Many of Sarah Palin’s comments have raised people's eyebrows. 

It was interesting to read in Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn’s Friday, Oct. 3 news article titled “Palin questions McCain’s concession of Michigan", that Sarah Palin had only learned about John McCain’s decision to abandon efforts to win Michigan when she read it in the newspapers on that Friday morning.

Uh, Gov. Palin, the VP candidate,  wasn’t part of the decision, consulted or notified?

Per the news report, she said after reading about the decision, she “fired off a quick email questioning the move.”

Hmmm. If Sen. McCain and the McCain presidential campaign do not value Sarah Palin’s opinion, why should the voters?

Evidently, Sarah Palin was very surprised by what she read.   

Of course, she wouldn’t be the only person to experience that----

During my tenure on the New Berlin School Board, I was amazed to read in the New Berlin Citizen newspaper that then-NBPS Superintendent James Benfield had accepted a superintendent’s position in North Carolina/ signed a contract.  I had not been informed or notified by Dr. Benfield. (Nor by any School Board official). 

Guess what happened next? Acceptance by the School Board of his resignation was put on the next New Berlin School Board meeting agenda. However, at that Board meeting, Dr. Benfield surprised folks again by announcing he’d changed his mind and intended to continue at New Berlin Public Schools.  

In 2006, the New Berlin School Board made a rash, imprudent decision to remove from its next year’s budget the $7000 dues for Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) and withdraw from the organization. It was the only school board to do so.

Well, guess what? Last month, the School Board voted unanimously to rejoin WASB.

WASB is a non-profit, membership organization and shared resource for governing leaders. It shares information among school boards and offers services and programs in the areas of school law, policy, governance, legislative activity and employee relations.

Robert Butler, legal counsel for WASB, was at the September 8, 2008 New Berlin School Board Meeting to discuss the benefits of membership and answer questions. He explained that WASB, a voluntary organization, charges an annual fee of $7400, and the other school boards in the state are WASB members.

To his credit, NBPS District Superintendent Paul Kreutzer recommended rejoining WASB. Touting WASB as a valuable resource, he referred to its digital library, policy review services and publication of legal comments--and financial benefits to the District with WASB membership. Dr. Kreutzer argued that the difficulty and cost in having the District conduct its own research/ review of policies and legislation and retain attorneys knowledgeable in educational practice law exceeds the fee ($7400) charged by WASB annually.

In response to SB officer Joan Doberstein’s observation that WASB also offers legal counsel services for collective bargaining/greviances (on a fee basis above the $7400 annual fee), Dr. Kreutzer responded that the School District would not be using that particular WASB service because the District was happy with the law firm it currently uses for labor negotiations (von Briesen & Roper). However, Dr. Kreutzer admitted that their hourly rate/ legal services would likely cost the District more than using WASB’s.  Gee, that doesn't sound very "fiscally conservative".

The motion to approve New Berlin Public School's Membership in WASB included a friendly amendment from Jennifer Eitel requiring administration to report back to the School Board at the first meeting in 2009 to show a cost/benefit analysis of membership.

During the Sept. 8 meeting, Board President Matt Thomas acknowledged that he had “led” the school board in its decision two years ago to get out of WASB. The motion to withdraw from WASB was actually made on June 12, 2006 and passed with Matt Thomas, Keith Heun, Jennifer Eitel and Susan Manley voting yes. Matt Weiss, Art Marquardt and Marc Duff voted no.

Thomas’ explanation for that action was that the School Board wanted to cut costs from the budget, SB members objected to a statement (which Thomas deemed “extreme left” and “liberal”) made by the WASB President concerning the proposed Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and the “previous administration” didn’t present much of a cost/benefit analysis regarding WASB membership.

Gimme a break.

Thomas is trying to make Dr. Benfield’s administration the scapegoat?

Just what stopped Thomas and the rest of the School Board in 2006 from doing their homework by researching the issue, asking questions, weighing pros & cons of withdrawal from WASB and the effect on the school district, financial and otherwise?  Why didn't THEY request a cost/benefit analysis?

And how irresponsible to put the blame for that School Board’s radical decision on a statement made by the WASB President!

Apparently, Board members Thomas, Heun, Eitel and Manley did not realize or care that every school district gets one delegate vote and that the WASB President was advocating on behalf of the majority. Unlike that renegade New Berlin School Board, the other school boards in the state--including those in Waukesha County-- have had the good sense to recognize that WASB membership was beneficial to their districts and did not drop out.

In George Orwell’s novel "1984" about a repressed society, people were kept under high surveillance by their government via technology.

Perhaps New Berlin Public Schools should change its slogan from Excellence in Educational Experiences to Big Brother is Watching You.

On September 8, the New Berlin School Board voted unanimously to spend up to $60,000 on a “Web-based” camera surveillance system (involving about 40 cameras) for New Berlin West Middle-High School.

Those cameras would be hooked up to the internet. Yup, that’s handy for the Police Department ---and others. The School District's Assistant Superintendent joked that with this system, he could be in Hawaii and tune in to see what was happening at the school.

But what prevents hackers, other mischief makers, thieves, predators, perverts, etc.  from getting access to the photo images of children and school? 

Were students, their parents and the school faculty consulted?  How do they feel about the cameras and surveillance? Do they object to the invasion of privacy?  

Furthermore, didn’t Superintendent Kreutzer recently claim that Eisenhower needs about $44 million in upgrades? So, why is installing this high-tech camera surveillance system at West a priority?  And isn't this measure a bit extreme?

Although the camera surveillance system was dubbed a “security” solution, District Administration publicly maintained that there were no serious problems at West. They also said the camera system would be more “pro-active” than “re-active”.  Indeed, the Superintendent called the surveillance system a “passive observer”, which would serve as a “deterrent”. He acknowledged it would not prevent violent incidents like Columbine’s. 

Does Administration and School Board have documented evidence that a Web-based camera surveillance system has reduced or deterred acts of student misconduct, violence, theft or vandalism at suburban schools?   If so, it was not presented publicly at the school board meeting. 

Who is choosing the company that provides the camera equipment and service? Is the district getting bids from different companies?

Finally, what about metal detectors for safety and security?  Aren’t those considered pro-active measures and deterrents?   West does not have them.