School Board Primary Cometh
The West Bend school board primary is on Tuesday. On the ballot are Carl W. Knepel, Kathy Van Eerden, Bart Williams, Lynn Corazzi, Randy Marquardt, Doug Ziegler, Douglas Rakowski and Dave Weigand, but Carl Knepel and Bart Williams have withdrawn from the race.
Voters can choose two candidates. The top four will advance to the general election in April.
As I said in my column a couple of weeks ago, I’m supporting Randy Marquardt and Dave Weigand.
I’ve spoken with all of the candidates, read their various interviews and questionnaires from other places, and attended one of the forums. My opinion remains the same. Here’s the short form of my rationale:
I’m not going to vote for either one of the incumbents. They are nice people and have a sincere commitment to the schools, but both of them repeatedly voted for and supported things that I opposed. Why would I support someone with whom I constantly disagree on the issues - irrespective of my personal regard for them?
Douglas Rakowski and Doug Ziegler seem like great guys with strong conservative credentials. Ziegler’s refusal to take a position on many of the current issues facing the district pushes me away from supporting him. While I understand his not wanting to take a stand having not been on the board and having not looked into the issues, I don’t like the thought of supporting someone who is running for office having not examined the issues. At the very least I would expect a preliminary stance with the candidate’s current understanding of the facts. As for Rakowski, I just don’t know as much about him as I would like.
Dave Weigand has been involved in the district and frustrated with the board’s actions. He has a business background and a proven willingness to ask the hard questions and expect real answers. I like where he stands on the fiscal issues in the district.
I know Randy Marquardt the best of all the candidates. We have met on numerous occasions for a variety of reasons. He’s a very genuine man with a deliberative, thoughtful approach to issues. Randy supported the Badger referendum and he came very close to convincing me to do the same. His background in the building trades is also of great value given the maintenance and space issues in the district.
I hope everyone has the opportunity to get out and vote for the candidate of their choice.
One final note… there is a bit more at stake in this board election than most. The teachers and TAX TO THE MAX chanters know it. There are seven people on the board. Right now, two of them are ostensibly fiscal conservatives. The two incumbents who are up for election (reelection for one, first time for the other) have both been vocal about their support for more spending and higher taxes. If two fiscal conservatives are elected this round, that leaves a tenuous and uncertain majority of fiscal conservatives on the board and an opportunity to put in place different board leadership. Given the debacles of the past couple of years, new leadership is sorely needed. The board members we elect couple a greater impact on the district than just their single votes would indicate.
Debacle, Def: 3a: great disaster; 3b a complete failure
What Disasters?-The rejection of the $119.3 million school building ref by a 62.6% to 37.4% margin
-The 6.3 acres of land is purchased for $650K for a future Jackson K-5 in the center of the city next to a youth center.
-The district passing on the land purchase near the HSs
-The passed Badger ref for $27.4 mil, under budget (with great interest rates)
-The failed $41.45 million ref to fix 9 sites during a time of unprecedented interest rates
-The district’s Fund Balance remaining intact
-The governor’s eliminating the QEO thus changing of arbitration laws?
-The district building a ‘09-‘10 budget on time but not having the ESP to foresee state shorting
-The state taking extraordinary time to build its budget then shorting WBSD $2.6 mil after WBSD already cut $2mil from the ‘09-‘10 budget thus failing to come up with 2/3rd state aide.
-The district creating three meetings to listen to taxpayers, students and their parents before recommending raising the school tax levy 10.9%
-The district being less in school levy taxes for ‘09-‘10 than 23 other SE WI school district
-A city tax rate (8.54) higher than Campbellsport (8.17), Brown Deer (7.19), Kewaskum (7.15), Green Field (6.9), Glendale (6.73), Plymouth (6.49), Grafton (6.38), Saukville (5.97), Slinger (5.78), Hartford (5.70), Brookfield (5.35), Menomonee Falls (5.22), Germantown (4.57)
-The district’s program cuts outline (good for 3 years)
-The wait to combine the HSs until the numbers are sound and a plan is developed
-The wait to close the HS pool
-The district union negotiations taking time (No historical precedent there)
-More state cuts to come.
-Strachota & Grothman’s commendations of WBSD’s budgeting practices.
- The lack of state rep attention to the school budgeting formula and the lack of public outcry
- people running for school board (That’s wonderful)
-The many un/under-funded State (and Federal ) mandates
-No Child Left Behind: 100% of students (poor and spec-ed too) reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014.
