|
By Linda Richter
Friday, Oct 10 2008, 01:05 AM
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.
When she read it in the newspapers that 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.
|
By Linda Richter
Monday, Oct 6 2008, 07:40 PM
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.
|
By Linda Richter
Tuesday, Sep 30 2008, 08:44 PM
“Eagle Eye”, an action-packed movie about computer/government surveillance run amok, debuted last weekend. It was #1 at the box office and is playing at Ridge Cinema in New Berlin.
In the film, abuse of power and misuse of technology have dire consequences. Technology was used to spy on citizens and control people through fear, intimidation, and retaliation.
Speaking of computer/government surveillance:
On September 8, the New Berlin School Board approved a maximum of $60,000 for a multi-camera Web-based surveillance system for New Berlin West Middle-High School. See my September 14 blog titled “Big Brother is Watching.”
District administration referred to the proposed surveillance system as a “deterrent”. Isn’t it disquieting to know that when at New Berlin West, you’ll be under camera surveillance and your photo image can be transmitted and viewed by who knows who or when? ----Not to mention the funds that are being spent for it.
|
By Linda Richter
Sunday, Sep 14 2008, 06:32 PM
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.
|
By Linda Richter
Monday, Sep 8 2008, 06:44 PM
Tonight on Monday Night Football, it’s the Green Bay Packers vs. Minnesota Vikings.
Whew. A big game.
There’s that rivalry between these two Midwest teams, which adds to the excitement. Of course, people are wondering how the Packers season will go with quarterback Aaron Rogers. The Jets won yesterday with Brett Favre.
Many people will be watching tonight’s televised game.
Me, I am going to the 7 pm New Berlin School Board Meeting.
Hey, we’ve got choices. We are fortunate that technological advances allow us to record a game broadcast and play it later--- and/or watch a School Board Meeting on our computer.
Here’s tonight’s School Board Meeting agenda/public notice:
BOARD OF EDUCATION
NEW BERLIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NEW BERLIN, WISCONSIN
Board Meeting – September 8, 2008
New Berlin West Middle/High School
Idea Center
(Use marked west side library entrance)
7:00 p.m.
REVISED AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
III. PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
IV. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Update on Start of School
Electronic Board Packet Facilities Update
V. CONSENT AGENDA RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of August 25, 2008.
B. Human Resources
Resignations New Hires
VI. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Approval to Join WASB
B. Approval of Revisions/Changes to Procedures and Addendum of Policy #1330 –
Public Use of School Facilities
C. Approval of Allocation of Funds to Purchase a Security Solution for New Berlin West
Middle/High School
D. Future Meetings and Dates:
Monday, September 22 - Board Meeting
7:00 p.m. – West Idea Center
Monday, October 13 - Board Meeting
7:00 p.m. – West Idea Center
Monday, October 27 - Board Meeting
7:00 p.m. – West Idea Center
|
By Linda Richter
Monday, Aug 25 2008, 04:44 PM
An August 19 Journal Sentinel news article about Milwaukee Public Schools carried the headlines “Buildings rise, test scores fall”; “Spate of school expansions is no tonic for student proficiency”; and “At sites of biggest school expansions, more than half saw test score declines”. The newspaper reported that $102 million was invested in that district’s construction program/neighborhood schools concept, “But bricks and mortar have not raised student performance, testing data shows.”
Is that also true of New Berlin Public Schools?
The New Berlin School Board/ District has been fixated on “facility needs” for years. Millions of dollars have gone into facility construction and renovation projects. There have also been school closures and mergers. Recently, the NBPS superintendent announced that Eisenhower needs $44 million in upgrades.
Sure, facilities are important. But has NBPS put bricks and mortar ahead of educational reform? Shouldn’t improved academic success be the high priority? How does Reagan Elementary School’s expensive electric scrolling sign, mosaic floor tiles, and super-sized gym boost academic performance? NB West now has a pricey field house and cavernous auditorium. How do those amenities increase students’ scores on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exams (WKCE) and the ACT college admission test? What effect did the school closings and mergers have on student learning and standardized test scores?
Those questions and more should be answered by the School Board and superintendent, especially since published reports indicate test scores have slipped in the New Berlin School District:
The Journal Sentinel reported in May that the proportion of students proficient in 10th grade math dropped by 8 percentage points for New Berlin. A July NOW article pointed out that Muskego-Norway School District’s 2007 10th grade WKCE scores were similar to its previous year’s (except for an increase of 4 percentage points in science). By comparison, the New Berlin School District’s test results showed a decrease in the number of proficient and advanced students. NOW stated, “ At West, the number of students who posted proficient or advanced level scores declined by six percentage points in math, seven in reading and language arts, and eight in science. Eisenhower scores in each academic area saw a dip, but smaller than at West, from one percentage point in language arts to five in science.”
