good to know it will be looked into. We need a Board of Education that follows the law. If it wasn't for Marshfield School Watch, this issue would have never come up.

Marshfield School Watch vows to stay on this and follow it to conclusion. Stay posted!

Alternative candidates for School Board get noticed!

The votes have been counted. While Bohon and Kiggens-Leifheit won seats on the board, it wasn't without a fight.

Candidate Christine Miller received 1,562 votes, the most she has ever received since she began running for school board in 1995. Amidst controversial views as a holocaust denier and an untiring crusade to have a series of revisionist books added to public school libraries, she still manages to rack up a sizable amount of votes. The only possible reason: many taxpayers in Marshfield agreed with her stand against the school districts parade of referendums, 3 in the past 4 years alone, that have raised property taxes over $40 million dollars. It was Miller's platform of local and state school budget reform that made taxpayers take notice.

Doug Seubert, founder and Executive Director of Marshfield School Watch, received 236 votes. This is quite an accomplishment, as Seubert never declared a formal write-in campaign. In fact, there was only one letter to the editor published just four days before the election by a concerned community member, who stated he was writing in Seubert for school board because, he said, "the two present school board members running had a chance to save taxpayers' money but instead pushed for an excessive referendum that will come back to haunt us."

His letter continued, "Doug has many good ideas and it's too bad that the school board has their own agenda which doesn't include an open discussion except among themselves. But they seem to make an exception when they want your money."

236 voters agreed with the letter and kept it in mind as they voted four days later. That's very impressive seeing as they had to remember to write in Seubert's name. Many write-in campaigns fail because often voters do not take the extra step to write in a candidate, much less one who never even declared a formal write-in campaign, advertised, or even asked for anyone to vote for him.

What does this say about the current school board? What does this say about Bohon and Kiggens-Leifheit? Obviously there are people who were not happy with the choice of candidates and they clearly want changes to how the district does business.

It certainly gives some credibility to the Marshfield School Watch group, and Seubert in particular. People are beginning to wake up and take notice. And that has to be somewhat annoying to a school district that has for so long operated under the radar and outside of the spotlight of dissatisfied taxpayers.

The times they are a changin' ....


Related Links:

• School board election has most write-in votes
• Write in Seubert for school board
• http://www.marshfieldschoolwatch.org/

New Update on the Kiggens-Leifheit "conflict of interest" saga!

On Wednesday, March 26, I contacted the Marshfield School District (namely the School Board Clerk, Laurel Carey) inquiring about the district's conflict of interest policy. Having concerns that a school district employee and officer of the Yes Committee serving on the school board might indeed be a conflict of interest, I went to the school districts web site. They post their policy manual online, but I was only able to find a passing mention of the conflict of interest policy that is usually part of a new board member's orientation packet as outlined in a list. I was particularly interested in items c, d, and e on that list.

Here is a copy of the email I sent:

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Marshfield School Watch"
Subject: conflict of interest
To: "Laurel Carey"

Laurel:

I would like a copy of three items that are typically part of the orientation for new Board of Education members. In particular, these three items that fall under "general information":

c. Responsibilities of a Board member including clarification of whom one represents when speaking on Board matters (to avoid problems with people thinking what “you” say is what the Board says)

d. Conflict of Interest – rules and procedures for getting clarification

e. Ethics of being an elected official – what can and cannot be accepted

I am specifically interested in any information dealing with "conflicts of interest." I couldn't find any mention of this in the "policies governing the Board of education" posted on the district's web site, except as a reference that some information may be given during the orientation of new members. I would like a copy of that information.

Doug Seubert
Marshfield School Watch

*****

Here is the first reply back from the central office:

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:40:58 -0500
From: "Laurel Carey"
To: "Marshfield School Watch"
Subject: Re: conflict of interest

I'll have to forward this on to Mr. King. If it's not in the Policy
Manual I really don't know where else it would be. I know that Mr.
King consults with the legal department at the Wisconsin Association of
School Boards (WASB) quite a bit so he may have something in his
office.

*****

I had already gone to the WASB web site looking for the information there. I have already posted that information in previous posts. I included a quote from their policy handbook for school board members that references Wisconsin state statute 946.13.

*****

Second reply from central office:

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:39:35 -0500
From: "Laurel Carey" Add Mobile Alert
To: marshfieldschoolwatch@yahoo.com
Subject: Conflict of Interest

Mr. Seubert,

Mr. King gave me two documents that he usually reviews with new School Board members. As they are only available in hard copy form I will be mailing these documents to you.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Laurel L. Carey
Secretary to the Director of Business Services
School District of Marshfield

*****

May I have the envelope, please?

(drum roll)....

I received the letter today. Just four sheets of paper, no cover letter, no additional explanation.

Here's what they sent:

Two of the four pages were from the Wisconsin statutes, 19.59 Codes of ethics for local government officials, employees and candidates. Here is the link if you want to see it for yourself: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0019.pdf (they sent me pages 20 and 21).

The other two pages were titled "Ethics/Roles and Responsibilities," which are two numbered lists of statements.

The first list is subtitled "WASB Public Responsibilities for School Board Members" and it is followed by a list of seven items. It reads like an oath that all school board members should take. The third item on the list reads, "I must avoid all conflicts of interest, both pecuniary and nonpecuniary." Number six on the list reads, "I am a local legislator, but I must work under state and federal laws."

