Evidently, another administrator at New Berlin Public Schools has resigned.   

Approval of Resignation of Curriculum Director is listed on the April 20 New Berlin School Board Meeting agenda.

District Financial Services Coordinator (business manager) Ross MacPherson quit recently. He had been unanimously approved by the New Berlin School Board as Financial Services Coordinator on October 22, 2007.  He resigned from NBPS and left in the midst of the 2008-09 school year.  The New Berlin School Board accepted his resignation at the February 23, 2009 Board Meeting.

New Berlin School Board Policy states:

Board members and administrators have an obligation to provide educational leadership. The public expects the best in educational expertise, communication, decision-making and planning. However, all decisions and policies of the Board - Administration team must be gauged and tested against two facts: SCHOOLS ARE FOR STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.

School Board candidate Susan Manley talks a lot about tax dollars, ie: tax levy freeze, taxes, controlling spending, cost-benefit, etc.

But it’s troubling that $ terms are abundant in Mrs. Manley's campaign rhetoric but there is little or no mention of students or educational matters, academic programs, student performance and achievement, student services, or students’ health and safety. 

SCHOOLS ARE FOR STUDENTS.  One would think students' education and safe schools would be a School Board priority.

Apparently, not for all board members, though:   

At the Oct. 8, 2007 School Board Meeting, Superintendent Paul Kreutzer presented a slew of facility projects he called “dire”, important and immediate needs, but which had not been budgeted for. He informed the School Board of a hazardous situation at Orchard Lane Elementary School. Because the district and board had failed to allocate necessary funds, the asphalt at that school had deteriorated, endangering children. There was uneven pavement, huge holes, loose stones, standing water. The School Board was told by administration that children in wheelchairs were “catching and flipping over”, children were tripping and falling, at least one child had been injured because of the asphalt conditions, and loose gravel on kids shoes was being dragged into the school building. See my January 16, 2008 blog entry. 

Dr. Kreutzer urged the School Board to take care of the “dire” facility needs pronto. A motion was made to “ 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.”  It passed 4-3.   Who voted against it? Susan Manley, Matt Thomas and John Kegel.

In a letter recently published in the Waukesha Freeman, John Kegel endorsed Susan Manley, claiming that she has the experience to “prioritize” spending.

Susan Manley served on the New Berlin School Board from April 2005-08. Instead of running for re-election, she took a year off. Now she’s running for one of the seats that will be vacated when Jennifer Eitel and Keith Heun’s terms expires in April. 

I emailed Mrs. Manley during her 3-year term on the School Board. She never responded in any way to my emails.  Not surprisingly, I concluded that being responsive to a member of the public/taxpaying constituent was unimportant to her.

Alderman Dave Ament was sitting in the audience at today’s candidate forum at New Berlin West School.  Isn‘t that rather hypocritical?   Dave Ament, you may recall, was one of four New Berlin aldermen in 2006 who voted to limit the use of City Hall facilities to government units, thus barring citizen groups from using them. Their action put an end to voters forums at City Hall.

Whenever I think about voters forums in our community,  I remember Jean Crotty, who died last year at age 82.  She ran candidate forums for many years. Several years ago, Ms. Crotty asked if I would assist her with an aldermanic forum she was having and moderating at City Hall. The forum would be broadcast on the City cable channel. Ms. Crotty simply wanted me to operate the camera.  Although this task was unpaid and meant giving up some hours of my time on a Saturday, I was happy to help her out and said yes. A few days later, Ms. Crotty called again.  Sounding terribly distraught and apologizing multiple times, she told me that Ted Wysocki, who was mayor at the time, objected to my assisting her with the forum and told her to get someone else. I felt very sorry for Ms. Crotty, who seemed so distressed and hastened to assure her that it was ok. I thought it was very petty of Ted Wysocki, though.

In 2002, as an incumbent, I participated in a candidate forum held at one of our District elementary schools. Rules were announced at the onset of the forum. We were instructed to give a brief opening speech, stick to issues and not make personal attacks. I listened and complied with those rules. My speech was about what I had accomplished on the School Board and hoped to achieve if re-elected. Then came my opponent Jennifer Eitel’s turn to give her opening speech. Did she obey the forum rules, concentrate on issues, present facts? Heck no. She immediately launched into a vicious personal attack against me--even accusing me of harassing our church pastor to get dirt on her! Needless to say, Mrs. Eitel’s accusations were untrue. But that didn't stop her from including them in her campaign fliers and on a radio broadcast. Ironically, Mrs. Eitel and her running mates had earlier signed a pledge against making personal attacks.  My father-in-law had suffered a massive stroke at the beginning of the year, continued to deteriorate and died in April on election day. Dealing with my family’s grief at his suffering and loss was of far greater importance to me than Mrs. Eitel’s false allegations and shenanigans.

The next year, Jennifer Eitel was elected to the New Berlin School Board and became Board President. Not long afterward, she contended she wanted to “get politics out of our schools” and promoted a School Facilities Use policy change that prohibited political speech in school facilities and specifically banned candidate forums. The School Board (by majority vote) approved that atrocious policy change.  By the way, when Jean Crotty requested the use of the district cable channel to announce a voters forum she was having at City Hall, New Berlin Public Schools denied her request, citing the policy. The District’s lawyer maintained that the cable channel could be construed as a “facility”.    The School Board stubbornly clung to their awful policy which trampled on people’s Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly, despite a public outcry--- until the District/Board was ultimately sued. And guess what? When the School Board was legally required to respond to the lawsuit, it backed down and rescinded the policy.