In August, the Journal Sentinel reported that ACT scores for the class of 2008 rose at most public schools in Waukesha County. (The test’s composite score averages the results of student performance in 4 areas: English, reading, math and science. ) Muskego-Norway High School posted its highest average composite score ever: 23.2, a four-tenths of a point increase from 2007. New Berlin Eisenhower High School increased its composite ACT score two-tenths of a point (from 23.8 in 2007 to 24 in 2008). However, New Berlin West had a composite score of 22.6--a four-tenths of a point drop from last year. Of the 15 Waukesha County public schools that were listed, only NB West and Oconomowoc’s class of 2008 had lower composite ACT scores than their predecessors.
|
By Linda Richter
Monday, Aug 11 2008, 01:59 AM
Perhaps the New Berlin School Board should send a thank you note to Governor Jim Doyle and the state representatives responsible for the district getting more state aid.
In June, the School Board approved a $52.67 million General Fund budget for 2008-09 with a projected tax levy increase. Indeed, NOW reported: “Budget comes with 4.5 percent tax levy hike, Average homeowner would pay $115 more to operate schools”.
The budget ($52,675,656) & tax levy ($45,301,529) figures were cited in the public notice (July 24 NOW newspaper) of the July 28 District Annual Meeting. However, at the Annual Meeting the electorate was asked to approve a different, lesser tax levy (and tax levy increase) because of an unexpected $3 million state aid “windfall”.
Unexpected? Well, the district's assumption that property valuation would rise by at least 4% was wrong. Additionally, when Dr. Kreutzer’s administration calculated the budget & tax levy-- and presented its recommendations in June, they didn't have some significant data from the state.
According to Ross Mac Pherson, the district’s financial services director, NBPS gets more state aid because ( as reported by NOW )----
- the district benefits from a state aid formula that includes a less than expected increase in equalized property valuation (less than 4%).
- the district drew down its fund balance by $2.9 million last year to fund some building projects
- Gov. Jim Doyle’s insistence that K-12 school aid would be an exception to his zero growth state budget for 2009-10.
It should be noted, though, that state aid is not finalized until October, so things could change.
As for district spending: The proposed 2008-09 $52.67 million Gen. Fund budget approved by the school board is higher than the $51.97 million 2007-08 budget.
|
By Linda Richter
Tuesday, Jun 17 2008, 11:44 AM
People don’t need to buy a paper to get information. Nowadays, many individuals rely on their computer, TV, radio, friends and neighbors for information about what is happening in their communities.
Such alternatives may be perceived as just as or even more convenient, reliable and trustworthy than newspapers. What newspapers omit, as well as what they choose to impart and how, can make them seem less than a balanced, objective news source.
Consider:
In articles before the April 1 election, Muskego-New Berlin NOW reported on Ald. Bill Moore’s political experience--specifically that he had served two terms on the New Berlin School Board, but his opponent JJ Blonien’s ties to controversial former state Senator Tom Reynolds wasn't mentioned. According to information on the internet, Blonien had been Reynold’s staffer and involved in his election campaign. A later (May 1) NOW article stated that Blonien handled Reynold’s election campaign.
Muskego-New Berlin NOW did 3 newspaper stories (April 10, May 1, June 5) about the complaint JJ Blonien filed against WeCare- New Berlin after he lost the April 1 aldermanic election. The Waukesha County DA investigated Blonien’s allegations about WeCare’s pre-election flier and dismissed the complaint. Although the May 1 NOW article referred to Blonien as the former publisher of the Enterprise, a weekly publication covering several Milwaukee area suburbs, that statement was not in the other two news articles. In the third article, Blonien said he’d been involved with the Enterprise in the “80’s and 90’s”, had owned stock in the Enterprise, was “one of eleven stockholders”. His name was on corporation documents. None of the three articles mentioned that Community Newspapers (which publishes the Muskego-New Berlin NOW) bought the Enterprise in 1995.
While Muskego-New Berlin NOW newspaper furnished a soapbox to a losing candidate’s criticisms of a flier supporting his opponent, we’ve seen zero press coverage from the paper about the campaign fliers which attacked incumbent Bill Moore (Blonien’s opponent). Whoever was behind those slimy fliers was too cowardly to put their name on them, identify themselves and take responsibility. The “anonymous” smear fliers carried disclaimers indicating less than $25 had been spent. Considering what it costs to print and distribute a bunch of campaign fliers (for printing costs, paper, ink cartridges, fuel, etc.), spending under $25 does not seem credible. The culprits who produced that flier and dispersed it in Moore’s aldermanic district obviously sought to affect the election, yet circumvent campaign reporting laws and elude accountability. One would think a newspaper would be concerned about that and the lack of transparency.
