Inside New Berlin

People tend to resent being charged fees on top of the taxes they pay. Savvy folks know that it's government taking additional money out of their pockets to provide services. They aren't fooled by tax hikes hidden behind fees.

Raise a fee here, raise a fee there. Fee increases can sure annoy people. For example, Senator Lazich has been grumbling online about fee increases in the proposed State budget.

But the New Berlin School Board favors jacking up some fees to generate revenue. Not only did it increase fees for Middle School sports, the School Board is considering revising Board Policy #1330 Use of School Facilities, to squeeze more money from groups using school facilities.

Did you know that many community groups, including NBAA, Scouts, New Berlin Park & Rec., Home & School, use our schools?

Sticking it to families who just want to have their kids participate in wholesome activities is hideous.

The School District notified Park & Rec. that it was requiring $67,000 in additional fees for use of school facilities. That's in addition to the $48,000 per year Park & Rec. pays. The payments would be required by July 1. This fee increase would likely have a negative impact on the already-adopted City budget and citizens who use the facilities in the recreational programs. School Board President Keith Heun said he expects the city Parks Dept. to pass the fee along to its users. Never mind that increasing user fees would be especially hard on lower income citizens and large families.
Indeed, some senior citizens raised concerns and objections at the June 18 School Board Meeting.

At that board meeting, some board members advocated canceling the District’s contract with Park & Rec.
Too bad. The contract says that both parties (School District and Park & Rec.) recognize it is in the public interest that tax-supported facilities be utilized as much as possible in order to maintain the maximum benefit and return for the taxpayers. And that since the Park & Rec Commission is charged with the responsibility of establishing and conducting recreational facilities and programs for the community, it should make use of the school facilities.

The community is already paying for schools! To shake them down for more is obscene.

Presentation of Construction Award for Reagan Elementary School was item E on the consent agenda, but one of the first topics discussed at the monthly New Berlin School Board Meeting held on June 18.
But the following relevant information was not mentioned:

VJS Construction Services, Inc. had been charged in 2006 with violating state law in the construction of the Reagan School.
According to Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA), VJS Construction Services, Inc. was found GUILTY Due to No Contest Plea of violating Statute NR216.46(l) and ordered to pay a forfeiture/fine. It paid the Court $4,883.
The offense? Failure/Maintain Erosion Control Best Management Practices.

The construction management firm’s failure to do proper erosion control was inexcusable, especially given the Reagan School site's wetlands and threatened/endangered species habitat, the proximity to a navigable waterway, and the stated conditions on the required permits obtained prior to construction.

Under the circumstances, should the School Board and District administration be publicly touting a construction award for the Reagan School and proudly accepting it?
(and keeping mum about construction deficiencies)
Do they believe the end justifies the means? That breaking the law is permissible sometimes?
That protecting the environment is unimportant?

Although the School Board has refrained from publicly chiding VJS, several Board members have openly bashed various New Berlin residents over lesser matters.

Nothing was said at the same monthly June 18 School Board Meeting about another construction-related issue: the Claim Against Adair Plumbing and the New Berlin School District.

After I spotted the Claim item on the agenda of the June 12 Common Council Meeting, I made a records request. The City Clerk provided me with records indicating a sanitary sewer backup occurred August 29, 2006 on Calhoun Road right by the Reagan Elementary School. Adair Plumbing (a NBPS subcontractor) allegedly pulled a sanitary lateral plug to flush the school water system--an action that was called a direct violation of the City of New Berlin Developer’s Handbook. Reportedly, a VJS employee had directed Adair to use the sanitary line and not the storm sewer.
Per a Utility Supervisor’s report, when Adair pulled the plug, a high volume of water flushed debris in the schools sanitation system into the City’s system, causing the backup. The basement of one residence had at least 3 feet of water.
City utility staff were contacted to try to alleviate the problem. They observed water at two manholes and determined the blockage was between the two. They cleaned and re-cleaned the sanitary sewer line.
The City Attorney advised a property owner seeking over $600 reimbursement for bills arising from the sewer backup, including replacement of soiled, damaged items, to contact NBPS. The City's investigation concluded that stone plugging the lateral may have arisen from School District action in the construction of the Reagan Elementary School. There was also reference to a repair cost exceeding $12,000

At last night’s (June 18) New Berlin School Board Meeting, the Board voted to end its practice of holding work session-board meetings at different school locations after Board President Keith Heun argued that holding the meetings at different schools was confusing to people and did not increase participation.

That’s almost amusing.

The last work session meeting was held on June 11 at Reagan Elementary.
Yes, after much stalling the School Board finally got around to holding one there!
Not only did lots of people attend it, 14 individuals actively participated by addressing the Board in Privilege of the Floor Speeches on various issues.

Furthermore…..

The monthly Regular Board meeting was originally scheduled for June 25, but the School Board changed it to June 18.

On June 18, when I checked the District’s web site www.nbps.k12.wi.us, I noted that the Board meeting was scheduled for 7 pm that night at City Hall. However, the meeting agenda was not on it. The June 11 meeting agenda was still being posted.

So, I turned on Channel 13, the School District’s television channel hoping to get more up-to- date information.
But what was listed on it for June 18 meetings?-----

A Special Board Meeting (closed session) 6:15 pm at City Hall.
Monthly Board Meeting at 7pm. TBA
(The agenda for that meeting was posted)
Special Board Meeting (closed) at EMHS at 7 pm.
Special Board Meeting (closed) at EMHS at 8:30 pm.