So, Jennifer Eitel participated in voters forums in District school facilities when running for office. After election, she decried “politics in our schools” and took action to get political speech/candidate forums banned. Today, not only was Mrs. Eitel sitting in the audience at the candidate forum at New Berlin West Middle-High School, she actively participated by submitting a card with a question for the candidates.      Quite a flip-flop.  

Drug Testing is on tonight’s New Berlin School Board Meeting agenda.

At the Feb. 9 School Board Meeting, there was a lively debate regarding a random drug testing for students administrative proposal:

Jennifer Eitel called drug testing an unnecessary step that sends the wrong message. She reminded the School Board that in America, you’re innocent until proven guilty.

Random drug testing creates an atmosphere of mistrust among students, parents and school district.

Eitel stressed educational options, asserting that drug awareness programs and bringing in good speakers to talk to kids is a better plan than random drug testing.

The drug testing proposal presented by administration on Feb 9 targeted student athletes and may extend to kids involved in other extra-curricular activities. That irked Eitel, who contended the proposal’s focus was on the wrong kids: Eitel argued that in her 6 years on the Board, students coming before the Board in expulsion hearings were not usually the ones involved in athletics/co-curriculars,

Eitel denounced the drug testing proposal as a “feel good” policy that makes it sound like the District/Board were doing something---but which wouldn’t really accomplish what they want.

There are studies indicating that drug testing has little or no positive impact on drug use that back up her claim.

The threat of random testing might actually cause some kids to avoid school/ extracurricular activities, increasing their risk for drug use.

Some kids may turn to drugs that aren’t included in the testing.

To avoid detection, some marijuana users might switch to a “harder” drug that doesn’t stay in the system as long.

Testing is not fool-proof. False positives and other errors can occur.

There are also other issues with random drug testing----such as privacy, confidentiality, and cost. Hopefully, those will be given careful thought and adequately addressed. 

Because four people are running for mayor and there are six New Berlin School Board candidates (for 2 seats), a primary election is necessary. The primary is on February 17 and the general election, April 7.

Our representative form of government depends on an informed citizenry. People should be as informed as possible when they go to the polls to vote.

Thanks to the efforts of some civic-minded people, New Berlin will have two voters forums:

A pre-primary mayoral candidate forum is scheduled for Saturday, Feb 7 from 1-3 pm. Marta Broge is the facilitator.

A mayoral and school board public forum sponsored by the Rotary Club of New Berlin is set for Saturday, March 14, 1-3 pm.

* Both forums will be held at New Berlin West Middle-High School at 18695 W. Cleveland Ave.

New Berlin Public Schools and the folks putting on the voters forums are performing a great community service. I understand that the forums will be broadcast. That’s wonderful, too.

Unfortunately, there won’t be a school board candidate forum before the primary.

However, NBPS could take action to bridge that gap by providing election and candidate information on its District Web site.

I called New Berlin Public Schools Superintendent Paul Kreutzer yesterday and suggested he look at the Elmbrook School District Web site. In addition to election information, that Web site features profiles of each candidate running for their school board, candidates’ answers to a couple of basic questions, and publicizes an upcoming voters forum being held at Elmbrook Schools Central Administrative Office.

I don’t see why the New Berlin School District couldn’t emulate such a positive and helpful use of technology to inform/educate people about the upcoming elections and candidates running for school board.  

I also informed Dr. Kreutzer that a Muskego-Norway Public Schools’ parent told me he gets a booklet in the mail annually containing profile information about that district’s school board candidates.

* Why aren’t the voters forums taking place at City Hall or broadcast on the City’s cable channel?  In 2006, the New Berlin Common Council passed a resolution that established policies limiting the use of City Hall facilities to government units, thus barring citizen groups from using them. It put an end to voters forums at City Hall and use of the City cable channel to broadcast such forums.  Alderman Harenda made the motion to approve it. It passed 4-3 with Aldermen Harenda, Ament, Hopkins and Gallagher voting yes (Aldermen Moore, Augustine and Hegeman voted no)

Those awful exclusionary policies remain in effect.

The January 14 Journal Sentinel newspaper editorial “She’s Back!”,  which criticizes Milwaukee Public Schools Board Member Charlene Hardin, reminds us that $2,500 from the district was spent for a Philadelphia conference on school safety that “she barely attended”.

The editorial ends with the expressed hope that Hardin, who fell nine signatures short of the required number needed to get on the spring ballot, will decide against running as a write-in candidate in the Feb. primary or April general election.

Well, the criticism of Hardin is justified.  Elected officials should honor their commitments, not shirk them.  Unfortunately, some don’t. They’ll put other interests first, “barely attend” yet expect continued support.

Hardin “barely attended” that out- of-state conference. Of course, that was irresponsible. 

But isn't it also disturbing when public officials are habitual “no shows” at  government meetings?        

Remember Donna Rathsack? Wasn't it galling that New Berlin Public School District funds (from our taxes) were spent on Rathsack’s salary when she rarely attended meetings in person while serving on the New Berlin School Board?  

And Matt Thomas, you may recall, collected a salary (from our taxes) when he was listed in a Journal Sentinel article as one of the Waukesha County Board Supervisors with the worst meeting attendance record.

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.

“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.

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.

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: 

Update on Start of School

Electronic Board Packet

Resignations