Evidently, Muskego-New Berlin NOW felt what was said in WeCare-New Berlin’s fliers-and whether it was accurate--was newsworthy. And yet NOW has not done a single newspaper article about New Berlin School Board leaders Keith Heun’s and Matt Thomas’ use of NOW resources to maliciously attack their constituents, spread lies about them, Board policy and a lawsuit. The NOW staff has even refrained from doing an article about Keith Heun’s email “retraction” (posted on Thomas’ blog), which included Heun’s admission that he’d made “inaccurate" statements about certain constituents, Board Policy, the ACLU, and a lawsuit filed against the School District. So, when elected government officials Thomas and Heun mislead, deceive, misinform the public and vilify their constituents, the NOW newspaper looks the other way?
|
By Linda Richter
Wednesday, May 21 2008, 02:45 PM
Matt Thomas’ May 17 The Right Side of New Berlin blog (on New Berlin NOW) features an e-mail message from Keith Heun, in which Heun retracts several comments he had posted May 3-6 to Thomas’ blog about me, some other persons, and the ACLU.
In his “retraction”, Heun asserts some comments he’d posted to Thomas’ blog were “misstatement of facts”; “factually inaccurate”; he’d “inaccurately recalled what had transpired”, etc.
Heun’s “ retraction” letter also admits, “ The fact of the matter is that Policy 1330, revised on 6/23/03, Section 2, Para A. did expressly prohibit political activities in school facilities as the ACLU lawsuit rightly contended."
And four times in his “retraction” letter, Heun “profusely apologizes” for “any misstatement of incorrect information” in his comment, his description of the events” and his “description of the ACLU and individuals” that he mentioned in his comment that he “fully and completely retract”.
Sounds like a heap of legalese.
In plain English, Heun’s inappropriate and outrageous comments (May 3-6) that Matt Thomas published on his blog, are not only vile, vicious personal attacks and rants against me and some others--- they are falsehoods, fibs.
Or put another way, Heun and Thomas spread malicious lies about me, several other individuals and the ACLU. Thomas published information/comments on his blog that grossly distorted and misrepresented the facts pertaining to the Board policy, lawsuit, plaintiffs, me, etc.
In his “retraction”, Heun offers the lame excuse that since 5 years had transpired since the policy was adopted and he wasn’t on the board at the time, he inaccurately recalled what had happened.
Oh, so after School Board Clerk Keith Heun (abetted by School Board President Matt Thomas) spewed venom and falsehoods--- viciously and falsely attacking their constituents and the ACLU-- in a blog that can be viewed by anyone within or outside our community, Heun now pleads ignorance of the true facts? Ignorance of facts that pertain to Board policy and the lawsuit ---and the settlement agreement under which the District/School Board is supposed to be operating? And what’s Thomas’ excuse for publishing Heun’s mean-spirited false allegations, personal attacks, and rants? Was that ignorance or malice? Thomas does not apologize for publishing them or his own untruthful rants--nor has he retracted his words.
Those two taxpayer-funded school board “leaders” are entrusted with our kids education and our tax dollars! Shouldn't they have made it their business to know the facts about Board policy, the lawsuit and settlement agreement? Don't they even bother to get factual information before making decisions or publicly maligning their constituents?
After all, Keith Heun and Matt Thomas have been serving on the New Berlin School Board for 2 ½ years (2005 to present). Both have held Board Officer positions--including Board President. The lawsuit was filed in 2004. The settlement agreement was announced in 2005.
Certainly, their pal Board Member Jennifer Eitel would know about Policy 1330, the lawsuit and settlement. She was serving as Board President when that 1330 revision was adopted in 2003 and is still on the School Board. Furthermore, Heun and Thomas could have consulted James Benfield (Superintendent) and Anthony Goedheer (Business Manager) for information. Both of those administrators were employed in the District at the time and until they recently retired. Contacting the ACLU for information would have been yet another option.
By the way, Heun’s “retraction” was published on Thomas' blog three days after my blog entry titled "Thomas Exit Strategy", which mentions that I’d consulted lawyers last year about personal attacks directed against me.
Additionally, I noticed that Heun’s published “retraction” does not mention:
- The letters to the editor by Heun and Thomas in 2003 in support of the Board’s adopting the Policy 1330 revision. Thomas’ letter attacked Bill Moore, who had objected to the revision.
