Yesterday we heard a rumor that the board was secretly planning to move CG elementary students to the Monona schools to alleviate overcrowding in CG schools. Of course this isn't true, next year's grade arrangements create sufficient room in the CG elementary buildings.
So I am curious to know what other rumors are out there. What have you heard?
Custom Search
(photo ©2008 Bruce Fritz)
About Me
- Peter Sobol
- My family moved to Monona in 2003 and have been happily ensconsed in the Frost Woods Neighborhood ever since. I have 2 kids who graduated from Mg. I have been serving on the school board since April of 2007. We moved back to the Midwest in 2002 after spending 10 years in California, where I was a Department Director for Maxtor, a Fortune 500 company. In truth we left California largely because of the school situation - chronically underfunded schools did not offer the kind of programs or opportunities we wanted for our children. We picked Monona because our thorough research showed that this was a place we would really like to educate our kids. Our experience has taught us to value the quality schools we have here in Monona, and the importance of careful stewardship to maintain community support for those schools.
63 comments:
Oh Sheesh.
You really are going to ask that question?
Here we go.
I heard you guys want to make Nicolas a charter school on the backside and brewpub on the older part and you would retain partial ownership/control of the brewpub. T
he person I heard this from knew someone who was talking to someone who knew someone else who is close to a couple board members.
Word is you guys want the referendum for this project in November.
I just hope the profits would be put towards lower property taxes.
A Winnequah belgian white sounds tasty.
I can't believe that you even are asking this question!! What, are you going to have "Bust the rumor Night" at the local bar and grill??
How about this rumor:
99.9% of school board decisions are arrived upon before Kitslaar even gets a chance to bang the opening gavel at a meeting.
No. No.
That is that way it used to be.
Well-I think...that was the rumor anyways.
I get it!
This is the Board's way of saying
"Look, Monona. There are nasty rumors about busses, overcrowded classrooms, and facility problems in BOTH communities"
I heard a rumor that you were going to ask what the rumors were so that you can use them for your nefarious plans.
Please, Peter, take this entire subject and posts down. This is stupid. Your blog is really good, but this was a serious misstep.
And besides, no one is really going to write anything on here that matters.
Come on! The other side is reading this!
This question cracks me up, at least, coming from this board member.
Heck, in another stream on this blog, he says in one breath that small class sizes are detrimental to high test scores on standardized testing models used within our district, and then in his very next post he says that small class sizes caused the abominable test scores in this year's third grade and we ought not repeat the scenario for further degradation of our test scores!!
God, who needs rumors when you have a board member like this blogging away his own contradictions!
Good golly!
Can you say REcall??
Above poster, what is wrong with you? I have read his posts too, and he didn't say that stuff. AT least he signs his name to his stuff. You on the other hand, are a bully. Quit chewing on your old bone and find something productive to do with your time.
Heard there was a survey crew over at Maywood.
I doubt the truth in that one.
"And besides, no one is really going to write anything on here that matters."
Yes, and I guess that is my point. Since I moved here I have heard plenty of unsubstantiated rumors and find them a significant destructive force in this district. But where are they now? Those who spread them aren't interested in open discussion; in fact they are afraid of it!
Some say you shouldn't lend credence to things by acknowledging them even to debunk them, maybe they are right - but it isn't my style. I think we need not be afraid to take things head-on – and short circuit the rumor mill.
I’ve always mused about alternative funding sources for the district, perhaps a brew pub isn’t such a bad idea!
"Some say you shouldn't lend credence to things by acknowledging them even to debunk them, maybe they are right - but it isn't my style."
Peter-as a rule I would agree with you. However, the net is a different type of animal and the waters between CG and Monona and the board are so messed-up at times. This may only make it worse
I think the previous poster was right.
This is the wrong forum and time, but hey it is your blog.
good luck.
I have not heard any rumors, but wanted to say I think this is a great thread for a blog.
I think the spread of rumors has hurt peoples perception of what is a pretty good district (I encourage the board to ALWAYS look for inprovement, and accept constructive criticism). The attacks at meetings, and in the community make the board defensive, which only promotes more rumors.
I would suggest a Rumor thread restart every few weeks so it appears near the top of the blog.
How about a thread on what ISN'T a rumor?