The second list is subtitled "As a member of my local Board of Education, I will strive to improve public education, and to that end I will:" and then it follows with a list of 11 items. Number three on this list is "render all decisions based on the available facts and my independent judgment, and refuse to surrender that judgment to individuals or special interest groups." (That would certainly include the Yes Committee!) A similar item on the list says I will: "take no private action that will compromise the Board or administration." This second list also has another statement regarding conflicts of interest. I will: "avoid being placed in a position of conflict of interest, and refrain from using my Board position for personal or partisan gain."

*****

So, what I got from the school district was pretty much what Marshfield School Watch already researched. But it is confirmation that both the state statutes and the WASB consider conflict of interest to be a very serious matter. So now, my next step is to contact Mr. King directly and ask him point blank that if Amber Kiggens-Leifheit is an employee of the school district, and the treasurer of the Yes Committee, dose that constitute a conflict of interest? I am sure without hesitation he will say "no" and assume the case is closed.

That is why Marshfield School Watch has also contacted WASB directly. Here is a copy of that email:

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Marshfield School Watch"
Subject: conflict of interest
To: reloranta@wasb.org

Mr. Eloranta:

According to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, among the qualifications and qualities for school board members is the "freedom from conflict with any other interest."

Marshfield is holding elections for our Board of Education on Tuesday, April 1st. One of the candidates on the ballot is an employee of Marshfield School District and an officer (treasurer) of a political action committee called the Yes Committee that was very vocal about passing a recent school budget override referendum.

Many people are asking about possible conflicts of interest if this candidate will remain a school district employee and keep her post on the political action committee, while at the same time serving on a board that will be deciding on another referendum, this time for the building of a new middle school.

I've asked for a copy of the policy manual for our school board, particularly the policies regarding conflict or interest. I have not heard back from our Board of Education office yet.

Does the Wisconsin Association of School Boards have any guidelines regarding conflict of interest? Any information that you can share would be appreciated.

Doug Seubert
Marshfield School Watch

*****

As of today, still no reply. I will try someone higher up than Mr. Eloranta. There is also a National Association of School Boards that we plan to contact, as well as the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

The good news is, this doesn't have to be decided before the election. There may or may not be a statute of limitations for contesting an election, however. We are still researching that. But I am aware of some cases where elections have been overturned as it were, or declared "null and void" or something to that effect. The point being, there are remedies. They may take time, but they also take perseverance. Marshfield School Watch is determined to get an answer either way. If it is found there is no conflict, great! But if there is, don't we want a Board of Education that follows the law?

Of course there are other outcomes: Kiggens-Leifheit might not get elected, or she might decide to drop out, or she might decide to terminate her employment with the school district while serving on the school board. Either of these options will cause "conflict of interest" to be a non-issue.

I'll continue to post updates on the new Marshfield School Watch web site, as well as on here.

VISIT OUR NEW WEB SITE: http://www.marshfieldschoolwatch.org/

Kiggens-Leifheit -- a conflict of interest?

Amber Kiggens-Leifheit, Marshfield School District employee and treasurer of the school district's Yes Committee (responsible for pushing the recent referendum through) is running for a seat on the school board. But is she even eligible?

According to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, there are many qualifications and qualities which experienced school board members have indicated are important to school board membership.

Among them is this: Freedom from conflict with any other interest.

Here's a direct quote from WASB's "Guide for Candidates"--

"The code of ethics for local governmental officials prohibits any local public official from using his or her office to obtain financial gain or anything of substantial value for private benefit for himself or herself, or his or her immediate family, or for an organization with which he or she is associated. Further, board members are prohibited by a criminal statute from having private, pecuniary interests, either direct or indirect, in school district contracts of more than $15,000 in any year. Some limited exceptions to this prohibition are enumerated in the Wisconsin statutes (see s.946.13). The state common law also may prohibit school board members from being employed by the school district where they are on the board and may restrict other private activities of board members."

Marshfield School Watch contacted the Marshfield School District to request a copy of the Board of Education's conflict of interest policy. We were provided a copy of Wisconsin statute 946.13 and two pages of "ethics/roles and responsibilities" of school board members. It reads like an oath that all school board members should take. The third item on the list reads, "I must avoid all conflicts of interest, both pecuniary and nonpecuniary." Number six on the list reads, "I am a local legislator, but I must work under state and federal laws."

I second list details what all school board members will strive to do. Number three on this list is "render all decisions based on the available facts and my independent judgment, and refuse to surrender that judgment to individuals or special interest groups." (That would certainly include the Yes Committee!) A similar item on the list says that school board members should "take no private action that will compromise the Board or administration...." This second list also has another statement regarding conflicts of interest. Board members must "avoid being placed in a position of conflict of interest, and refrain from using my Board position for personal or partisan gain."

Amber Kiggens-Leifheit is an employee of the school district, and the treasurer of the Yes Committee. According to the the Wisconsin statutes referenced above, public officials--including school board members--cannot benefit from a contract with the school district that exceed $15,000 a year. As a substitute teacher and director of the student mentor program, how much does Amber Kiggens-Leifheit make each year as an employee of the Marshfield School District? Not only that, but as treasurer of the Yes Committee, one could easily argue that that her actions in that capacity do not meet the Wisconsin Association of School Board's definition of "freedom from conflict with any other interest" or the Marshfield Board of Education's policy of refusing to surrender judgment to individuals or special interest groups.