- The atrocious 1330 policy revision was approved at the 6/23/03 School Board Meeting by a 3-2 vote, with Jennifer Eitel, Matt Weiss and Tim Cramer voting yes. Jennifer Eitel was Board President. Matt Weiss was the Vice President. Tim Cramer was Board Clerk. (All three have been supported by New Berlin Citizens for Responsible Government). Kyle Kramer and Alan McGinty cast the nay votes.
- The lawsuit alleged that the Policy 1330 revision violated Constitutional protections regarding free speech and assembly.
- School Board members take an oath to uphold the Constitution when sworn in to public office.
- Just before the School Board/District was required to respond to the lawsuit, it rescinded its objectionable policy 1330 revision. It quickly adopted a different policy (waiving the usual second reading). Following that sly maneuver, the School Board’s legal counsel requested that the lawsuit be dismissed, arguing that the policy 1330 revision no longer existed. The judge refused and allowed the lawsuit to be amended to cover the new policy hastily adopted by the School Board. Concerns were raised about that replacement board policy--and a legal settlement agreement was eventually obtained.
The misinformation and absurd statements published on Thomas’ blog about the Policy 1330 revision, lawsuit, plaintiffs, etc, compels me to devote a future blog to those topics.
|
By Linda Richter
Wednesday, May 14 2008, 03:21 PM
What is Matt Thomas trying to hide?
Thomas posted a blog Monday announcing that he’s quitting his NOW blog. I noticed that every one of his past posts and the comments posted to them had already been deleted.
It is one thing to stop blogging; it’s quite another to have all past posts and comments removed prior to the blog being taken off the NOW site. Why was that done? What was the rush?
Hmm. Last Friday (May 9), I posted a comment to my blog, informing readers that last year when I consulted attorneys regarding a personal attack made against me publicly by School Board official Keith Heun, I was advised Heun's comments were over the top, libelous and actionable. My comment also stated that an attorney advised that if there was a pattern of our school board members publicly attacking a citizen or citizens, that could be interpreted as intimidation and be considered a civil rights violation.
The following Monday ( May 12). Thomas posted his blog announcing his departure from NOW--and interestingly, all of his previous blog posts and the published comments had vanished from it. That’s right: They were removed, deleted. Poof. All gone.
Quite a coincidence, huh?
So, how does Thomas “spin” it? Thomas offers the excuse that he lacks the “ time and energy to do his blog justice.” And he claims to have “ thought long and hard about the positive direction our district will continue to go in over this next year with our new Superintendent Paul Kreutzer at the helm.”
That’s downright amusing. Of the abrupt disappearance of all his past blog entries and people’s comments he’d posted to his blog site--many of which were exceedingly negative and nasty, Thomas says nothing.
Thomas' pitch about the District continuing to go in a “positive” direction is such a joke. Throughout the 20 months Thomas, a school board official, had a NOW blog, he could have written upbeat, “positive” informative blog pieces about educational issues or other topics. Instead, he often used his blog as a vehicle to bash citizens. In fact, in one of my recent blog articles, I noted that half of Thomas’ blog posts since January 22 mentioned my name in the title. They were rants against me. I’d also discussed Thomas’ peculiar obsession with me in my May 4, 2007 blog.
Thomas’ and his fellow “political strategist” School Board colleague Keith Heun have held public office leadership positions, but have handled scrutiny, criticism, and dissent very poorly. Their “trash-talking” written communications and vendetta against me (and/or some other individuals) have not escaped people’s notice. Instead of setting a “positive” example for their students and NBPS faculty, these school board “leaders” have come across as governmental cyber-bullies utilizing Thomas’ blog to attack, vilify, lash out, or retaliate against their own constituents.
As for Thomas lacking “ time and energy to do his blog justice”, the NOW online editor notified us regular bloggers several months ago that we should post a blog entry a minimum of every 30 days. Evidently, Thomas is unwilling or incapable of communicating information via his blog in a “positive” and respectful manner regularly even once a month.
|
By Linda Richter
Wednesday, May 7 2008, 11:59 PM
Half of Matt Thomas’ New Berlin NOW blog postings since January 22 mentioned me and had my name in the headings. One would think a school board officer/president could find lots of topics other than me to write about. How about educational issues at the local, state or federal level, for starters? Or isn’t he interested in such things? There were numerous recognitions on the agenda of the April 28 New Berlin School Board Meeting. Someone should blog about it. So, here goes:
The board meeting began with Board President Keith Heun flubbing the Pledge of Allegiance. ( See my blog entry Holy School Board! )
After the Pledge of Allegiance, outgoing Board Member Susan Manley was recognized for her board service. Outgoing board members are traditionally honored in this fashion.
