According to Saturday's Journal Sentinel front page article:
“Like regular state employees, elected officials can tap their account of unused sick leave to pay for health care in retirement. But sick leave for elected officials is not monitored as closely as it is for rank-and-file employees, and they do not lose pay if they don’t show up for work.
A Journal Sentinel investigation found that lawmakers, judges, district attorneys and other officials rarely take sick leave, allowing them to build up bigger retirement perks.”

Ah, bigger retirement perks?!!!

The newspaper reports that state elected officials have racked up $2 million worth of sick leave retirement benefits since March, when the Assembly passed a bill that would end the perk starting in 2009. “The Senate is contemplating a bill that would end the benefit only for state lawmakers. If the two houses can’t agree on how to proceed, nothing will change.”

Hmmm. The perk might end---starting in 2009! And maybe not at all?!!!

Saturday's Journal Sentinel editorial was titled “Simply embarrassing" and states, “There’s been some progress but still no budget. Perhaps it’s time to consider real consequences--to legislators--in the event they can’t pass a budget.” The "real consequences" proposed include shutting down government if there is no budget, withholding legislators’ pay if there is no budget by deadline--or at least adopting Iowa’s practice. What's that? Apparently, in Iowa, if state legislators don’t meet a specific deadline to pass a budget, they lose their daily per diem expense stipends (that’s $88 per day for Wis. Legislators who live outside of Dane County). And those stipends are tax-free.

So, our state Legislators (who live outside Dane Co.) get $88 daily per diem expense stipends--and they are tax-free?!!!

Sunday’s (Oct. 7) Journal Sentinel reports, “Wisconsin is now the only state whose Legislature has not passed a budget. And the budget is on track to be one of the latest in state history, behind only the 1971 budget.” The article’s subheading is “Signs of a deal replaced by more partisan sniping.”

Uh, oh. No budget but plenty of partisan sniping!!

Sunday’s Journal Sentinel also posted a 5-paragraph excerpt from an editorial posted by Madison's WISC-TV. Incuded was this statement, “ The Wisconsin State Legislature has become dysfunctional, ineffectual and counterproductive.” It laments that if only we could give the Legislature 90 days to pass a budget. If it fails, dissolve the Legislature and hold new elections.

What has Gov. Doyle said about the repercussions of the Legislature's failure to pass a budget? According to the the Sept. 29 Journal Sentinel: “Doyle said not having a budget would cause problems across state government. He said without a budget: Students at all University of Wisconsin campuses could face an $800 tuition surcharge next semester; the expansion of the secure facility for violent sex offenders may have to be delayed; road projects could be canceled; and people participating in the SeniorCare prescription drug program may have to start paying for drugs out of their own pockets.
'You simply cannot run a state without a budget,' Doyle said."

** A reminder that State Aid Shortfall is on Monday’s (Oct. 8) New Berlin School Board Meeting agenda. (under District Administrator’s Report)

Senator Lazich began her blog post “Cost of public benefits far outpaces those in private sector” yesterday with this statement: “One of the key reasons why state and local spending is out of whack in Wisconsin is the high cost of benefits.”

The blog referred to state-local government employees.

OK, so what about state legislators?
Her blog has me wondering what salary, benefits and perks our legislators, such as Senator Lazich, have been getting.

If state spending is “out of whack” in Wisconsin, what are our state legislators doing to reduce the cost of their own benefits & salaries?
Have they taken pay cuts? Have they frozen their pay? Gotten raises?

Do our Wisconsin legislators receive automatic pay raises or do they cast votes on that item? How often?
Did the state Legislature close the loophole permitting officials to financially benefit from accumulated unused sick pay?

Maybe I’ll e-mail Senator Lazich and ask.

Did you know that New Berlin Public Schools had a $7,228.67 luncheon for employees last month?
District administration calls it “a year-end appreciation gesture for staff”. According to the District Business Manager, the food was delivered to the District Office and each NBPS school.

The money for the luncheon was taken from a “separate” account, not the general fund. The revenue source was registration fees/tuition from a prior Aurora University contract with New Berlin Schools. (In the past, Aurora University used NBPS facilities).

The funds in that segregated account were designated by NBPS to be used for staff development or appreciation activities. However, administration admits the School Board could've directed the money be used for a different purpose--- if it chose.

The School District also paid for a retirement dinner held in May at the Country Springs Hotel in Waukesha. The cost to the District: $2,660.

Meanwhile, the School Board has been giving the impression that NBPS needs money. It's raised Middle School athletic fees for kids and is seeking to increase fees that groups, such as New Berlin Park & Rec., NBAA, Swim Club, Scouts, and select sports teams pay to use school facilities. Board members claim the School District can't afford to "subsidize" those community programs.

Yet the School District found a way to provide pricey retirement dinners and "appreciation" lunches for District staff at a cost of nearly ten grand.

The New Berlin School Board's monthly work session- board meeting has been scheduled for December 4 (tonight). The public meeting agenda has only one district issue: "Correction of November 13, 2006 meeting minutes". Apparently, there aren't any education-related issues of sufficient importance to the School Board to publicly discuss or debate at this time.

A closed board meeting (public not allowed) re: administrators benefit program immediately follows it.
Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall and hear that discussion?

About administrators benefits, did you know?........

In 2003, the School Board approved an amendment to the Administrator's benefit program proposed by ---you guessed it--- administration. It reduced the time requirement from 20 to 10 years, that adminstrators must work in the district to be eligible for early retirement benefits.

After I protested the ramifications of that board action, the Board/Administration publicly claimed there was no budgetary impact. However, when I made an Open Records request for a copy of any cost analysis or cost impact study, the district responded that none had been done.
No cost impact study or analysis? How fiscally irresponsible.

Interestingly, at the January 23, 2006 Board Meeting, the School Board unanimously denied the requests for early retirement made by the Director of Student Services, and the Poplar Creek Elementary principal. Both administrators are long-time employees of the district.

At the October 23, 2006 Board Meeting, the School Board unanimously hired Key Benefit Concepts, LLC to consult with the Board regarding administrators' benefits and compensation, including post-employment benefits. The proposed fee for the project, based on project scope: $12,400- $15,550.