It's About Oshkosh Students

School Board Meeting

2010-10-13T21:17:00.000-05:00

WOW, my frustration level with so many of the comments at the board meeting tonight is extreme. Ill informed speakers, board members who do not listen, understand or even know their role!

I agree with the comments made by Dr. Lowenstein, once again the board refuses to listen to the voters who APPROVED a referendum to exceed the caps to do an additional $1.3M in building repairs. No courage by this board, very disappointing. Well if the boiler goes out at E Cook you can thank the majority of the board who voted against replacing the 55 YEAR old boilers, knowing that if they do go out the "emergency repair" will be significantly more expensive. Not to mention disruptive to the students' education since they would be displaced from their building for a minimum of 6 weeks.

A full 3 people spoke at the budget forum...lots of words, not a lot of sense. Where exactly were the people who spoke at those budget hearings in January asking the board to raise taxes to keep schools open, fix our buildings and not cut programs?

Very frustrating and disappointing evening. Not that too many seem to care.

Never Say Never

2010-09-09T10:05:00.004-05:00

Well I said I was done blogging about the school district and now as is a woman's prerogative, I've changed my mind.

I must admit, I've become increasing cynical about this district and where it is headed. The last few weeks however I have seen some rays of hope.

The board members for the most part are interested in moving forward rather than rehashing the past. Generally board members treat each other with respect and seem willing to listen to each other. Time will tell...

I have attended the two board retreats that have been held thus far, one on finance and one on board governance. A lot of information was provided and while I'm impatient for discussion and decisions I am hopeful that will happen sooner rather than later.

I was also reserving judgement on whether the hiring of Dr. Viegut as superintendent was the right decision for the district. One thing I am sure of is Dr. Viegut is exceptional at hiring administrators. I have had the opportunity to observe, on several occasions, the newly hired administrators and I couldn't be more impressed with all three of them.

Ms. Rottier, Director of Assessment and School Improvement is intelligent, eloquent, and knowledgeable. She is also personable and upbeat.

Dr. Gundlach, Deputy Superintendent has been extremely impressive, his ability to clearly explain our glaring technology needs after being in the district for such a short time is truly amazing. He has already proved he is an asset to our district.

The final new central office administrator hired is the one I was most skeptical about - Mr. Tess, former math teacher hired as Executive Director of Business Services. I wondered just how a former Math teacher would be able to handle the complexity of a $100,000,000 budget. After watching the Sept. 8th board meeting I have my answer. Mr. Tess is not only clearly knowledgeable about school finance he is very adept at explaining the budget in an easy to understand format. I just hope the naysayers don't drive him out of the district like they did most of his predecessors.

I was going to continue with the possible levy increase but since the board members have yet to make their thoughts known on this issue I will wait until after their retreat on the budget.

Curious if others have thoughts on any of the new hires?

LAST POST

2010-02-11T08:51:00.002-06:00

Last night's board meeting was the last straw for me. After listening to incredibly eloquent students explain to the board what this will mean to them, with very little discussion the board unanimously dismissed the students' concerns and voted to cut 35 teachers. If each teacher teaches 5 classes that is potentially 175 fewer classes between the 2 high schools.

After following the school board for 12 1/2 years I shouldn't be surprised by this vote but I still can't believe the vote was unanimous, Schneider and Becker's votes didn't surprise me but Karen Bowen, and John Lemberger's vote did shock me, they work at a University, from their brief comments I guess they believe that it won't really end up being that may classes. I am deeply disappointed and just don't have it in me anymore to care what the board does next --- whatever it is, it won't be good. I am just biding my time till my youngest graduates (2 years) and then I can move out of this district.

I'll leave this post up for about a week then this blog will be gone. Thanks to those of you who have contributed civil comments.

Bye

WHO SHOULD FILL THE BOARD VACANCY?

2009-12-10T22:37:00.002-06:00

I wish I had the answer to that question. I don't feel like there is enough information about the applicants and what their views on the major issues are. Only Mr. Lowenstein gave any indication of where he stood on the issues. I hope the board plans to interview these candidates to obtain more information. I am torn on applicants who are not interested in running for a seat on the board. I just can't decide if that is a plus or a minus. I am pleased that most of the applicants seem to genuinely care about the students and aren't trotting out the "no taxes" mantra. From what has been presented so far, I think any one of the candidates would be a more positive force on the board than some previous or current members.