We could blog about how the Board said we didn't have to pay for roads in Cottage Grove because that is what sunk the first referendum. And how, of course, we got to where we are now........paying for those roads.
That would be a good one.
If there indeed are rumors out there, Peter, it is because the Board has created their own mess by lying to their constituents and fueling the fire between the communities by telling un-truths and half-truths in each, depending upon what is most politically palatable at that particular moment in time.
You make it sound like you need to debunk rumors being told by nasty residents with devil horns and so much time on their hands that they have nothing better to do than think up stuff to say about you and the Board.
What you really need to do is get down to the business of being honest to the people that you work for - the residents of these two communities. Maybe then there won't be the need to spend so much time debunking "rumors".
Wow. Then I guess this district has had dishonest, bad people on the school board for, oh, about 25 years. Because that's about how long I've lived here, and that's how long I've heard silly, ridiculous rumors about all manner of things regarding our schools, and for that matter, the City of Monona too. I guess our council has been equally historically corrupt too, huh? Too bad we can't find one honest person to run for office. ;)
About time to get it cleaned up, then, eh?
Back to the rumors.
Has our new super bought a house?
I met him and he seems like a good guy.
I would argue that busing children from Cottage Grove to fill schools in Monona is not a "rumor" and that this was in fact suggested as a possible solution to the potential overcrowding in Cottage Grove by John Kitslaar (SB Pres.) directly to Betsy Zande, during a conversation in which Ms. Zande had called to express some concerns.
Now whether or not John was saying this tongue and cheek is open for interpretation. I believe that Ms. Zande took this "threat" seriously and has since shared this information with others. John has also since refuted the plan of this board to bus students from Cottage Grove to Monona...K-8.
That said, our SB Pres. may wish to refrain from making such inflammatory statements.
Can people stop complaining about the middle school referendum, and the road issue from it? It was 3 years ago, and besides Sobol wasn't on the board at the time.
In fact most of the people on the board at that time are now gone. Give the new members a chance before they are assaulted for something they didn't do.
Does the school board do business behind closed doors? It would seem that this is to often the case. a perfect example of this would be the boards decision to essentially reverse it's previous decision regarding staffing at Maywood and Winnequah. This post is not intended to advocate one way or another for the appropriateness of their decisions...first time...second time...or for all we know a third time. I do know that the original decision involved a great deal of public discussion...before, during and after the board meeting. Staff, parents, board members all weighed in. The boards original decision was to consolidate a position and to achieve a balanced budget, which they did vote to approve. Then the next month with little to no public input (I saw the meeting and read the minutes and there was no huge public outcry by my standards, 15-25 people from both meetings does not a majority make)the board reversed it's position. The issue was also listed as old business instead of new business which is also somewhat misleading as the discussion and decision were for two different positions. The only significant discussion was about where the money would come from to fund the now $97,000 deficit. Kudos to Peter for being the only one to really push the question of fiscal responsibility in this issue. Still Peter went along with the group. There was no public discussion of the board rational for it's decision andit was very clear that the decision had been made prior to the actual meeting, "prior to John even calling the meeting to order". The merits of the decision were not discussed and even the two newer members of the board, both of whom ran on a campaign of openness and transparency both participated and supported this back room deal. Apparently openness and transparency are only issues when they don't serve ones biased agenda. The actions of this board, at least procedurally, leave something to be desired. It would be interesting to know who really directs this board and makes the decisions for this district. More irony: Sue Fox and Sue Manning both voted against the very budget that would support the staff changes that they both voted to approve. Silly, isn't fiscal responsibility an important issue too?
Sorry anon,
I wholeheartedly agree with that poster.
I will get over the road issue when I am done paying for it. Check in with me in 30 years or so.
I guessing I am hearing that CG does not want their kids bussed and like school near their homes.
I think that is GROVVEY MAN!
Peter, I do have one suggestion.
If you MUST ask about rumors-then you need to respond to them no matter how silly OR your blog becasue a conduit and nothing more than place to spread rumors.
I agree with the other poster take this down or you are going to be roundly lashed with a cat O nine tails.
what about the survey crew?
what about the super's house?
what about Nicholas?
see--this is just not where you want to go....wrong forum and the wrong time....imho.
