I posted this Last minute dirty trick by a school board member? the day of the election.

These "Vote YES for Schools" signs with the spray paint on them popped up all over town on April 3rd. They were clearly from some other referendum or school issue; that is why the spray paint is covering up something.

Several of the signs were in front of the Century Centre property on Greenfield, and when I stopped to look at them, they did not seem to be compliant with campaign sign regulations. The disclaimer was not from either group registered for this referendum, VoteNOApril3 or LEGACY, and it did not list who the treasurer was for this new group. All it had on it was, Paid for and Authorized by Elmbrook Cares and then a sticker with Steve Schwei 262-780-0581.

Since Steve Schwei is my school board representative, I thought this was in violation of the policy that the board was not to advocate for the referendum.

So I contacted Brad Schimel, Schimel.Brad@mail.da.state.wi.us , our District Attorney for Waukesha County.

I am including all of his correspondence so you can see what the campaign regulations are. They were not what I expected.


Dear Mr. Prast,

Thank you for your email. You raise several issues, which I will address individually.

It is not illegal for Mr. Schwei to advocate for or against a referendum when acting as a private citizen. I do not have enough information to conclude that he is acting in any official capacity. The fact that he is on the school board does not prohibit him from taking actions as a citizen. (The same rule that applied to Matt Gibson addressing the Common Council about the referendum as a private citizen.)

Before I could determine whether Elmbrook Cares or Steve Schwei committed a campaign finance violation, I would need to know whether they have received contributions, made disbursements or incurred obligations in excess of $25 during this calendar year, and if so, whether they filed a registration statement. You stated that you do not think that Elmbrook Cares filed a registration statement. Did they?

You talk about many illegal signs having been posted by the "Yes group." This is the first I have heard of any complaint. Is there more information that you wish me to consider? What is illegal in nature about the sign you have posted?

I am curious about the blue spray paint on the sign posted on your blog. Do you know who painted that on the sign and what it is covering up?

Brad Schimel

Me to Brad,

They were used for a previous campaign I believe, maybe the last referendum from 2000. I believe they must have had the issue they were for under the spay paint. They are all like that.

So you are saying we could save our vote no signs and not register again if we did not collect any more funds? I thought the disclaimer was incorrect since it says it was paid for and authorized by Elmbrook Cares. Steve Schwei name and phone number, but does not say who Steve Schwei is in relation to Elmbrook Cares. Usually it says, John Doe, Treasurer or Candidate.

The illegally placed yes signs are up to 9 per property. In Brookfield we only allow 1 per address per street face. Last mayoral campaign Cindy Kilkenny was given 10 days to remove her overly large signs from private residences. This referendum is not being enforced that way. The police will remove the excess signs or those placed on city property, but only if a resident calls in the offending address.

Kyle

Brad back to me,

Mr. Prast,

The spray paint looks pretty shabby. Maybe they were trying to look impoverished. Apparently that message was not persuasive.

In terms of reusing signs, yes, if a group/individual saves them and reuses them, they could potentially come under the $25 expenditure threshold and avoid the requirement that they register.

Unless the group was required to register and failed to do so properly, I think the disclaimer is adequate. It certainly gives sufficient information from which one could identify who is responsible for the sign.

The restrictions on the placement and number of signs is a matter for the municipal ordinances.

Brad Schimel

So there you have it. Outside of the signs being place too near the roadway (I don't know if the property owners gave permission or not), Mr. Schimel says they were OK.

As for the official Vote Yes signs, after the replacements came in, the new ones were still placed in a non-compliant way 2 and 3 to a property. But that's a municipal ordinance.



I do thank you for all your correspondence. I have enjoyed hearing from you. Keep the emails coming! Someone did send an anonymous comment that they were for the referendum (the only one ever received). I do want to respond to that and hope to get to it soon, but today I need to attend to some of the many things I did not have time for

Certainly every parent wants to know their children are safe while at school. The district knows this too and makes it one of their reasons to vote for the referendum.

On Elmbrook’s “Fact” sheet #1, it states: “While it is now standard equipment in most high schools, neither Brookfield Central nor Brookfield East has a closed circuit security television system for monitoring activity in the hallways, common areas, or parking lots and for monitoring access to over 60 outside doors at each school.”

There is one BIG FACT missing from this sheet. The FACT that next year, the cameras will be installed regardless of referendum passage. Principal LaBonte told us this little known fact when I toured Central last month.

Here is another FACT you may be interested in. Other area schools have been in the process of getting their cameras installed for a few years now, working their way, school by school through their districts--without a referendum.

Time to dispel another fallacy: These cameras are not to protect against Stranger Danger or terrorist intrusion. I think when most people hear the words security system or closed circuit security cameras they immediately conjure up the image of the security checkpoint at the Pentagon!

THIS is NOT what these cameras are for. These cameras are primarily to monitor STUDENT activity, not STRANGER activity.

A recent Brookfieldnow article stated, “In a time when many high schools around the nation have dealt with incidents of school violence, a closed-circuit security television system is necessary to monitor activity in the hallways, common areas and parking lots, according to principals.”