So what do you think?

WHAT SHOULD THE BOARD DO NOW?

2009-12-01T16:32:00.002-06:00

Well I find myself without an opinion, which is very rare for me. Turns out due to the date of the resignation, the open seat will be on the April 2010 ballot... so should the board appoint someone to serve until April, or should the seat remain vacant and be filled with the #3 vote getter in the April election?

I can see pluses and minuses to both options. Any thoughts out there?

Monte has Resigned from Board of Education

2009-12-01T12:07:00.003-06:00

I just received an update Board of Education package for the Dec. 2nd meeting and Resolution #4 reads:

*4 Acknowledgment of Board of Education Member Michelle Monte’s Resignation  Board President

# 11 reads: *11 Calendar to Fill the Vacant Board of Education Member Position

I guess even Ms. Monte understands that missing that many meetings in a row makes one ineffective, I am glad she is doing the right thing in resigning. The effective date of her resignation is Nov. 24, 2009

Wonder how long it will take to get 4 votes for a replacement?

SO MUCH FOR 100%

2009-11-30T21:06:00.005-06:00

I know I haven't posted in almost a year...lots of reasons, my frustration at the makeup of the board, lots of time spent at my daughters' sporting events, very busy at work and just not very motivated to write.

That has now changed, two topics have me interested and motivated, this post will address the first.

When I was a candidate for the board in 2007 Ms. Monte was a candidate as well and she made a big deal in her opening and closing statements at the League of Women Voter's Forum about how she could vote on 100% of the resolutions...a dig at me.

As a guest on Eye on Oshkosh the issue came up again, here is one of Ms. Monte's quotes from the show on March 15, 2007:

“Mrs. Thiel, while very diligent – she’s been to the board meetings, she has a lot of knowledge, and she has experience – while she has all of those positive qualities, her husband’s a teacher, which means that when contracts are under negotiations, she can’t vote on the budget. She can vote on the budget reconciliation plan, but if we did the budget right we wouldn’t need the reconciliation plan, and because she works for CESA, there’s even more limitations. And as a taxpayer, that bothers me. If my tax dollars are going to pay someone to do a job, I would hope I’m getting my money’s worth. And if they have to continuously abstain from votes, I don’t feel that I am.”

I responded that my voting record was at 96 percent, to which she responded, “But you cashed 100 percent of the checks. That’s my point." She also stated on that show: "I will vote for the person that can do the entire job because that is a paid position."

Fast forward to 2009... Since Ms. Monte was elected there have been 14 regularly scheduled board meetings and Ms. Monte has missed the last 4 board meetings (29%) and yet she has cashed all her board checks up through November 11, 2009. In 3 years I never missed a regularly scheduled board meeting (and only missed one special meeting) yet she criticized me for cashing my checks. How hypocritical!

Of course I didn't vote for Ms. Monte, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't feel that I was getting proper representation. Whatever the reasons for her absence, the fact is she has not come close to voting on 100% of board resolutions. Can you imagine Ms. Monte's blog post had Mrs. Weinsheim missed as many meetings in a row?

Why is it no one seems to care that Ms. Monte appears to have better things to do than attend or at least participate in board meetings? She could at least participate by phone if it was illness that prevented her from actually attending meetings. I have heard no explanation from Ms. Monte as to why she is not attending meeting after meeting, after meeting, after meeting, after meeting. The rumor mill says it is a job out of town that is keeping her from attending meetings. I think she owes it to the voters to explain her repeated absences. Whatever the reason, don't Oshkosh voters deserve a board member who attends most if not all meetings each year rather than one who has already missed 4 meetings in a row? One of those missed meetings contained a workshop on the Superintendent Search, arguably the most important duty for board members this year.

There is a board meeting this Wed. Dec. 2nd I'll update on whether this is another missed meeting for Ms. Monte.