The oath of office was administered by Jennifer Eitel to the newly elected school board members-- Dave Maxey and incumbent Art Marquardt (Marquardt was attending by teleconference ). School board members (except Marquardt) voted for their board officers (by secret ballot). Thomas appointed two board members to positions.
Then came recognition of students It was listed on the meeting agenda as:
POPLAR CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
- Brittany Biddle--State D.A.R.E. Essay Winner
NEW BERLIN WEST HIGH SCHOOL
- Byron Butler--WIAA State Champ--100 Yard Butterfly
- Co-op Swim Team Members--WIAA State Qualifiers
NEW BERLIN EISENHOWER MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL
- Basketball Team--Division 2--WIAA State Champions
- Cheerleaders--National Champs, 2nd in State
- Academic Decathlon Team--3rd Place, Division II at State
- Dance Team---3rd in State
- Co-op Swim Team Members--WIAA State Qualifiers
- Woodland Conference Varsity Math Champions
- 2008 State Fair Art Winner
- National Art Competitor
Wow. Congratulations to all of those students and teams for their remarkable achievements. Obviously, New Berlin Public Schools has many talented and hard-working students and athletes.
|
By Linda Richter
Wednesday, Apr 30 2008, 09:57 AM
At Monday’s New Berlin School Board Meeting at City Hall, Board President Keith Heun rose, faced the flag, and asked people to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, which he proceeded to recite with the words, “Our Father…”
Heun’s gaffe had folks in the room chuckling and guffawing.
Perhaps if Heun was more observant and attentive to the task at hand and his official duties, he wouldn’t have confused the flag with God or the Pledge of Allegiance with the Lord’s Prayer. What planet was he on anyway to make such an incredible boo-boo and for it to take the public’s outburst of laughter to remind him he was presiding at a government meeting at City Hall, not a church service?
Hilarious as the incident was, it was not the only wacky and odd event of the meeting.
Art Marquardt, who was re-elected April 1, did not attend Monday’s board meeting in person. Attending instead by teleconference, he was sworn in to public office via the phone. Watching the important oath of public office, including the oath to support the Constitution and State Constitution, administered to him via the phone, was a weird sight to behold.
Furthermore, board members voted for their board officers at Monday’s board meeting by secret ballot. How was attending-by-phone Marquardt supposed to do that? Not surprisingly, he didn’t--Marquardt announced he was refraining from voting for the officers.
Obviously, attending by teleconference is a poor substitute for being physically present. Not only did Marquardt not participate in the selection of the board officers, he could not observe any visual presentations at the meeting--including the numerous recognitions and awards given to New Berlin Public School students that evening.
(By the way, Keith Heun and Art Marquardt had been endorsed and supported by New Berlin Citizens for Responsible Government.)
Oh, and if you haven’t heard, the new School Board officers are: Matt Thomas--President, John Kegel--Vice-President, Keith Heun--Clerk, Joan Doberstein--Treasurer. Marquardt was appointed CESA I Annual Convention Delegate. Dave Maxey was appointed liaison to the New Berlin City Council.
|
By Linda Richter
Sunday, Mar 30 2008, 12:27 AM
New Berlin Citizens for Responsible Government (NBCRG) is using its NOW blog again to endorse candidates for election.
If you’ve heard or read that NBCRG is a civic or watchdog group, don’t be fooled. NBCRG is actually a political action group. In fact, NBCRG states on its own Web site that the group was formed in March 2002 and since its inception, has functioned as a political action committee.
It lists this objective on its Web site: “To recruit and to help elect candidates to public office that best express the positions taken by this organization.” Obviously, NBCRG has a political agenda.
NBCRG functions like an exclusive club, as well. When a taxpaying New Berlin resident contacted NBCRG via email and requested to join the group, she was turned down. NBCRG President Ralph Heun responded that NBCRG was a “private organization”. How do I know this? The outraged woman forwarded copies of their correspondence to my blog. I referred to the situation in a past blog entry called “Private NBCRG; Court Race”
The NBCRG Web site asserts that NBCRG has actively recruited and supported candidates for public office in every year of its existence. However, on its NOW blog, NBCRG President Ralph Heun claims NBCRG has for many years, invited all candidates for public office to its meetings to hear what they had to say and question them--and then NBCRG decides if it wants to make any endorsements. And then it decides? One would think NBCRG would not “actively recruit” candidates for public office that it didn’t intend to endorse.