What happened with the reversal on the Maywood principal thing is that the board members who opposed the original decision continued to press for the issue to be revisited and much pressure was brought upon the other board members to reconsider. And yes, this all happened outside of public meetings. If there is a lesson to be learned, perhaps there are a million issues that need attention by this board, and once a decision has been made in a very public way, it is time to move on to other equally pressing issues. A good leader cannot always please ones friends, neighbors and allies.
OK: I don't know anything about a survey crew, but I have seen survey crews around town related to the utilities and road work going on. Perhaps there is benchmark over there? So I wouldn't be suprised - doesn't mean anything.
The new super hasn't bought a house yet, although he has looked at one just up the street from me.
Some people in town have talked of organizing a green charter school - I would be interested in looking at any proposal. A logical place would be in the Nichols building. Haven't heard anything about a brew pub.
The deleted post above made a specific accusation about John Kitslaar- even though I deleted it I have this to say in response: John Kitslaar is a honest and honorable man who has put in countless hours for the benefit of this community and school district under often difficult circumstances. The many hours he put in spearheading the superintendent search process ensured its success and is a prime example of John's value to the community.
Since I started serving on this board I have not seen a single shred of evidence that John has knowingly violated either the letter or intent of Wisconsin's open meetings law. If you have evidence to the contrary let us see it, otherwise keep this libel to yourself.
Sure John seems wound a little tight some times, but given the way some in the community treat him and the personal demands of his position this isn't suprising.
I've heard him slandered to his face, in his shoes I'm not 100% sure I wouldn't have punched someone out.
This district is lucky to have John serve and many, many in the community appreciate that.
"I will get over the road issue when I am done paying for it. Check in with me in 30 years or so"
Typical Monona. I will get over that sentiment when I am done paying for Coldspring and the High School traffic light. Yeah the school district helped pay for that too- and Grovers understood it as part of the deal. Good lord. Get over yourself and grow up.
But see, Grover - that is the difference in the two deals!
You knew about Coldspring and the traffic light and understood that it was "part of the deal".
Monona folks were SPECIFICALLY told that they wouldn't be paying for Cottage Grove Roads. In print, in public meetings and in personal conversations.
See,it's hard to be okay with something when that was the approach used.
It will be interesting to see what happens as people who lie lose elections.
I don't understand how relaying a conversation that actually took place could be regarded as slander or libel.
Why do you defend John's conversation with this person? I don't care how many hours you spend doing something good - if you ruin it by having conversations like that, you have to pay the piper.
Be interesting to see how this all pans out. Lots of good things have happened in CG - new schools, new roads, etc. But, if overcrowding becomes an issue out there, it is clear that the tax payers are tapped and another referendum won't be received well.
So, if CG kids have to get bussed into Monona, so be it.
I have no knowledge of John's conversation concerning busing of CG students - and lacking that I make no defense of it. I was referring to other events I have first hand knowledge of.
"Typical Monona"
"But see, Grover"
Neither of these two remarks are helpful. Debate the issues, but leave broad generalizations about a community out of it. And please, please stop fighting on things that are over, especially with the personal attacks.
We can't undo a road, or a traffic light. So what is the point about bringing it up? Point out new problems, new ideas, or new solutions. Please burry the hatchet.
Ah, and therein lies the problem.
As a resident of one community or the other, one is inclined to fight for what they believe to be in the best interest of their community and their community's children.
As such, these things WON'T go away. How can they, when these communities are so incredibly distinct from each other?
It's not about burying a hatchet, either. It's about making elected officials accountable for their words and their actions.
If these things aren't kept in the forefront, it becomes that much easier for them to be forgotten. Forgetting them is silly. If an official lies once, one must wonder how many other lies have already occurred or are occurring now.
Best to keep everything in the forefront so that the electorate can make an informed decision at the polls.
Anon
If the 30 million school referendum costs an average home$400 a year, then what does the 1-2million road cost? $15-$30 a year? $1.00-$2.50 a month?
I'm sure there are more accurate numbers out there, but my point is the road is a pretty small expense to be concerned about, especially for 30 years.
I live in Monona, and I want my Monona Middle Schoolers to be able to get to their school. I do wish it was in Monona, but I think it is fair since both citys have kids that get bussed.