Any thoughts?

LET'S LOOK AT SOME FACTS

2009-02-10T02:13:00.003-06:00

FACT:

Oshkosh has the lowest tax rate of 9 comparable districts for 2007-2008 school year:

Sheboygan $10.10
Kimberly $ 9.25
Eau Claire $ 9.15
Janesville $ 8.34
Neenah $ 8.33
Menasha $ 8.25
Fond du Lac $ 8.15
Kaukauna $ 8.13
Appleton $ 7.88
Oshkosh $ 7.39

Oshkosh has 4 more Elementary Schools and 2 more Middle Schools than similar sized districts in WI--- Eau Claire, Janesville and Sheboygan all have 12 Elementary schools (Oshkosh has 16) and 3 Middle Schools (Oshkosh has 5)

Oshkosh School District mill rate in 1992 (over $15 per $1,000 equalized value)
Oshkosh School District mill rate in 2008 ($7.39 per $1,000 equalized value)

What does that mean?

I'll use my house as an example --- in 1992 my house was assessed at $39,900 which means my school tax in 1992 would have been approximately (I don't have the exact rate but I know it was over $15 so I just used $15 as the rate) $598.50 ($39,900/1,000 =39.90 X $15 = $598.50)

In 2008 my house was assessed at $73,000 which means my school tax was $539.47

Well look at that my 2008 school tax was $59.03 LESS than it was in 1992 (that isn't even accounting for inflation) [$598.50 was worth more in 1992 than it is today].

If your house was assessed at $100,000 in 1992 and $200,000 your school taxes would have been:

1992 --- $1,500
2008 --- $1,478

That is what the revenue controls have done, in Oshkosh, they have cut the mill rate by more than half. I have to wonder about those who say the school district keeps increasing taxes. The facts just don't seem to bear that out.

If you compare Oshkosh with surrounding and like-sized communities Oshkosh's tax rate is significantly lower, which means we have done more with less dollars than other districts.

Cost of the Referendum

2009-01-25T14:28:00.003-06:00

There is a story in the Sunday, January 25, 2008 Northwestern that states that the total cost of the referendum, in year one, if all 3 questions pass would be about $52 on a $100,000 home. As I suspected, less than one month of cable television or two months of the dish and a whole lot less than the new ipod touch.

I don't know how many different ways to let people know that teachers do NOT get a 3.8% pay raise, that if the district offers teachers less than a 3.8% package the teachers can go to arbitration and the district risks losing and if they lose they must give the teachers whatever they asked for in the last proposal that went to arbitration (as well as paying arbitration fees, lawyers fees etc.). It is unfortunate that posters who do NOT at all understand the QEO continue to post misinformation. Moderating comments saves me time in deleting these erroneous posts before people read them.

Back to the referendum. I do not think $52 on a $100,000 home is outrageous, my home is not even valued at $100,000 but I could certainly find $52 a YEAR in my budget. And before you all go on and on about those on "fixed incomes" my 80 year old mother is on a "fixed" income but you know what? Her SS income goes up every year and more than $52... by the way she lives in Milwaukee in a home valued at about $125,000 and her property taxes are well over $3,000 and she manages to pay them. The taxes in Oshkosh don't even come close to that figure.

I must say, reading the comments on the NW regarding the cost of the referendum makes me want to move, then I remind myself that the posters are NOT representative of Oshkosh in general, just a small negative segment of Oshkosh.

Now if you have questions about specifics of the referendum or comments about the capital improvement priorities, please post. If you want to go on about "extravagant teacher pay" find somewhere else to post, I've read more than my fill of those and won't be posting them.

Referendum Issues

2009-01-10T09:39:00.002-06:00

I have moved some comments from the "Candidates" thread to this one as they are about the referendum not the candidates. I would really like people to focus on the issues (using facts would be great but I know many bloggers don't want to bother with that). If the post isn't on topic I'll delete, if that becomes too much work I'll have to go to moderating (which I really don't want to do and if that becomes too cumbersome I'll just shut the blog down).