On its Web site NBCRG states its primary emphasis has been on city and school board races. Hmmm. For the upcoming election, NBCRG is endorsing candidates for County Board, State Supreme Court, School Board, and Aldermanic races.
Isn't it interesting that NBCRG boasts on its Web site that it actively recruits and supports candidates for public office -- and routinely puts disclaimers on campaign fliers that it’s a political action committee which acts independently of and without consultation with any candidate or candidate’s committee?
Here are some other examples of NBCRG communication and operation------
In 2004, NBCRG advertised on its Web site that it was interviewing 3 school board candidates at its meeting and that the public was welcome. I decided to attend and contacted a few others, who expressed interest in attending, too. But when we arrived at the door, we were told that the meeting was “private”. I suspected something like that would happen, so took the precaution of printing out a copy of the NBCRG’s web page re: the meeting (and public being encouraged to attend) and brought it with me. After showing it to the NBCRG member barring our entrance (the former president of New Berlin Taxpayers Alliance) we were allowed to stay--but only for the interviews. After the interviews, NBCRG members asked us to leave because they wanted to have a discussion related to the interviews.
Each of the three school board candidates was interviewed separately and were not asked the same questions. Herb Eggie, who was then president of NBCRG, spent time grilling SB candidate Greg Schoepke about the Heritage Foundation, a Washington DC-based conservative think tank! SB Candidates Brent Chipman and Marc Duff weren’t asked questions about the Heritage Foundation. During his interview, Brent Chipman had little to say of substance. He spouted that taxes were too high and some anti-teacher union rhetoric. In contrast, Marc Duff, a former Wisconsin legislator, was articulate and seemed better informed about the School District. So, who did NBCRG endorse? Brent Chipman. I wasn’t surprised that New Berlin voters elected Marc Duff to the School Board instead of Brent Chipman.
At a 2005 New Berlin School Board Meeting, Herb Eggie gave a privilege of the floor speech touting his New Berlin Citizens for Responsible Government organization. I remember thinking what an inappropriate speech it was and wondering what the topic had to do with children’s education.
A few minutes later, a high school student gave a privilege of the floor speech that caused laughter to erupt in the audience. In his speech, the student remarked that when he and another student had tried to attend a NBCRG meeting, they were told they could stay -- if each put $20 on the table.
|
By Linda Richter
Monday, Mar 10 2008, 11:32 AM
Reminder: No New Berlin School Board Meeting tonight.
NBPS posted the agenda for Tuesday’s scheduled 7 pm Regular Board Meeting ( held in the Eisenhower Library)-----
The Open Session's (which you can attend) Regular agenda includes:
- Approval of Superintendent’s contract
- Future Meeting Dates-- containing the information that the March 17 Regular Board Meeting has been cancelled.
Then following the closed session:
- Approval of finalized contract and retirement agreement for Dave LaBorde (principal at New Berlin West) and retirement agreement for Rich Reinke.
The Closed Session lists these agenda items:
Employee Retirement Agreements
Update on NBEA, SEP and AFSCME Negotiations
Administrator Contracts
Teacher and Long-Term Substitute Final Notices of Non-Renewal
Resignation of Athletic Director
Hiring of Athletic Director
|
By Linda Richter
Thursday, Mar 6 2008, 02:17 PM
Attention: There is no New Berlin school board-work session meeting Monday.
Nor will there be a Regular NB School Board Meeting at City Hall near the end of the month, as usual.
Instead, a Regular New Berlin Board of Education Meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday, March 11 at 7 pm in the Eisenhower School library.
The Tuesday meeting agenda has not yet been posted on the District web site.
|
By Linda Richter
Friday, Feb 15 2008, 01:55 PM
On February 7, 2008, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the New Berlin School Board (and seven other “municipalities”) had no right to intervene in a lawsuit brought by some state employees seeking domestic partner health insurance for their partners from their state employers.
The School Board’s other unsuccessful attempts to join that domestic partner lawsuit were discussed in my 11/3/06 blog entry titled “School Board Strikes Out Once, Twice…."
The Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals-- and now the Wisconsin Supreme Court --have rejected the arguments of the eight “municipalities” (New Berlin School Board, Town of Caledonia, Town of Cottage Grove, City of Green Bay, Village of Hobart, Village of Oostburg, City of Watertown, and Raymond School District) and refused to allow them to intervene in the case.
Some ACLU comments-----
“The court said: ‘The municipalities have shown no special, personal, or unique interest in the present case. Were the municipalities granted a right to intervene upon such grounds, virtually any declaratory action for constitutional review of a statute would present a case in which at least some persons or entities may intervene as a right…’ "
“We are relieved that the court recognized the judicial system would grind to a halt if everyone who was concerned about an issue had a right to get involved as a party.”