So, what happens if someone should formally contest Kiggens-Leifheit's eligibility to serve on the board. Does that make the election null and void? Would it therefore remove her from the ballot? That would leave two candidates and two open seats. It's an interesting dilemma, no?

Is Bohon really interested in school funding reform?

Prior to the last school referendum, a budget override of $13.5 million that Marshfield taxpayers are going to start paying with higher property taxes next year, we heard a lot from the school district and their political machine the Yes Committee (Kiggins is their treasurer!) that the real problem with school budgets is the broken funding system in Madison. we were told it's a state issue and Superintendent Bruce King himself said the district will need to keep coming back with more referendums if things don't change.

The revenue caps (i.e. the 'broken funding system") was passed in to legislation 15 years ago.

Frances Bohon has served on the school board for 12 years.

Marshfield School Watch asks the questions: What has Bohon done in the past 12 years to help fix the broken funding system? and What does she plan to do differently if she is elected to another 3 year term.

What is our school district doing to help bring about the needed reforms in school funding? This is the CHANGE that Bruce King says is needed to keep future referendums off the ballot.

What had Bohon done as part of the school board for 12 years besides help pass 3 referendums in the past 4 years that have cost taxpayers over $40 million?

How is voting for her again, keeping the status quo and "business as usual" going to bring about change?

School Board Candidates Finally Get Some Press

Finally, the school board candidates speak! I wasn't sure if the News-Herald was even going to run an article on the candidates.I'm glad to see that "fiscal prudence is a top concern for three candidates."

Click here to read the article: http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/MNH0101/803180371


Frances Bohon has been on the board for 12 years. The revenue caps, also known as "the broken school funding system" according to the yes'ers, was legislation that was passed about 15 years ago. The school district, school board, and the Yes Committee were quick to point their fingers at Madison and say that's where the problem is. So what has Bohon done in the past 12 years to help fix this broken system? We only hear about revenue caps when there is a referendum on the ballot, and my guess is we won't hear about it again until the next referendum. Remember, Superintendent Bruce King said the district will be back with another referendum soon if things don't change in Madison. So what is Bohon going to do during this term that she hasn't done in her previous 4 terms? She says the district needs to strive to do better. 'The board should remain vigilant in looking for cost savings through partnerships and grant money." If she is elected to another term, lets hold her to her words!

Amber Kiggens-Leifheit is an employee of the school district, and the treasurer of the Yes Committee. We already know what she stands for: more referendums and higher property taxes. She'll attend every school board meeting with her rubber YES stamp! She says "Board members need to continuously explore options to save money." But given the tactics of the Yes Committee and the deceptive information they gave to voters, I don't think I can take her on her word. Remember, the yes Committee said the recent referendum would only cost $40 for $100,000 home. That wasn't exactly accurate. It's closer to $126 per year for the next 5 years. That's a lot more than "the price of a cup of coffee a day" as the Yes Committee tried to spin it. They forgot to mention that taxes would have gone down next year. But the referendum raises them back up, plus that additional $40 a year. And don't forget their letter campaign to recent graduates. They mailed out letters and absentee ballot applications to young people who do not live in marshfield or pay taxes here, and told them to vote Yes. The motive and intent was to drown out the voice and choice of Marshfield's taxpayers. And they succeeded! (We asked Amber to provide the details on the Yes Committee's letter campaign, but so far she hasn't come forward). Amber represents the status quo and "business as usual." If you voted NO on the last referendum, or if you don't want to see more referendums on the ballot in the near future, you should not vote for Amber.

Christine Miller is definitely not a rubber YES stamper, and she has some interesting ideas about saving the district money. But she also has other agendas that I don't support. If she did make it to the board (highly unlikely), none of her ideas or plans would ever see the light of day. She'd be a distraction and a roadblock... but she'd make those meetings interesting, and more people would watch them.

So, here are the options: Vote for Bohon and Kiggens-Leifheit if you want the status quo and "business as usual." But for Pete's sake let's hold them accountable and make sure they do what they say they will when it comes to fiscal prudence.

Another option is to not vote for anyone.

A third option is to write in candidates that you think will do a better job at fiscal prudence. As of now, no one has come forward with an official write-in campaign.

In the end, no matter what your choice is, it's clear we need to keep our eyes on the school board. The school funding system is broken on both ends: in Madison and in Marshfield. Let's keep our school board on task and hold them accountable for fiscal prudence, for finding options for saving the school district money without simply relying on referendums that raise property taxes as the only solution.

So Amber, how many letters were sent out?

The following request was made:

"It would be interesting to know how many absentee ballots the MARSHFIELD BOARD of EDUCATION requested on behalf of former students and how many actually lived here in MARSHFIELD for the full last 10 days before the election?"

So, Marshfield School Watch replies:

You raise a good point. Not too many people are aware of what the Yes Committee did to get the referendum to pass. Many tactics were used. You are referring to one that might have been their most underhanded tactic.

On behalf of the school district of Marshfield, the Yes Committee, including school board candidate Amber Kiggens-Leifheit, who served an active leadership role on the Yes Committee, sent out letters to recent graduates of Marshfield High School. The letter told these young people that if they ever participated in any sport, student club, or extra curricular activity that they needed to vote YES on the school referendum. To make things easy, they included absentee ballot applications and postage-paid return envelopes. The majority of these young people live outside of Marshfield, some outside of Wisconsin. None of them pay property taxes in Marshfield.