-The number of hits your blog received on the only local government entity you cover with some regularity (Maybe you expected more)Graduation rates are great. Students are going on to school. Suspensions are down. Parents are overall satisfied with the education their children are receiving. There have been no major scandals. Things appear to being going as well as they can. Democracy and public/CFAC communications with the board appear to be satisfactorily working. “Disaster” is a bit of an overstatement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1913 hrs
The two incumbents who are up for election (reelection for one, first time for the other) have both been vocal about their support for more spending and higher taxes.
This is one of the great mis-statements that people make. None of the board members want to raise taxes. the nature of school funding and the requirements of statute make raising local taxes to pay for schools almost unavoidable. Now, before someone goes off on me go Google and find the WI state statutes and check out section 120. If we are to meet the obligations that the state has set forth then we as a board need to find the funds to do so. In our case the only real place to get those funds is taxes. Sure, we raise fees but that only covers a small portion of the need.
Again, before you all start accusing me of things remember there are 20 areas that the state requires that we provide education for students. We are not allowed by law to turn away students that live within our border. We are constitutinally required to provide bussing. Article 23 of the state constitution if I remember correctly. I’m not including federal mandates like NCLB. there are many more things that I don’t have the room to list.
So, if you think it is easy to say we are going to raise taxes and we take that decision lightly you could not be more wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 2008 hrs
This is one of the great mis-statements that people make. None of the board members want to raise taxes.
How is it a misstatement? Both Corazzi and Van Eerden voiced their support for both referenda and voted for the spending and levy increases. How is what I said inaccurate?
Posted by Owen on February 14, 2010 at 2015 hrs
Interesting fact: Historical roots of taxpayer funding of U.S. public education: the “Old Deluder Satan” act of 1647. Google this!
Forgot to mention your MacIver Public Investigator $500 Prize from the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy (a Wisconsin-based, conservative, free market think tank) for your “continuing coverage of the West Bend School Board”.
Without your blog’s district foci, your herein unidentified “debacles”, and the blog’s audience and passionate commentators regularly sharing opinions and facts, well, one could argue your (oftentimes “poison the well”) coverage has been profitable, built your fame, and your ego. Cheers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 2116 hrs
Owen,
The implication in your statement is that Lynn, kathy and the board are looking to raise taxes. That they have a desire to spend your money and don’t care about the people whose money is being spent.
On the surface your statement is accurate. It is the implied portion of the statement. It gets that implication from the over all tone of your comments in this post and others that you have made.
What you said is a fairly broad brush statement that has been made by numerous people over the course of the time I have been on the board. It is factually correct but insinuates something that is not accurate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 2133 hrs
Yeah, it sucks to have us bothersome taxpayers actually giving a crap about our schools, eh?
Posted by Owen on February 14, 2010 at 2134 hrs
Sorry, Kris. That comment #6 was for Jason.
The implication in your statement is that Lynn, kathy and the board are looking to raise taxes. That they have a desire to spend your money and don’t care about the people whose money is being spent.
Imply what you like. I stated a fact. Both incumbents are on record supporting spending and tax increases. Period. I would also mention that both of them continue to support their decisions and indicate they would do it again. Good for them. I disagree, but they are honest about it.
Incumbents run on their records.
Posted by Owen on February 14, 2010 at 2136 hrs
They are also both on the record as saying that they don’t like to raise taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 2146 hrs
Owen, You do consistently give “crap” toward WB’s management - it’s your trademark product. (You’re a board member for a private school, huh? If so, the parents’ remarkable tolerance of your occasional coarse speech is refreshing).
Concerned taxpayers, parents, and students never bothered me after my initial human anxiety reaction has washed over. They should civilly care about and want to know and understand public education. They should civilly influence it’s direction at home, local, state and national levels. It’s a civic responsibility that lacks necessary popularity. However, on the bright side of things, your “crap” has actually created popularity in the form of pro-school blow-back. Without your work and some like-minded people, apathy toward public education would be more popular here. Without intending to sound taunting, your brand of civic-mindedness has brought people together on an important topic, more than often civilly. Again, cheers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 2248 hrs
However, on the bright side of things, your “crap” has actually created popularity in the form of pro-school blow-back.
And therein lies one of the fundamental issues in this debate. There aren’t “pro-school” or “anti-school” factions. We are all “pro-school.” We just have different opinions as to what that means and how to accomplish it. This mindset of yours that everyone who disagrees with you isn’t “pro-school” is insulting, misguided, and fosters the distrust in the district that many in the community feel.
Posted by Owen on February 15, 2010 at 0754 hrs
“the nature of school funding and the requirements of statute make raising local taxes to pay for schools almost unavoidable.”