“….As has long been clear, the municipalities can explain their views of the legal issues by filing a brief with the court.”
Click on this link for more information.
Are you wondering how the New Berlin School Board got mixed up in this? At the April 25, 2005 School Board Meeting, the Board was asked by Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin) and attorney Michael Dean of the First Freedoms Foundation to intervene in the state workers’ domestic partner lawsuit---- a brazen use of public funds and public entities to further their agendas! Although Dean said he’d represent the School Board without charge for his services, he indicated the District (in other words, us taxpayers) would have to pay the other costs, such as filing fees, paperwork, deposition and court costs.
At that meeting, School Board Member Marc Duff urged his Board colleagues not to act hastily. He argued that the Board should consult first with District legal counsel and discuss the issue before making a decision regarding the lawsuit.
But Duff’s sensible words fell on deaf ears. Minutes later, the School Board under the leadership of then- President Jennifer Eitel (former Holy Apostles School Board President) and Vice-President Matt Weiss (Click on my 3/3/07 and 4/23/07 blog entries for information re: his activism/involvement in a pro-voucher movement & WCVP scandal) voted 5-2 to retain activist attorney Dean and to plunge into the domestic partner lawsuit (by seeking to intervene as defendant).
The activists on the School Board were willing and eager to connect with other activists outside the community and drag the entire District into this mess to further their own political goals. The School Board’s unnecessary hasty action and failure to consult with the District’s own legal counsel to obtain a more objective legal opinion was not “conservative”--it was irresponsible.
|
By Linda Richter
Thursday, Feb 14 2008, 09:37 PM
Happy Valentine's Day!
Today is February 14 and yet:
The most recent New Berlin School Board Meeting minutes posted on the NBPS District Web site are for the November 26, 2007 meeting!
The minutes of the December, January and February School Board Meetings are not yet posted on it.
In contrast, the City of New Berlin Web site is more regularly updated.
Click on the City's Web site, and you can view the minutes of the Common Council or Committee of the Whole Meetings that were just held on February 12---as well as minutes of previous meetings.
|
By Linda Richter
Wednesday, Jan 16 2008, 01:35 PM
A few months ago (at the September 24 New Berlin School Board Meeting), NBPS Administration presented a slew of facility projects, which it described as “dire” facility needs, “important” and “immediate” ---but which had not been budgeted for.
For example: Asphalt at Orchard Lane Elementary (drive, playground areas).
Bob Pulliam, Director of Buildings and Grounds argued that the asphalt was “shot” and described it as a “big problem”. According to Pulliam, the asphalt that was currently in use had never been sealed. Pulliam also said that better drainage was needed.
We are talking pavement upheavals, gigantic holes, loose stones, standing water problems. Obviously, not a good situation to have at an elementary school, especially one that has so many special needs students.
When Board President Keith Heun questioned why it was a safety issue, Joan Paque ( Director of Student Services & formerly Orchard Lane Principal), explained that some of the kids were in wheelchairs --and they’ve had some students catch and flip over because of the asphalt “conditions”!!!
She reported that at least one student had been injured because of the drop in pavement, and students were tripping and falling, especially when playing basketball!!!
And per Orchard Lane Principal Cory Whitsell: students exit through that zone and were “catching stones” on their shoes and tripping. He warned that stones on kid’s shoes were also being dragged into the school building, another identified safety hazard.
At the Oct. 8 Board Meeting, a few facility renovation projects were discussed. Orchard Lane asphalt replacement was again presented as an urgent safety matter--with Administration arguing that the project could be done before snowfall, possibly during teacher’s convention. Administration pointed out that there was no line item in the budget for asphalts and roofs and that the Board would have to decide how it would fund those projects.
New Berlin School Board Member Susan Manley accused the School Board of poor planning and not doing its job properly. That's a valid observation.
After all, the so-called “fiscally conservative” School Board/District had been primarily fixated on two “showy” facility projects and funneled mega-millions into them----
- the humongous new Reagan Elementary School, which boasts such “frills” as mosaic floor tile, wooden ceiling, and outside electric scrolling sign
- New Berlin West renovations that include an extravagant new Field House and cavernous auditorium
Meanwhile, a number of significant, important projects at District schools were neglected, overlooked, or put off, such as Orchard Lane asphalt replacement. Because the School Board/District had failed to allocate the necessary funds, Orchard Lane’s asphalt continued to deteriorate, endangering children. To Superintendent Paul Kreutzer’s credit, he has pushed the School Board to take care of these “dire” needs.