Requests for "public records" about elections go through the City Clerks office. I contacted her about the absentee ballots for the recent school referendum. Here was her reply:

"There is no way to tell how many were required by the YES Committee and I would not be able to tell you how many of those that voted by an Absentee Ballot either voted yes or no for the School Referendum. All ballots are run through the same ballot counter. I can tell you that we issued 702 absentee ballots and we received 633 of them back in time for the February 19, 2008 primary." (Deb M. Hall, WCPC, City Clerk).

Perhaps the Yes Committee has the information? I asked them to provide it and have received no response from them.

I suggest contacting Amber Kiggens-Leifheit directly. As treasurer of the Yes Committee she should have records of how many letters were sent out. She also works for the school district. Her email is leifheita@marshfield.k12.wi.us or you can reach her by phone at (715) 387-8464 ext. 384.

If the Yes Committee believes this was a good tactic to use, and not an underhanded one, you'd think they'd come clean and tell the community what they did.

Until they are honest with the taxpayers, I cannot support a vote for Amber Kiggens-Leifheit for Marshfield school board.

Who's Running for School Board?

I was at the library tonight and saw the information posted by candidates in the April election. There was a section for school board candidates. I haven't seen anything in the paper about the school board elections, but I could have missed it.

Anyway, I checked out what each candidate posted at the library:

Frances Bohon did not post anything.

Amber Kiggens-Leifheit posted stuff from her website (www.don'tvote4amber.com) and the name kinda sounded familiar to me. Then I realized she was the treasurer of the Yes Committee, and that she works for the school district! So I didn't read any further. We all know that Amber would always vote yes to raise property taxes, and she would offer no change to the current slate of school board members who unanimously voted to put the last referendum on the ballot. Superintendent Bruce King said the district will be back with another referendum if things don't CHANGE. And when he does, we already know Amber will be all for it. Amber represents the status quo and "business as usual"... what we need is CHANGE.

Christine Miller: Christine's information mentioned mistakes that were made by the school board. In particular she mentioned no sidewalks for the new Washington School. She also mentioned the problem of wasteful spending in Madison. She was the only candidate to mention that, and the only one you will ever hear talking about past mistakes made by the school board. You won't hear Frances or Amber admit that mistakes were made. Christine goes on to say that we can't undo these mistakes, but the best we can do is elect people who can keep similar mistakes from happening in the future. Christine also does not support starting a girl's hockey team. She understands that a month ago the district was short on money and threatening to cut sports, and now they want to add more. She supports cooperation within the community, such as a partnership with the community hockey league, that will provide opportunities for youth to participate in sports, but not cost more money to the taxpayer. These are all things I support, and it's refreshing to have a candidate who thinks outside the box. That's exactly the kind of new blood we need on the school board. Now, she did post some letter to the school district about holocaust books in the school libraries. I admit she lost me on that one. I don't agree. But then again, I don't agree 100% with any candidate I vote for. Sometimes it comes down to a compromise and you pick the candidate who you feel will represent you the best. And I think it's high time we had a school board member who represented the interests of the taxpayer. I'm not voting for Christine to become a history teacher. But I'd consider voting for her because she is the only candidate talking about changes needed in Madison, and she is the only candidate talking about solutions that will save the district money, and she is the only candidate that won't rubber stamp the next referendum onto the ballot. We all know it's coming, and sooner than later based on recent news accounts detailing how the district seems to be going on a spending spree.

I'm not sure if there is anything in the newspaper about the candidates or if there will be a candidate forum planned. It would be good for the community to know more about all of the candidates before casting their votes in April.

Girls hockey seeks home at MHS... What's the deal?

See article in the March 11 Marshfield News Herald: http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/MNH02/803110663

It was less than a month ago that our school board members, the district administration, and the self-righteous Yes Committee was crying that the district did not have enough money to keep all of the sports programs going. Using scare tactics and emotional appeals, they fooled parents and many gullible recent high school graduates into voting yes on the recent referendum.

Now, not only can we keep all of our sports, but we can add more!

The boys hockey team, according to Marshfield High School athletic director Len Luedtke, costs us $12,000 a year. It will cost at least that much to start up a girl's hockey team.

It appears that the $13.5 million the school district just swindled from marshfield taxpayers (the majority of taxpayers voted NO on the referendum, by the way) will be spent before we know it! And they'll be back with the same sob stories about revenue caps and a "broken funding system".... it's broken alright. But the problem isn't in Madison. It's right here in Marshfield.

If you don't like the way the school district is managing taxpayer dollars, call or write the superintendent and the school board members. Let them know how you feel. Give 'em hell!

Superintendent:

Bruce King
10630 Patton Drive
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 676-2831


School Board President:

David Meissner
N5901 Hiline Avenue
Chili, WI 54420
(715) 676-2855


School Board Members:

Frances Bohon
1011 West State Street
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 384-4656

Timothy Deets
M604 Gilead Court
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 387-4611

Harry Dolan
904 N. Schmidt Avenue
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 384-2871

Graham Olson
708 S. Felker Aveneu
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 384-9318

Carol Phillips
1410 Broadway
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 387-3972

Stephen Schulte
M220 Sugarbush Lane
Marshfield, WI 54449
(715) 387-3050

By the way, the terms for Bohon and Schulte expire this year. We need to vote in new school board members. If Christine Miller's on the ballot, vote for her! She may be crazy, but she'll keep a tighter grip on the purse strings!