This thread is to post questions, concerns or opinions you have about the proposed referendum, I know there isn't a lot of information out there right now but I expect that to change very soon. We don't need a rehashing of the Ryf Road site, that has been decided, that will be where a new school, if approved, is located. So maybe posters could focus on the other two questions, and if you don't support those, please explain how you think the district should go about fixing up its buildings? Should any buildings be closed? How would YOU decide which buildings to close? Which buildings to repair? Which buildings aren't worth repairing?

If you want to talk about candidates for the School Board, please post on that thread. If you just want to post nasty things, find a different blog.

School Board Election

2009-01-03T19:16:00.005-06:00

The previous thread has way too many posts and very little discussion. One of the last posts I am moving here. I found it just a little interesting that the "announcement" would end up on MY blog rather than the candidate's.

Here is the post:

Anonymous said...
A friend forwarded this email to me. All I can say is not again.

Good Morning,

Kent and I have weighed the pros and cons of one more run at the BOE. Due to health concerns, I was hesitant to consider a campaign as I do not feel I can give it everything I have in the past. I am not able to do door to door and put up signs primarily. Kent is not able to help as he has to travel to Virginia with his job. Not to mention we have four children.

After much discussion and giving consideration to our school district's current situation, I have decided that it would be a bigger crime not to run. With your help, I can run a great campaign. I believe that there is a better way to address our district's challenges and with common sense budgeting and conservative approaches, we can turn this school district around and take care of our schools.

I am asking for your help. I need to collect 100-200 signatures by the end of the month. I would appreciate if you could take 2-3 sheets and fill at least 1-2. Let me know if you can take nomination papers and I will drop them off for you by the end of this week.

Also, if you could help with my campaign, let me know what you would like to do.

Thanks much and Merry Christmas.

Michelle Monte

Saturday, January 3, 2009 3:44:00 PM CST

It still remains to be seen whether there will be enough candidates to require a primary.

I just hope at least a few of the candidates will have specifics on EXACTLY what they would do differently... saying one will not raise taxes just isn't enough for me. If you won't levy to the limit, then where will you cut/save to balance the budget? If you are going to put $3M in the operating budget to repair our buildings where will those dollars come from. Stop hinting around... if your plan is to offer the unions 2% packages say that, if you plan to increase class sizes say so, I'm tired of people campaigning by having great sound bites but NO substance. Of course they don't want to offend any voters so I'm sure for most their "plans" will be very short on details. Why voters tolerate that is beyond me. I'm just hoping I'll be able to find 3 candidates to vote for.

Once Tues comes we should know who the candidates are. I hope we can have a REAL discussion of the issues the district faces and the "plan" each candidate comes with.

Referendum Proposal

2008-09-24T23:14:00.006-05:00

At the September 24 Oshkosh School Board Meeting the referendum questions were discussed. The VERY short story is the interim superintendent recommended a 3 question referendum with the questions looking something like the following -- dollar amounts are NOT set in stone, just a place to start discussions:

Question 1: New Oaklawn/Sunset probably on Ryf Road $15,000,000 (approx. amount based on Feb. 2008 figures)

Question 2: Exceed Revenue Caps by $1,300,000 per year for 5 years for deferred maintenance projects

Question 3: Exceed Revenue Caps by $500,000 per year for Capital Action plans (one example of this might be secured entrances at all schools)

Here is a link to the entire board packet, the referendum information starts on page 38

Here are the deferred maintenance projects:

Projects Prioritized from Deferred Maintenance History

2009
All Schools
Electrical/Lighting Improvements, Upgrading fixtures, emergency & gym lighting $653,400

P.Tipler:
HVAC
A/C $ 275,000
Roof $ 225,640
All Other
North Cylinder repair of elevator $ 80,000
Total $1,234,040

2010
E. Cook Media Center
Roof $75,000

Roosevelt
Boiler $975,000

West (1 of 2)
Bleachers $195,000

W. Stanley (1 of 3)
Windows $55,000

Total $1,300,000

2011
S. Park
Boiler & DDC controls $1,350,000

Total $1,350,000

2012
District Wide
Roof repair/replace $750,000

W. Stanley (2 of 3)
Windows $55,000

West (2 of 2)
Bleachers $195,000

Merrill (1 of 2)
HVAC upgrade $315,000

Total $1,315,000

2013
District Wide
Roofs $750,000

J. Shapiro
HVAC $150,000

W. Stanley (3 of 3)
Windows $55,000

Merrill (2 of 2)
HVAC upgrade $400,000

Total $1,355,000

One thing really jumped out at me... the cost of a new boiler at South Park $1.3 MILLION ... Should the deferred maintenance question fail, I shudder to think what the cuts would look like if the $1.3 Million cost of a new boiler was taken out of operating funds.