At the Oct. 8 Board Meeting, the motion “ To approve commencement of work on the asphalt project at Orchard Lane at the lowest possible bid, and (friendly amendment) to fund an amount not to exceed $270,000 to identify maintenance projects this year” passed on a 4-3 vote, with Manley, Matt Thomas, and John Kegel dissenting.
|
By Linda Richter
Thursday, Jan 3 2008, 01:10 AM
New Berlin School Board Member Susan Manley filed non-candidacy papers, signally her intent not to run for re-election. See news report.
It didn’t surprise me one bit.
When District Administration presented several projects at the September 24 School Board Meeting, that were described as “important”, “immediate”, & “dire" needs --but which had not been currently budgeted for, Mrs. Manley was quite dismayed.
She expressed “frustration” that “critical issues” at New Berlin West and Reagan School were on the list--grumbling that the School Board had spent a lot of money on those two schools. She conveyed “frustration” that some of those “critical needs” weren’t taken care of with the $33 million spent renovating West.
And then she voted against proceeding with the proposed roofing and air quality plans. However, the motion passed 4-2. (She and Matt Thomas were the dissenters)
When it met in October, the School Board discussed increasing the tax levy to address some of the more “pressing” needs identified in September by Administration, such as Eisenhower’s leaky roof, and huge holes in asphalt at Orchard Lane School. Mrs. Manley was again agitated and "frustrated". Referring to the "taxpayers", and fretful about how they'd react, Mrs. Manley complained that "we" (presumably she/the School Board) had not planned properly and hadn’t done its job right.
Mrs. Manley chose to vote against the motion/amendment “ to approve the commencement of work on the asphalt project at Orchard Lane at the lowest qualified bid-- and to fund an amount not to exceed $270,000 to identify maintenance projects this year”. The motion passed 4-3. (Mrs. Manley, Matt Thomas, John Kegel cast the no votes).
During Mrs. Manley’s tenure on the School Board, I emailed her a few times, but got no response--no email reply, no letter, no phone call, no attempt to speak with me at a School Board Meeting, and no answers from her to the questions I posed in my email messages. Nothing.
Hopefully, the Board Member who replaces Susan Manley in April will be more responsive to constituents, take greater initiative/action to be well- informed about District needs or problems, and will consider safety of students and staff a top priority.
|
By Linda Richter
Wednesday, Dec 19 2007, 11:54 PM
The New Berlin School Board’s request to continue holding regular monthly and any related special meetings at City Hall was approved by aldermen (4-2 vote) at the October 9 Common Council Meeting.
So, the School Board gets to use City Hall. And it does not pay a user fee.
That's ironic, considering-----
- We New Berlin residents/taxpayers aren’t allowed to use City Hall for meetings. (although our taxes pay/paid building, maintenance, repair, and utility costs for the facility) Community and citizen groups including Scout troops and charitable organizations, are not permitted to have their meetings at City Hall. We can not have voters forums there, either. Why? Because the Common Council adopted a policy last year restricting the use of our City Hall to City staff, local elected and appointed officials, and Federal legislatures.
- The School Board has imposed user fees on the City (and other groups) for school facility use. But the School Board wants or expects to use City facilities (City Hall) for free?!!!! What a double standard. (Of course, our taxes pay/paid building, maintenance, repair and utility costs for school facilities, too).
- Last August, the School Board unilaterally canceled a contract signed in 1968 that required the District and City to negotiate any changes to that agreement, including changes in charges (such as increases) for use of school facilities (mostly by Park & Rec. Dept.). The SB unilaterally opted to charge for school facility use and sent a new contract to the City. See NewBerlinNow article containing this quote: “This is not going to be a negotiated contract with the city, board president Keith Heun said. “It’s going to be ‘here’s our terms and conditions'.” ( The SB was unwilling to negotiate a contract? It resorted to 'my way or the highway' -type stance and swagger?!)
- The Common Council voted on December 11 to table its meeting agenda item “Agreement for Use of School Facilities-NB School District” after the City Attorney indicated there's an issue regarding any additional charges that may come up and how they are handled that needs to be resolved. There was some discussion on this topic at the Dec. 10 School Board Meeting, too.
- At the December 10 School Board Meeting, District Superintendent Paul Kreutzer assured the School Board that the Use of School Facilities Agreement does not give preferential treatment to the City. The District could choose to approve requests by groups for school facility use on a first come, first serve basis, give city groups higher priority than county groups, or whatever. It was also mentioned that some groups made it known they’d like to reserve a school facility for the maximum time the District would allow.
|
More Posts Next page »
|
|