Marshfield High School is NOT one of the Nation's Best!

US News and World Report released their "Best Schools of 2008" report last November. Each year, they analyze data from thousands of schools to produce the list of the nation's best.

Marshfield School Watch searched through this year's report. Many area schools were listed, but Marshfield High School didn't make the grade!

Here's a listing of some of the local schools that are among the nation's best:

Clark County

Abbotsford Junior/Senior High
Clark County, Abbotsford, WI

Granton High
Clark County, Granton, WI

Greenwood High
Clark County, Greenwood, WI

Loyal High
Clark County, Loyal, WI

Thorp High
Clark County, Thorp, WI


Marathon County

West High
Marathon County, Wausau, WI


Wood County

Auburndale High
Wood County, Auburndale, WI

Pittsville High
Wood County, Pittsville, WI


Will Marshfield make it next year, now that they have $13.5 million more dollars to spend? Maybe the pool, or the overtime for custodians, or the raises for the administrators that were part of the referendum will help us become one of the nation's best high schools!

View the US News and World Report "2008 Best High Schools" report at:
http://www.usnews.com/sections/education/high-schools

Referendum had No Impact on Open Enrollment

An article, "School numbers steady" was published in the March 10 Marshfield News Herald. (Click link to read article: http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080310/MNH0101/803100498).


So, Mr. King finally comes clean. The recent referendum, he now admits, had no impact on open enrollment.

Shoot, many NO voters knew that it wouldn't and we said as much. But all the yes'ers were so sure that by not passing the referendum there would surely be a mass exodus of students from the Marshfield School district if any cuts were made. Auburndale's referendum failed, and they saw the biggest increase in open enrollments among area schools. Go figure?

I guess the whole hype over open enrollments was another scare tactic.

The yes'ers even said that passing the referendum would cause a huge influx in new students through open enrollment. That didn't happen. So I guess that was just another misleading "fact" they used to push the referendum through.

Someone asked who pays for the ads and billboards that Marshfield puts up. The answer... taxpayers! Hardly seems worth it, considering the numbers. Some of the area schools that chose not to advertise seem to think they have higher priorities to spend money on.

The referendum may be over, and the Yes Committee may be back in hiding, and I'm sure all the yes'ers would wish we'd just forget about all this and move on.

But the Marshfield School Watch group is going to stay on top of our districts open enrollment numbers and also tract many other statistics over the next 5 years. Let's just see if the $13.5 million will have the positive impact on our district that the yes'ers claimed it would.

Should we demand better planning and management from our school board and administration?

There was a follow up on the discussions between the Wisconsin Rapids, Port Edwards, and Nekoosa school districts in the March 4 Marshfield News Herald (see full text below).

It's great to see school boards that are willing to discuss and explore options for saving money. I particularly like this quote: "Do we want to continue down the same path, or do we want to come together and dream about what could happen off that track?" Bechard (Nekoosa School Board President) said. "We need to be an educational lighthouse ... but we can't do that if we stay in the limited confines of the traditional track."

Marshfield seems to prefer to stay on that traditional track. Raise property taxes, spend more than we have, and when that money runs out, come back begging for more.

We all should be taking a close look at what other school districts are doing to SAVE (not spend) money, and then hold our school board and administration accountable for coming up with options, choices and alternatives instead of just offering referendum after referendum after referendum. After all, Mr. King said he'll be back with another referendum soon.

We should demand better planning and management.

--------------------------------------------------------

HERE'S THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE:

Rapids school districts work on collaboration

By Adam Wise
For the Marshfield News-Herald

PORT EDWARDS -- While three local school districts deal with state financial restrictions, two just might have to fight an elephant, as well.


The Wisconsin Rapids, Port Edwards and Nekoosa school boards voted Monday evening to continue discussions about increasing program and service collaboration in the coming years.


On numerous occasions, the metaphorical elephant in the room was mentioned as a possible barrier blocking teamwork. The historically rocky relationship between Port Edwards and Nekoosa school district residents was acknowledged by many Monday, while some at the meeting discounted it as an outdated sentiment.


"We all know there are some elephants in the room and historical perspectives," said Nekoosa School Board President Steve Bechard, adding that future meetings and serious talks about change will require perseverance.


As a result of declining enrollments and state-imposed revenue caps on public school districts, the three boards consider it necessary to further cooperate to save costs. The large group discussions were facilitated by Irma Tyler-Wood of Indianapolis-based Ki Thoughtbridge.


Specific action items were not pursued, but residents did break into small group discussions with their elected representatives to brainstorm available opportunities and to talk about fears they have about possible changes.


Although some might have wished to see an expedited process, the next step will involve the school boards discussing ideas and opportunities during April meetings, with another gathering of the three board presidents tentatively scheduled for May. It was a meeting of the three on Feb. 1 that initially set the foundation for Monday's gathering.


"It's kind of like shaking off the proverbial rust," Port Edwards School Board member Dana Duncan said of the meeting. "I think there's a pride in what we have and a concern for the future. It's not a matter of throwing in the towel; it's how will we fix it now, and what's the best way?"


Portions of the three school districts already collaborate on certain services including special education, athletics and 4-year-old kindergarten.


During the Port Edwards small group discussion, some residents admitted concerns of school closures, teacher retention and changes to curriculum if the three districts joined forces.


Bechard compared the current situation of public school funding and the restrictions it places on school districts to when the railroad ultimately was replaced as a popular mode of transportation by the automobile; residents must see the need to change with the times.


"Do we want to continue down the same path, or do we want to come together and dream about what could happen off that track?" Bechard said. "We need to be an educational lighthouse ... but we can't do that if we stay in the limited confines of the traditional track."


Greg Swank of the Wisconsin Rapids School Board said baby steps are important to the success of the group.


"The steps we need to take into the future don't have to be great leaps," he said. "We don't have to come up with a list of goals we are striving for by April. I'm more in favor of slowing down a bit. ... I don't see the expediency."

Menasha vs. Marshfield: Who has the better ideas?

The Menasha school district is finding itself in a similar position that Marshfield was in prior to the recent referendum. Reading this article (full text posted below) is like deja vous all over again!

Many of the ideas being discussed in Menasha are ones that were brought up by Marshfield's NO Committee. The Marshfield School District offered no response to the questions and ideas that were raised. Several Yes'ers, on the other hand, aggressively attacked any ideas for compromise or alternative plans.

The No Committee took a stand that there were several cuts that could be made at the administrative and operational level, and advocated keeping the current tax rate (in other words, extending the 2003 referendum that was expiring). This would have resulted in NO PROPERTY TAX INCREASE for Marshfield, while at the same time continuing to bring in over $1 million dollars above and beyond the revenue cap. This would have been more than enough to keep EVERY student program, sport, club, organization, and class from the cutting block, with exception of the swim team if the pool was closed down.

Menasha is discussing the idea of closing their pool at the high school: "The Menasha High School swimming pool survived the first round of budget cut recommendations from district administrators but may face more scrutiny from the school board March 10. Some parents and school board members have questioned the cost of continuing to maintain the old pool, which is no longer used for any physical education classes. "We are still looking at the cost savings, if any, in closing the swimming pool," said Supt. Keith Fuchs. An initial review found a half-time custodian position savings but other costs have not yet been identified. "We're spending a lot of money to keep that pool open for very few people," said resident Chris Bordeaux.

SOUND FAMILIAR? Closing the pool at Marshfield High School would save $120,000 per year. When the NO Committee asked why this wasn't receiving more scrutiny from the school board, the Yes'ers attacked in full force. Elementary students (children of a Yes Committee member) were shown on the local news saying "I always hoped I could letter in swimming when I got to high school." How could anyone beat that type of emotional appeal?

Another thing Menasha is considering is raising athletic participation fees. THIS WAS AN OPTION FOR MARSHFIELD, too! Raising the fee by just $10 and also raising the parking fee would have, according to the school board's budget, raised at least $26,000 of new income for the school district each year. Again, when the NO Committee suggested that the school board vote to raise the fees anyway, the Yes'ers came forth with the argument "some families may not be able to pay that extra $10 for their child to participate in a sport!" Yet raising property taxes by an average of $80 a year for all Marshfield families wasn't a concern.

I hope Marshfield takes a serious look at what other school districts are doing to save money. We need to continue to hold our school board and administration accountable for coming up with alternatives and options. For now, it appears their only plan is to spend the $13.5 million we just voted to give them, and when that runs out, come back to the taxpayers with more scare tactics and emotional appeals.

It seems like Menasha is able to not let the emotions drown out all common sense. When will Marshfield be able to do that?

------------------------------------------------

HERE'S THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE:

Menasha school budget changes wanted
Board ponders input on proposed cuts

By Michael King
Post-Crescent staff writer

MENASHA — Chris Bordeaux knows the Menasha Joint School District needs to cut $1.5 million to make next year's school budget balance.

However, he thinks there are better places to save than by cutting the high school boys' and girls' track programs.

Several parents of students at Nicolet Elementary feel the same way about a proposed phase-out of Spanish at the school in favor of students learning German instead. Ditto for a paraprofessional who works in the high school library-media center slated for staffing cuts.

Comments made at last week's Board of Education meeting about proposed reductions for 2008-09 were taken under advisement by board members who meet again March 10 to discuss the budget shortfall.

In a move that saves roughly $450,000, the board adopted a staffing plan for next year that trims 7.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions from the current year staffing without the need to issue any layoff notices.

Bordeaux and his daughter, Hannah, a junior who participates in track, lobbied for the board to retain track through a combination of higher participation fees in all sports and additional booster club support. She said for many track participants "it's their only sport."

More than half ($34,500) of the proposed $66,550 cocurricular reductions came from elimination of track. Cutting junior varsity tennis for boys and girls would save another $4,500.

Chris Bordeaux said that it costs the district more to operate the high school swimming pool than to run the track program. Plus, the students get more benefit from track, which had 39 students last spring, than the pool, which is no longer used for any physical education classes.

The pool gets most of its use from open swim times and by community groups.

Chris Bordeaux said sports are part of producing well-rounded student-athletes who also learn the value of teamwork and networking.

"There's a required GPA you need to uphold while you're in sports," Hannah said.

Chris Bordeaux believes it is only fair to spread the need for cost savings around to all sports. That would enable track boosters and parents to raise funds to keep the sport going.

"We are looking at the whole picture," said Sue Gielau, the board president. Noting that "we need to get to $1.5 million" in reductions, she added, "How we get there is still under discussion and debate by the board."

District administrators had proposed a 0.4-FTE reduction at Gegan School to eliminate German being taught to bilingual Spanish-English students. Board members opted to then phase in German at Nicolet School, where Spanish is taught, starting with kindergartners next year.

Supt. Keith Fuchs said that eliminates any staffing savings, so the board "needs to revisit that" from an academic perspective.

"I just think Spanish is the more important and beneficial language for the kids right now," said Rene Briones, a district resident. She recalled taking Spanish starting in sixth grade years ago and believes her two older children have benefited greatly from having started a foreign language in kindergarten.

Darlene Rogers, a longtime paraprofessional, cautioned against the proposed cutback of parapros that would seriously affect school library staffing. "It's a shame," she said. "They're impacting every student when they cut back on the library."

Fuchs said next Monday's meeting "will provide the board with an opportunity to revisit the budget deficit plan to see if there areas that want to further discuss and reconsider."

The board last week also approved retirement requests from four teachers, one principal and one administrative assistant for next year. Gegan Principal Rocco D'Amelio, who has held various positions in the district for 13 years, will retire in June.

Michael King: 920-729-6622, ext. 33, or mking@postcrescent.com

Here's a good idea!

ATTENTION MARSHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT!

Here's a good example of an alternative to referendum after referendum, after referendum.

Did you see this article in the Marshfield News Herald, Monday March 3, under the headline "School districts to merge ideas"? (The full text of the article is copied below, in case you missed it).

The ideas of collaboration and consolidation were brought up by an audience member at one of the school district's presentation on the referendum. Mr. King said it was something that some area school districts have looked into, but admitted that it was a difficult road to travel.

When it was brought up by the NO Committee, several yes'ers jumped on us and said it was a bad idea.

Yet here we have an example of three area school districts who are at least willing to meet together and talk about it. I really like the quote from one of the school board members: "I think there are lots of things I, or other board members, haven't thought of that will be brought up."

Other noteworthy quotes include: "It shows our school board and other public organizations try to work in the most transparent way possible," and "I would anticipate some discussion or public inquiry, in terms of what the pros and cons are, of not just collaboration and cooperation, but perhaps consolidation of the total schools or parts of schools," and "it will be a very worthwhile discussion," and "the whole idea of the caucus is to get that breath of fresh air."

So what can the Marshfield school district learn from this?

If not "consolidation" (total schools or parts of schools), what about COLLABORATION and COOPERATION with other school districts? What are the possibilities? Is our school board even willing to hold a similar "caucus" with other schools in our immediate area? Is it possible new ideas could be brought up that our school board and administrators haven't though of on their own?

--------------------------------------
HERE'S THE FULL ARTICLE:

School districts to merge ideas
By Adam Wise
For the Marshfield News-Herald

PORT EDWARDS -- The first major step of three local school districts' plans to study opportunities for collaboration will take place today.

The school boards of the Wisconsin Rapids, Port Edwards and Nekoosa school districts will meet with members of the public to discuss ways to combine services to save the districts money.

Irma Tyler-Wood of Indianapolis-based Ki Thoughtbridge will facilitate discussion.

"I'm excited about it, (and) we've collaborated on several different levels over the past several years," said Sheldon Ferkey of the Port Edwards School Board. "This provides a formal process for that."

Joint efforts taking place between some of the districts include athletic clubs and 4-year-old kindergarten.

"I know most of the board members from Nekoosa and (Wisconsin) Rapids, but it's nice to have a sit-down and get to know everybody," Ferkey said.

Sandy Hett, president of the Wisconsin Rapids School Board, met with the other presidents Feb. 1 to establish communication and talk about the concept of the meeting. She's looking forward to the discussion expected to take place.

"I think there are lots of things I, or other board members, haven't thought of that will be brought up," she said. "I have no idea how it's going to turn out."

At about 8:45 p.m., the three boards will break off with their constituents into small groups to develop ideas. Ferkey said he hopes for a large public turnout for the discussions to truly be fruitful.

"It shows our school board and other public organizations try to work in the most transparent way possible," Ferkey said of the community involvement. "I would anticipate some discussion or public inquiry, in terms of what the pros and cons are, of not just collaboration and cooperation, but perhaps consolidation of the total schools or parts of schools.

"The whole idea of the caucus is to get that breath of fresh air."

While he's unsure of the final product and doesn't think decisions will be made, Ferkey expects the meeting to be the first of several among the governing bodies.

"It will be a very worthwhile discussion," he said.

What can Marshfield learn from this?

The rising costs of heathcare is one of the "uncontrolable factors" that the Marshfield School District has to deal with. This was one of the arguments for why they needed more tax dollars.

Meanwhile, other school districts are looking for ways to save money. The aricle below was published in the Appleton Post-Cresent this week. What can Marshfield learn from this?


From the Appleton Post-Crescent
Posted February 26, 2008

Health insurance change to net savings
By Kathy Walsh Nufer Post-Crescent staff writer

APPLETON — Appleton Area School District officials expect to save slightly more than $1.6 million annually in health insurance costs with the approval of major changes in its contract covering 1,200 teachers.

The school board Monday unanimously approved a tentative agreement with the Appleton Education Association on changes in health insurance coverage, life insurance and dental insurance.

The teachers union will vote on the changes tonight.

Key is the switch to WEA Trust Preferred for all teachers from the current 60-40 split between those participating in front-end deductible and preferred provider programs.