I think it is interesting that no matter who the cast of characters are, the dynamic never changes. It would seem there is an endless parade of school board members and superintendents to blame for all ills that affect this district. Everyone new person thinks they will be the person who can change things, make the dynamic change. And then it never does. See how quicly some of our newest members were fell into behind the scenes deal making? It is hard to believe this is because this district can only find sneaky, dishonest people to sit on the school board. Believing that doesn't take much critical thinking, does it? Further, what do all these people have to gain from such evil intent? Fame, fortune, adoring public? Me thinks the problem runs much deeper than the board du jour and until we see it as such, this will never stop.
And, that's the other part of the problem.......
It's not that the road is costing me $2 a month or whatever. It is the principle of the matter. It is about the fact that we were lied to when what we were voting on was laid out.
If that road had been honestly represented as being paid for by our funds, that referendum never would have passed. There are lots of folks who are out there feeling very deceived by how that whole process rolled out. Many who voted YES for that school now understand more fully how we got to where we are today.
The Monona community was sold out by some of it's very own politicians.
So the "road" issue, is really the "referendum" issue, to quote from above:
"If that road had been honestly represented as being paid for by our funds, that referendum never would have passed."
I assume from this that you didn't want the referendum past. It really is time to move past it.
The district always pays, like any other developer, for road work around every building project.
The referendum was for 28.7 million for GDS and Winnequah construction. As promisde by the board not a single penny of that 28.7 million has gone to pay for roads anywhere. No one lied to you kristin, you need to stop repeating it.
My name is not Kristin.
I was lied to when I asked this question in a very direct manner.
I was told that Cottage Grove was paying for it.
And, pray tell, what would these alleged "crooked" school board members have to profit from such dishonest behavior? Trips to tropical islands? Oodles of kickback money? the masochistic joy of public ridicule like this? or maybe all that power? (sarcasm intended). If it's one of the first two, you better go see the D.A. If not, maybe you need to zip it, run for the board yourself, or get some mental health help for your tendency to hear what you want to hear, not what was said.
Funny, but I have heard the oft repeated story about the board lying about the CG roads, yet when pressed the details are always sketchy, just more shouting. On the other hand the monthly budget from the district is handed out at board meetings and it shows everything in great detail - and it puts a lie to the notion of any "lie" about the roads.
Sorry you feel lied to, but the evidence is that this is a misunderstanding that could be resolved if you asked some questions and listened to the answers instead of screaming and shouting about being lied to.
for me, it was not the road or paying for it.
it is that the board clearly used tactic of deciet and lies to get it passed around the road.
...using closed session and walking quorms...both illegal by and standard.
And said in a public document...that ref dollars would not be used.
FACT JACK
Too funny, anon Board Member.
Now you are calling it a "misunderstanding"?
Where I come from, it's just a lie.
There is no way to talk yourself out of it.
If there was, the questions would already have been answered.
The law states that referendum funds, and the interest generated thereon, may only be used for items stated in the referendum question.
The Board has opted to call these roads "site improvements". I would argue that the "site" encompasses only those lands owned by the school district. The school district does not own the roads, the municipality does.
This is not a misunderstanding.
This is circumvention of the law to get what you want.
This is not what the Board had planned, or Nancy Allen wouldn't have had her undies in a bundle at the public meeting where CG officials stated their intent to NOT pay for these municipal improvements. I recall her telling those officials that this school was in the best interest of their community, and they ought to think twice.
Well, they thought twice, and they didn't pay. So the board was stuck trying to figure it out. And they did. They used the interest earned on money borrowed well before it was needed, so that it could sit in an account and earn some $$ to be used to pay for the roads.
It really is pretty elementary. Since you know everything else, I am surprised you don't have this figured out.
yea....I do not get it.
What more could have been done then reading the boards public documents on the topic?
If you have evidence of "closed door" sessions, post it, otherwise keep you unsupported accusations to yourself.
I read the above discription from anonymous, and it doesn't sound like a lie in the story. It sounds like the board made an assumption (Cottage Grove would pay), which was wrong, and so the board found a way to fix it.
The story also describes a board member fighting for the district. The story does not make it sound like some "backroom" plan.