Remember that most high school violence is caused by students, not strangers. The cameras record motion in the hallways or wherever they are mounted, and that information is stored for future use. As a rule, it is not monitored continually during the day as we would think of a closed circuit television system. It is only there if there is an incident, they can see who was involved.

While on the mechanical tour of Central, the guide told us that one of the stairways in the 3 story addition was seldom used. I asked why, since I had heard the other stairways were so crowded. He hesitated, then said, they were too isolated and things happened in the stairwells.

Whether we are talking hanky-panky or bullying or drug deals, I don’t know. I do know going back to the concept of a hall monitor might help. In any event, this is not a STRANGER problem; it is a STUDENT problem.

The real question is: Why has Elmbrook neglected this “need” until now?

Could it be the same reason they have neglected other standard maintenance issues? They are trying to present a needier picture of our high schools than there really is, and in the case of security cameras, they will be installed next year—even without the referendum.

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

When I was on the mechanical tour last weekend, I did watch the “informative” video playing in the lobby. (I cannot call it unbiased.) I kept waiting for the commercial to break in.... (Read this in your best announcer voice.)

...And now a word from our sponsor, your Elmbrook School District.

...They brought you referendum, after referendum, after referendum, after referendum, from 1991 to 1995, until the 5th one for Swanson finally passed.

...The ones who brought you the Swanson Swap that you only found out about before the fact because of a leak to the press.

...The same gang who, after the community spoke out loud and clear to save Swanson, tried to change our school district from a Unified to a Consolidated School District so they wouldn’t need public permission to sell school property ever again. (That measure failed.)

...The same group who purposely neglected maintaining our high schools for at least the past 6 years and then have the nerve to whine about our school’s condition. (This is solvable.)

...Don’t forget our board’s approval of that “needed” 4K program, overriding the publics' displeasure of adding another $67 to our tax bills. It required dipping into our reserves to implement. (It still has some openings, and they said it was such a need?)

...And, last but not least, don’t forget my favorite: the $2.5 million dollar tax bite (defeasance) they took out of your wallet last year on your 2006 property tax bill. NOT TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, but to invest!

When we voted in 2000 for the 2 new grade schools, we approved that referendum for $17,900,000 not an additional pre funding investment scheme.

Anyway, I thought you should remember who the SPONSOR is of this referendum.

Is it a name you can trust?

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Someone gave me their Vote Yes postcard yesterday, so I could take a look at it. (I did not receive one because I do not have children in the district.)

The first thing I noticed was that it was an appeal to the emotions. It asks: ...if you would FEEL compelled to help. It then portrays a list of below average and failing grades for various components in the high schools.

I don’t know what they based these grades on. To me a failing grade would mean it does not meet minimal standards—that it does not function at a reasonable expectation. Example: Mechanical Systems: “F” to me would mean we consistently have interrupted or inadequate service for heat, lights, water, electricity, etc. Anyway, that is their opinion; these grades are not based on facts. The school district's own literature contradicts those bad grades, stating that the schools have been "well maintained" (within operating budgets).

But this is one FACT they got WRONG: No opinion, it is simply incorrect.
And it's in regard to a major component: the price.

They state that the COST is roughly 50 cents a day.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

THE REAL COST IS ROUGHLY 94 CENTS A DAY.

I added up all of the columns on the district’s cost calculator for referendum question #1 and #2, and it totaled $6,837.65 for an average Brookfield home of $335,000. (That is the number the district has been using, if you would add Elm Grove’s average home value into the mix, that number would be higher).

The postcard also listed various other problems below the report card that I don’t believe are accurate. Hopefully I will address them in a future piece.

I realize the question of the high school referendums is something that can be looked at from both sides: the proverbial water glass half full or empty. BUT one must portray the fact of the glass’ contents accurately or the merit of the argument does not hold water!

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

If you took the tour of Brookfield Central, no doubt you were shown that classroom with only 3 functioning outlets. I have spoken to other people who toured at differing times, and they said they were shown those outlets too.

My tour group consisted of an Elmbrook student parent, a resident electrical contractor, and myself. Principal LaBonte made a point of showing my tour group this room as an example of how the high schools were in such dire need of upgrades.

As I glanced around that room, I could not help but notice a whole bank of surface mounted outlets and data ports running along the wall. There were over 10 of them. “What about these?” I asked. The principal made some lamenting mention of how those were part of some grant years ago, but the project was never finished, because THEY RAN OUT OF FUNDS.

Our little tour trio looked at each other and said, “What?”

The electrical contractor said that was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard of. Why was the job started and left unfinished? The contractor should have been made to finish the job.

I said it was, “Shameful”. The principal looked at me questioningly. I said it was shameful that the normal maintenance staff electricians did not finish the job in-house.

Principal LaBonte said he did not know much about it; the project was before his time at the school.

I did a little digging about the woeful long since abandoned electrical/data port outlet project.