TBA? To be announced?!!!! How absurd. The monthly board meeting was that same night.
And how could the School Board hold a meeting at Eisenhower at 7 pm on June 18 when it was having its monthly Board meeting at City Hall at the same time?

Talk about baffling!
Given the crummy way the New Berlin School Board/ District communicates, it’s not surprising people are confused about School Board meetings.

If our School Board members really desired more public participation and less confusion, they should cease changing meeting dates for their own convenience---- and consistently hold their work session-board meetings on the second Monday of every month and the Regular Monthly Meeting on the fourth Monday.
It would be a good idea if they’d monitor the district web site and cable channel, too. Those sources should consistently carry current, accurate information.

If all New Berlin School Board members truly respected and valued NBPS TEACHERS …..

would they have embraced learning assistants, but chosen to add few full-time teachers?

would they (who are not professional “educators”) have been so skeptical and dismissive of Superintendent Benfield’s rationale for more teachers: “This budget provides for 21.5 full time equivalents K-12 to bring class sizes to the preferred level with the staffing guidelines” ?

would they have opposed Superintendent Benfield’s budgetary recommendation to add that teaching staff? (7 FTE elementary and 14.5 FTE high school)

would they have opted not to follow the Superintendent's staffing proposals--citing cost and stable or declining enrollment--- but been okay with spending mega- millions on fancy showpiece school facilities, such as the immense new Reagan School and NB West's fieldhouse & renovations ?

would they have scoffed when Benfield argued against using teaching assistants for “class size” purposes?
He cited Star Study data that indicated just adding teaching assistants to classrooms did not enhance learning statistically.
According to Benfield, the NBPS district has benefited from utilizing teaching assistants purposefully-- specifically with the district’s reading and math programs.

would the School Board Vice-President have proposed that 20 teachers be given preliminary layoff notices? Other board members favored half that amount.
( He also admitted having previously proposed giving preliminary layoff notices to ALL of the union members-claiming it gave the district maximum flexibility) ALL??!!!!!

would the School Board Vice-President have reacted to a teacher’s voiced concerns (expressed during a privilege of floor speech at SB meeting) about eliminating a class from one high school rather than offering it at both (a cut in services), and educational quality decline -- by publicly calling that teacher a “union activist” and dismissing what he’d said?

would Board leaders publicly bemoan that because of provisions in the “union contract”, seniority is a factor determining who gets bumped with layoffs, moved to other positions, etc, --- but neglect to mention the Board’s own role? After all, the contract is a negotiated agreement between the teachers union and the school district --and had been approved by the School Board.

The 2007-08 New Berlin Public Schools budget unveiled April 23 did not get rave reviews from School Board members, teachers, or parents.

For example, at the May 7 School Board meeting-----

One long-time New Berlin West teacher (and coach) told the School Board that educational quality in the district has been declining.
He stressed that eliminating a class from one HS-- and offering it at just one of the district’s two high schools (not both) amounted to a cut.
He also claimed that having only one athletic director was not working well.

A special ed teacher (Eisenhower) objected to the proposed cuts in special education. She cautioned against equating special ed the same as everyday classrooms, arguing that “one size fits all” inadequately serves children with special needs--- and warned that the district could become embroiled in a lawsuit brought by angry parents.

A couple of Elm Grove Lutheran School parents protested the “cost-saving” budget measure of eliminating bus transportation to/from their children’s private school.

School Board leaders emphasized that the budget proposals came from administration--- and were not “created” by the School Board. Budget discussion revealed plenty of Board member dissatisfaction with the proposed budget.

None of the Board members supported the additional 21.5 FTE (Full time equivalent) teaching positions advocated by administration -- with some Board Members arguing it wasn’t justified given the district’s DECLINING enrollment. Administration countered that class sizes have crept up during the last few years--resulting in higher class sizes than what’s in the preferred range---and this budget adjusts it back to what it was before.

Administration also proposed “plugging holes” in classes with students from elsewhere via open enrollment--noting that it would bring additional revenue to the district (approx. $6,000 per student)
But the proposal/adding significantly more students through school choice (open enrollment) was not favored by some board members, including the Board President (whose children attend private school). He expressed doubts that the district could sustain that kind of spending for classes--- and contended he didn’t want to “hamstring” the new superintendent.

Current superintendent James Benfield responded that the new superintendent had been invited to participate with this budget but couldn’t because of “ scheduling conflicts.”

Matt Thomas’ blog posts a letter from Alderman Dave Ament announcing a fundraiser that’s being held for the daughter of the Assistant Chief of the New Berlin Fire Department. She was involved in a car accident recently.

A worthy cause.

But what about the victims of the 8-unit condominium fire of May 19?
That horrific fire killed a New Berlin woman and left many others displaced, homeless.
Obviously, people's belongings were damaged or destroyed in that fire, as well.

Surely, helping those devastated folks would be for a worthy cause, too.

The condo fire occurred in the 17600 block of W. Lincoln Avenue-- Alderman Ron Seidl’s district.
There’s been no letter from Ald. Seidl announcing a community event to aid the fire victims (or their families) posted on Thomas’ blog or elsewhere on New Berlin Now’s web page.

Ron Seidl touted “communication” when running for office.
So, Alderman Seidl: Please communicate via New Berlin Now, what’s been done, if anything, to help all of those people victimized by that May 19 fire in your aldermanic district. Are any community fundraisers being held to benefit those folks, your constituents?