The long post above bears some examination:
”The Board has opted to call these roads "site improvements". I would argue that the "site" encompasses only those lands owned by the school district…”
By your own admission the difference is over your interpretation of the words “site improvements”. Accusing someone of “lying” because of a difference of opinion over the meaning of this phrase is false.
”This is not what the Board had planned…
... So the board was stuck trying to figure it out. And they did”
By your own admission the board had not planned to use the interest, but figured this out afterwards. A “lie” requires someone to make a statement they new to be false and intent to mislead, if using the interest wasn’t figured out until later then any earlier representations could not have been a lie. You might be within your rights to complain they went back on thier word, but from your own comments its clear they didn’t “lie”.
“They used the interest earned on money borrowed well before it was needed, so that it could sit in an account and earn some $$ to be used to pay for the roads.”
Yes, some of the road funding came from the interest. However none of the 28.7 million principal approved by the voters went to the roads. The voters got a square deal as stated on the ballot: 28.7 million for GDS and Winnequah renovations, with none of that 28.7 million going for roads.
You may be unhappy about how the interest money was used, but it is clear from your account that you weren't "lied" to.
Several items:
The Board cited in a letter that referendum dollars would NOT be used for a the GDs road.
Do want me to post that letter.
I sat through a ppt where our former leader stated the board has deemed site improvement to NOT include roads.
You want me to send y'all a copy of the letter signed by everyone?
This was a letter signed by all members and a responsed to Mayor Kahl.
This letter was put together by using a walking quoram AND IF IAM WRONG cite me the meeting minutes where such a letter was discussed...yep kinda hard to come up with now isn't it?
FURTHER.....Peter....unless you are a fool...and you are not
YOU TELL ME WHERE the board discussed the funding of the raod or the response to Kahl that they al signed in a public meeting...?
This leave us with three other options. The board can do mind melds like spock, the all come to the idea of how to fund the road and respond to kahl like Paul on a donkey OR they were talking about it using a walking quorom or closed sessions.
Familar with occam's razor?
NOW, I could care less about the road at this point, how it is funded....etc.
I do care it is safe, sound and the school has a road....but please do not tell me and the public were not sold bag of bs.
I can live with it all and looking forward, but please do not bs.
OK, do you want me to make it real simple and bold this letter that the board created riding on a donkey (but did not do it with anyting illegal)
"A Statement of Facts about the School Referendum By the Monona Grove School Board
A Statement of Facts about the School Referendum By the Monona Grove School Board March 27, 2006
In recent weeks there has been a great deal of debate about the upcoming Monona Grove School District referendum. The Monona Grove School Board has attempted to provide accurate information on this matter so that residents can make an informed decision when they vote on this matter on April 4th. There has also been significant misinformation advanced by individuals that has led to rumors and uncertainty. The purpose of this correspondence is to address some of these issues, so residents can make their decision based on accurate information.
Why haven’t other options been considered?
The School Board and the Monona Grove communities have been reviewing several options for many years. This referendum has been advanced as a compromise solution to the facilities issue that has been debated for years. Although we recognize that individuals may find aspects of the proposal they dislike, it is our hope that the public will view this matter from a “big picture” lens.
Does it represent a fair compromise to this issue that will resolve this long debated issue?
We believe it does.
Why aren’t certain costs for the new middle school included in the estimates?
The main issue that continues to be questioned is that of the development of roads for this project. These costs were removed from the referendum in an attempt to keep the total costs as low as possible. We believe that the expenses for the construction of roads will be met by a combination of working cooperatively with the elected officials from Cottage Grove, along with the potential to sell off a portion of district-owned land to developers to help defray the cost of road construction. The school district has already held discussions with local government officials about these costs, and we anticipate further talks as we progress toward the middle school's opening in the fall of 2008.
Will the final project, including the architect’s fees, be sent out to bid?
Following a successful referendum vote, the School Board will meet to establish the bidding process. Thus far, the planning and estimates are “conceptual.” The final project will undergo strict scrutiny, to include input from staff and residents, and then be bid out.
A recent flyer that was distributed indicated that the middle school building cost far exceeded the median middle school costs in total costs, square feet per student, etc. How accurate is this information?