The wiring project was part of an Oct. 18, 2001 “TEACH Technology Wiring Loan.” totaling “$1,153,374.50”, according to Bob Borch.

According to Dave Ross, Elmbrook’s Director of Facilities Management, The TEACH Wisconsin project “provided for data wiring and extra panels and outlets for computers throughout the district--for some strange reason, it did not provide for energizing those panels (running wire to activate). When we originally went out for bid, the cost for energizing the panels was broken out in the bid package. If I remember correctly, that cost was about $1.5 million - a bad case of sticker shock ensued.

Realizing that we needed to get things up and running, our electricians took on all the service upgrades and energizing of panels that needed to be done with the exception of the high schools. Of course it was done over time but saved the district about $400,000.

The high schools weren't done because at that time, the conversation was starting about what needed to be done with the high schools.”

The other schools in our district were finished in-house, which was a good way to complete the project. BUT IT WAS THE DISTRICT’S CHOICE NOT TO COMPLETE THE HIGH SCHOOL WIRING PROJECT, BECAUSE THEY WERE ANTICIPATING THE COMING REFERENDUM.

It is one thing to make a decision not to do something, it is quite another to make that decision and then point out that lack as evidence that we need an improvement referendum!

Energizing the system would be difficult. After the fact projects usually are. But they managed to complete all the other schools. Other school districts frequently do this kind of work. If our district had no plan to complete it, why was it started in the first place?

That project was 6 years ago. If this referendum does not pass, it will be how many more years of “only 3 working outlet” woes?

My tour guide pointed this out as an example of our facility needs. I point this out as an example of how our district manages our facilities.

"The Tale of Three Outlets" tell it all!

Reader Comments:

Reader 1: The outlet story is another prime example of waste, poor planning and mismanagement... ...Also, if the outlets were so needed six years ago, and the referendum just a pipe dream, how did the students manage for so long without them? The board just doesn't understand that past decisions catch up with them sooner or later. There's another million that could have been spent more wisely."

Reader 2: "Thank you for addressing this in you blog. This was brought up during our tour as well...and we had the same reaction that you had. The principal was able to pay for phones in each classroom out of his budget...he was also able to pay for the upcoming video surveillance that will be installed next year - regardless of the outcome of the vote (which of course is never mentioned in all of their "Facts" sheets about lack of security.) Money could have been found to finish this project as well over the last 6 years. Gross negligence and deception on behalf of the district."

Reader 3: "I am so disgusted. The district never recognizes how much of the taxpayer's money they've wasted with their poor administrative practices. Matt Gibson smiles and tells you how you don't love your children if you don't give him the money he wants. Humbug!"

Reader 4: "Great article today!! Just like Walter Reed Hospital, they held off fixing because the new one opens in two years and lo

ONLY 23 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!


A reader told me they have tables set up in the halls of East to register 18 year old students to vote. They probably are doing it at Central too.

Maybe they do this prior to every election? But speaking as a parent, I would not like this procedure of registering at school, because I could not share in this milestone event.

Registering to vote was one of those important parent/child firsts for me to witness: first steps, first day of school, first time behind the wheel of the family car, first car, first vote.

What do you think?

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield

Only 27 days before Millions of Dollars Tuesday

Yes, that is right. Matt Gibson, Superintendent of Elmbrook Schools, spoke before the Brookfield Common Council last night! He was allowed about 10 minutes of public comment time. (The school district only gives residents 2 minutes to speak to the board before cutting them off.) Matt used his 10 minutes to promote the $108.8 million dollar referendum. (I thought the district was neutral on the referendum?) He also handed out a tri-fold flier to all the aldermen and staff.

Keep in mind; speaking before the council, at the public comment time, is done not only to address the council and gallery audience, but it is also an opportunity to speak to the wider cable broadcast audience.

The mayor already indicated in a Nov. 3, 2006 article, Officials back school plans, that he did not think the extra $287 dollars a year was too much to ask. (It has gone up since then)

That article stated, “Asked whether the projected cost and tax impact were in an acceptable range, Speaker said the costs were necessary to maintain local property values and educational achievement. Speaker said, ‘$287 to me is not a bad investment. To me, we have to look at keeping the School District competitive.’ ”

To our mayor, that extra $287 may not seem like a hardship. He does make $123,263 a year in salary and benefits--it is only about .23% of Speaker's income (not including other household income). But what about retired residents whose incomes are only in the $20,000 range? They would probably tell you an extra 1% is too much to ask.

Dr. Gibson’s speaking before the council last night and Mayor Speaker’s support of the referendum seems just too cozy to me. We know in the past, during the Swanson Swap, there had been cooperation between school district and city.

What do you think about this cooperation?

One reader contacted me to say that legally, Dr. Gibson can advocate for the referendum on his own time as a citizen. I might ask, since he is a salaried employee, how do you define own time? Plus, not everything legal is necessarily right.

P.S. FYI: Dr. Gibson just received a raise, his new salary for the 2007-08 school year will be $142,230 (not sure if that is including benefits).

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield