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!