The flyer cites figures from different regions of the country and these figures are from the 2005 construction year. For example, national schools built in the south and southwest are designed significantly different and require less square footage. These are often “open” schools that may not require hallways, cafeterias, and other educational space. To compare our costs and square footage with these is inaccurate and misleading. The costs that we have in the referendum include increased anticipated costs for inflation through 2007 when this facility will be constructed. Additionally, the costs cited in the flyer are construction costs only and do not include other associated costs that we have included, such as site improvements, furniture, fees, and related development costs. Simply put, the figures that are presented are manipulated to make our projected costs seem out of line.
There also was a claim that the proposed new middle school is significantly larger than the national average. Is this statement true?
National figures range from 57,000 square feet to 175,300 square feet. Winnequah Middle School is approximately 94,000 square feet and is well over capacity. The new school will house four grade levels (5th-8th) whereas Winnequah Middle School currently houses three grade levels (6th-8th). The proposed new middle school’s concept plan shows 165,700 square feet. It is sized to meet the projected enrollments for the four grade levels of students. Finally, it is hard to draw comparisons on “average” sizes as there are many factors to be considered such as enrollment capacities, special purpose areas (cafeteria, commons, library, gym, etc.), and program offerings (technology education, family and consumer education, music, etc.). Each of these factor into how large a facility is needed.
The artist’s rendering of the new middle school makes it look larger than the Monona Grove High School and may be extravagant. Is this true?
Monona Grove High School is 236,000 square feet; the new middle school is planned to be 165,700 square feet, or about a third smaller than the high school. Conceptually, it has been priced to reflect a similar quality of construction to Monona Grove High School.
Some are claiming that the new middle school will be at near capacity when it opens. Is this true?
It is “cored” for 750 students but could easily accommodate in excess of 850 students. It has been reported that there are only 750 lockers in the cost estimates. If needed, students could either share lockers or the district could purchase additional lockers from its capital improvement budget. There will be adequate space to install additional lockers if needed. The challenge for the district is to build “just right” – that is, not to plan for too much room but still accommodate projected growth, which is what this proposal addresses.
Is it true that the referendum does not address elementary space issues in Cottage Grove?
The proposed referendum would reconfigure the two elementary schools in Cottage Grove. Taylor Prairie School would become an EC-1st grade school. The current modular classrooms would be removed and there would be sufficient space for current and projected growth. Cottage Grove School would become a 2nd – 4th grade school (with 5th graders attending the new middle school). There is adequate room at CG School to accommodate current student population for grades 2-4.
A recent flyer that was distributed indicated that the “true cost” of the second referendum question, which is to increase the revenue cap by $432,992 to address the additional operating costs associated with the building referendum, would amount to over $100 million. Is this accurate?
Simply put, this is totally inaccurate and uses vastly inflated figures. The dollar amount, $432,992, becomes part of our "base revenue" each subsequent fiscal year within the revenue cap formula. There is no compounding effect. The additional dollars remain, for all practical purposes, a constant $432,992 each year. This would not be assessed until the school actually opens (2008-2009 school year). The Monona Grove School Board recognizes that a project of this scope will generate considerable debate in our community. The proposed referendums have the unanimous support of the board; the board strongly believes this proposal will be educationally beneficial for our district's students. It addresses overcrowding at both Winnequah and in Cottage Grove while meeting the expectations of the Monona Grove community for high quality education with fiscal responsibility and cost-effectiveness. It has significant citizen support in both Cottage Grove and Monona, and we note that all three local newspapers -- the Capital Times, the Wisconsin State Journal, and the Herald- Independent -- have endorsed this referendum package. We urge district residents to carefully study the information provided by the district, and we urge passage of the referendums."
Monona Grove School Board: Nancy Allen Kathy Bultman Mike DuPlayee John Kitslaar Phil McDade Mary Possin John Weinberger
Again, I am over it, but do not tell me the public and myself were not taken down the pike.....
sigh...I am moving over tot the positive....thread.
Thanks to anonymous for honestly laying out the details about his/her concerns about the road financing. But I have to agree with the analysis that follows, the details don't provide any evidence that someone was lied to, in fact they seem to contradict that assertion.