Yep - this is the mindset I want for the people I vote for, for the school board. NOT
No thoughts on how we can cut costs, let’s just keep taxing…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1059 hrs
If this board was a private corporation and found themselves short of operating cash, and the option of taking a bail (raising taxes) was not part of the equation, how would they have solved this problem and continued to operate. The option of raising taxes should not even be an option, that mindset needs to be removed from the playbook.
We all take are lumps and bruises in business things pop up all the time , not to mention laws change that we must abide by, but somehow we manage and somehow we scrape by every year with no help from anyone.
These are the type of people we need on the board, the stubborn fighters, the out of the box thinkers, people that are true stewards of other peoples money.What we dont need is alot of crying and excuses from board members that they must comply with mandates and state law, get over it everybody has these issues and finds ways to compete.
Get out and vote, and vote with your billfold come Tuesday.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1318 hrs
-In our case the only real place to get those funds is taxes. Sure, we raise fees but that only covers a small portion of the need.
We certanly aren’t comfortable with cutting our Teachers and Staff because it’s for the kids. So all we have left is to turn down the heat and shut off the water and oh yea,TAXTOTHEMAX!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1345 hrs
There it is…...the classic ‘its for the kids’. What percentage of last fall’s tax hike went to the kids ? Just wondering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1452 hrs
If this board was a private corporation and found themselves short of operating cash, and the option of taking a bail (raising taxes) was not part of the equation, how would they have solved this problem and continued to operate.
Private businesses can sell more product, launch new product lines, etc… there are options not available to schools. Schools cannot charge for credits or reduce high cost customers or turn down the heat too much.
The comparison of business to school has its limits.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1521 hrs
Sell more product = Open enrollment
New Product line = Virtual classroom
Guess schools do have some options.
You keep chipping away at the heat bill anon, and reduce the paper towel usage, its all peanuts . You need to crack that 85% nut (salary), anything else is just a waste of time.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1645 hrs
Everyone who disagrees with me isn’t “pro-school”?
Huh? What’s this accusation based on?
Why did you switch from first-person singular to second-person plural?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1706 hrs
Again, don’t buy any green bananas. i actually agree with crusher. I will say, however, that if you are going to attract students through open enrollment it will be difficult if you are doing that in outdated overcrowded buildings, you have people in town that are bringing negative attention to the area(library issue), and you are on the local news channel as having large groups of people that seem to be negative to the schools.(annual meeting)
Now before someone goes off on me, keep in mind that I fully support your right to say as you feel. If you want to come to the meeting and speak out against the levy that’s fine, but realize that the people that shop districts will shy away from the controversial districts. So, I see those two things as very viable but it will take some positive PR and right now there are school board candidates that are not fostering that kind of environment.
the part i really agree with is the cost of people. The district needs to reduce its insurance costs to save some money.
Posted by on February 15, 2010 at 1816 hrs
there are school board candidates that are not fostering that kind of environment.
..and there are school board members that are not fostering that kind of environment.
Posted by GAMazy on February 15, 2010 at 2112 hrs
*Sell more product: Gotta keep the product competitive.
*Reducing the heat bill will address dress code issues at the HS. I can handle 60. What’s the law?
The virtual options are widening in scope for 2010-11: The key is to attract the self motivated students who can do without the physical class environment. Virtual class enable me to avoid the drive to Milw; however, $2K for 3 cr. and a retake requirement for less than a B leverages work ethic too. 11th-12th graders heading to graduation naturally have more motivation to succeed. Younger students need screening to ensure their success looks sound. There are limits to how young we can go, and a big part of all K-12 school environments is the socialization factor. For some, the school is better than home.
Even with layoffs: increased class sizes, social workers, librarians, aides, and some unfilled positions left open after retirement, I doubt the 85+% salary portion of the pie can be heavily decreased, even with a 1yr wage freeze - more state aide cuts will further this issue. This would be better illustrated with multiple pie graphs. Competitive wages are important, but I’m betting more districts will start freezing wages over the next five years. Understandably, no one wants to be the first domino to fall (no matter how many times someone reminds teachers it’s about the kids’ (Hey, we’re not monks).
I am hoping for a WI repeat of this: Ohio DeRolph Supreme
Court case resulting in Ohio’s educational funding system being declared unconstitutional. A constitutional school-funding program that ends the heavy reliance upon property taxes has not been created in Ohio yet. But, Ohio state coffers were opened wider. I don’t know if state admin borrowed money to do this, raised other taxes or cut other budgets.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 2314 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:57 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).