Teachers will continue to pay a 5 percent premium share and the same co-pay levels under the new plan.

“Moving everybody will result in significant savings,” annually said Don Hietpas, the district’s chief financial officer.

“The total ramifications won’t be known until bargaining is complete on the total contract (for 2007-09) settlement but an early estimate is a little over $1.6 million cost reduction on health insurance. This is a good plan for both,” he said.

“It is definitely a positive step in the right direction,” said AEA negotiations chairman Corey Otis. “It is good for us and good for the district and a cost savings move we’ve wanted to make for some time.“

If approved by the teachers as expected, the changes will go into effect March 1.

Kathy Walsh Nufer: 920-993-1000, ext. 290, or knufer@postcrescent.com

Now what?

Now that the dust is beginning to settle from the election and the celebration party is over, there's a big question that needs to be answered. Now what?

The community was divided over the school referendum and for any number of good reasons, 4,800 people voted NO. One of the big criticisms against NO voters was that we were ignorant, misinformed, or just didn't understand the broken system by which schools are funded in the State of Wisconsin. The school district and the Yes Committee pointed their fingers at Madison and said that's where the real problem is.

Since the Yes side has all of the answers and is presumably more educated about these matters, can we trust that they will lead the charge for demanding change at the State level? One of our elected State officials was quoted as saying, “There's little hope for school funding reform.” Are we going to accept that?

Where is the Yes Committee now? They were so vocal, so passionate, so convincing before the election. Will they go back into hiding and only reappear when their services are needed again by the district? What about the angry parents and students, everyone who was passionate about saving all of the student programs. Can you put that same effort into working toward a better, long-term solution?

What about the teachers, the school administrators, and school board? What have you done since the revenue caps were passed in 1993? What will you do now? We're all behind you, so please lead the way.

Or is your plan the same as last time? Celebrate your victory, pat yourself on the back, kick back and put your feet up until the $13.5 million is spent, and then come back to us asking for more?

Marshfield School Watch Plans Yearly "State of the District" Report

The Marshfield School Watch group is already forming. And we have plans to take an active role in not only encouraging people to learn more and be active in making change happen, but also in holding our schools more accountable.

For example, the Marshfield School Watch group will be tracking a number of key measures over the next 5 years.

We'll be looking at open enrollments. Do they go up, down, or stay the same? Passing this referendum, according to the Yes side, would cause an explosion in open enrollments. We might need to build an addition on to the high school to make room for all of the Auburndale students who, according to the Yes logic, should be leaving that district in droves now that some student programs will be cut there.

We'll be looking at the general enrollment. Does it go up, down, or stay the same? Now that we will have the best schools in the area and offer the most fluff for free, the population of Marshfield is going to grow like mad. Aftter all, it's not low taxes, good jobs, or economic development that brings people to Marshfield, it's our schools!

We'll be looking at administrator salaries. Posting the current levels now, and then watching them grow over the next 5 years. I saw Mr. King on the news tonight. For time, they mist have edited out the part where he mentioned that passing the referendum also lifted the proposed freeze on administrator salaries, and now he and the others can get their raises.

We'll be looking at teacher salaries, benefit packages, looking at what the district does about the rising cost of health care. And we'll be posting as much information as we can about teacher contracts and negotiations.

We'll be tracking the amount of money the district spends per student. As of yesterday, we were spending the least amount, but producing some of the highest standardized test scores. Now with the influx of $13.5 million, we'll see how the test scores get even higher now that we are able to spend as much per student as some of our neighboring school districts.

We'll be tracking the school tax rate. Will the numbers the district told us the tax rate would increase by match each year as promised? Remember, we voted on the amounts of $2 million next year, $2.5 million the year after that, and $3 million for 3 years after that. What happens if the tax base in Marshfield doesn't grow as much as they anticipated? What if our property values decline some over the next 5 years. We voted to give them $3 million starting in 2011. Guess what happens if the 1.26 increase to the tax rate times the declining values or our properties doesn't equal $3 million in any one of those years? The rate would have to increase again, because we voted to give them that amount. We didn't vote on the mill rate. Granted it could also go in the opposite direction. But when has Marshfield ever been known to actually prosper and grow? What are the odds our Director of Economic Development actually fills up Mill Creek Industrial Park in the next 5 years?

We'll be tracking data from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, comparing each year and documenting whether or not our schools are maintaining what they promised they would if we voted this referendum through.

We'll be tracking juvenile crime rates in Marshfield, Auburndale and Merrill. According to the Yes logic, juvenile crime rates in Marshfield should decline because we have so many great student programs and extra curriculars to keep our kids from getting into trouble and, I don't know, maybe vandalizing school property like a wooden tiger or something. And in the communities where school referendums failed, the juvenile crime rates should increase dramatically. We'll create some cool bar graphs and scatter plot diagrams to prove or disprove the Yes theories that were used to justify this referendum.

We'll be tracking staff levels. How many administrators get added? How many teachers retire and are or are not replaced over the next 5 years? How many custodial staff? How much overtime do they rack up?

We'll track the pool use. How many community members use it? How much revenue does it bring in compared to how much it costs us to keep and maintain it.

All of this, together will many more measures, will become what Marshfield School Watch will call "the state of the district." And just like the president gives the State of the Union and the governor gives the State of the State, each January we will release our report on the district. I think it will be an eye opener for most people.