It should be noted in the letter presented that it states:
"We believe that the expenses for the construction of roads will be met by a combination of working cooperatively with the elected officials from Cottage Grove, along with the potential to sell off a portion of district-owned..."
No positive statement here that the interest wouldn't be used for the roads, but an honest statement that they were trying to find other ways to finance this.
As for the letter itself- it seems odd to me that this concern is about the board violating the open meetings law in order to produce only a public information piece. It is not an accusation that the board took any decisions or actions in secret, the sort of things the open meetings law was intended to prevent- just an allegation that they collaboratively assembled a public information piece. That any results were immediately published and distributed seems to indicate no intent towards secrecy, but for openness! Aside from the "gotcha" is this really a significant concern? There was no decision or actions taken in private, simply an expository summary of discussions that had been made in public.
(And yes if you read the agendas and minutes you will find the roads noticed and discussed in public meetings on multiple occasions.)
I wasn't on the board and don't know how this letter was produced. But I would note, in the words of the Attorney General, that written communication between board members DOESN'T constitute a "convening of the members" as defined by the law. The question of emails has not been adjudicated but the AG's opinion is that so long as they are a largely one-way flow of information they don't raise a concern - it is when they become a back and forth discussion that they can be a problem. I'm not a lawyer so this is just a lay opinion, but as I can see it the open meetings law does not prevent per se the letter in question, only if it was the result of a collaborative effort involving more than 3 members and I have not seen any evidence of that. I doubt that it was intent of the open meetings law to limit communication with the public!
Fair. We disagree let me bold my concerns OR why I feel the public was...duped.
A. The letter is titled: "A Statement of Facts about the School Referendum By the Monona Grove School Board "
B. "The main issue that continues to be questioned is that of the development of roads for this project. These costs were removed from the referendum in an attempt to keep the total costs as low as possible."
Every heard of the "reasonable man"
standard. What would a reasonable man think or do after riding the highligted portions.
again, " These costs (roads-understood from the previsous sentance) were removed the referendum..."
Do you want me to dig up Gary's ppt and my notes?
Again, this does little good.
Finally, a recent supereme court case in a least one state has ruled that a public board can NOT do business via e-mail.
Do Business...agreeing on amendments or motions...etc.
whatever.
No positive statement here that the interest wouldn't be used for the roads,
you telling me that above is NOT a positive statment....?:",a;sdfo8i234
Sorry Peter.
You can't pontificate through this one.
Lies.
Closed meetings and/or walking quorums.
Bottom line.
No question that the board can't "do business" by email. But the board can certainly communicate by email and other means. Nothing would ever get done if we couldn't.
Bottom line- both sides have laid out their cases and it is up to the public to see and draw their own conclusions. The "bottom line" mentioned above is clearly only one interpretation.
I hope people find this useful. It is far better that we have it out than have a whisper campaign.
A "reasonable man" would conclude that the cost of the roads would not be paid out of the 28.7 million dollar referendum principal. And they weren't.
"A "reasonable man" would conclude that the cost of the roads would not be paid out of the 28.7 million dollar referendum principal. "
Aaah Yes, there would paid via interest from the referendum.
So, would a reasonable man assume interest from the referendum was refererendum dollars.
yea...well..so a public body can do anything they want with referendum interest?
Come on...
Let me rephrase - anything less than a quorum of the board can "do business" any way they choose. Email, telephone, meetings, etc. It is only when a quorum is involved that there are restrictions.
"Let me rephrase - anything less than a quorum of the board can "do business" any way they choose. Email, telephone, meetings, etc. "
wrong. they can not. walking quorms have been ruled illgeal.
Does Peter need someone to define walking quorom?
Of course they can:
3. Walking quorums
The requirements of the open meetings law also extend to walking quorums. A “walking quorum” is a series of gatherings among separate groups of members of a governmental body, each less than quorum size, who agree, tacitly or explicitly, to act uniformly in sufficient number to reach a quorum.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf
Like I said, any number that doesn't constitute a quorum is free to correspond in any way they choose. The law is unequivocal on this.
"A "reasonable man" would conclude that the cost of the roads would not be paid out of the 28.7 million dollar referendum principal. And they weren't."
Yep, from interest.
Well for right or wrong. This will be the last time that the MG Board get to pull that trick.
Post a Comment