A few people have posted on various blogs that the district should fund all its maintenance and capital improvements out of its operating funds. I wonder how many homeowners have enough money in their "operating" budgets to replace their furnace should it go out? I would imagine most would either take out a loan or take the money from a savings account.

So what do you think? Do you like 3 questions vs. just one or two? Would you support any or all of the questions? Why or why not?

What is the Role and Responsibility of Elected Officials?

2008-09-11T21:40:00.007-05:00

When I served on the school board I attended a conference where the speaker was a Philip Boyle (at the time a professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and now a private consultant) he was an excellent speaker who really understood the role of elected officials. That conference clarified for me, my role as a school board member and helped in some ways to explain why the BOE had (and still has) such difficulties making decisions at times. This article explains very clearly what the role of elected officials should be.

Here are some excerpts from the above article:

We call them public values, because they come into play when we act or are affected as citizens. We can group them into four core values (Note: for more detailed discussions of these values and how they shape public policy and political theory, see O'Toole, Stone, Okun, and Brinkley et al.):

Liberty, which includes freedom, choice, access, autonomy, mobility, openness, transparency, individual rights, voluntary, opportunity, individuality, exemptions, privacy, due process, independence, personal responsibility, self-determination, and self-sufficiency.

Prosperity, which includes economy, efficiency, growth, productivity, profit, cost reduction, development, incentives, competition, consolidation, centralization, privatization, standardization, specialization, performance measurement, benchmarking, return on investment, using market rules to make decisions, and quantity of life.

Equality, which includes fairness, justice, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, equity, inclusion, representation, equal rights, equal opportunity, equal treatment, equal results, grandfathering, and a level playing field.

Community, which includes safety, security, a sense of connection and belonging to the people and places where we live and work, a sense of place and identity, health, aesthetics, preservation, restoration, conservation, tradition, customs, the sacred, uniformity, social and moral order, and quality of life.

As shown below, each of these public values represents a competing vision for public education:

Public Education and Liberty
Let parents choose schools, control how education dollars are spent
Charter, magnet, cyber schools
Private schools, home schooling
Open enrollment and transfers
Academic freedom, freedom of speech
Local control and governance
Open meetings, transparency, public input

Public Education and Prosperity
Meet global standards
Further economic progress
Compete in 21st century workplace
Career preparation, real-world learning
Apply market principles to education and schools
Treat parents as consumers
Continuous school improvement
Measurement and certification
Commercialization
Operate schools like a business

Public Education and Equality
Equitable funding
Equal opportunity
Eliminate race, gender, class, ethnic, and cultural biases
Teach all history and cultures
All courses and sports available to all students
Alternative, special, bi-lingual education
Free and reduced breakfast/lunch programs
Non-discriminatory policies governing public use of school facilities
Close achievement gaps
Title IX

Public Education and Community
Meet social and emotional needs
All children learn together
Avoid competition, ranking, social sorting
Strengthen families and communities
Smaller classes, neighborhood schools
Art, music, civics, character education, service learning
Health, exercise, diet, nutrition, physical education
Drug testing, dress codes, zero tolerance
Safe, clean, secure, comfortable, welcoming schools
Raise children, don't just teach children
Save recess!

While there are statements I agree with in all 4 values, my values run much more to the Community/ Equality set than the other 2 (though there are one or two statments in the community set that I do not agree with) as I think anyone can see there are others who were or are on the board whose values run much more to Prosperity and somewhat to Liberty. As the article indicates, no one value is better than any other, the key for elected officials is to balance all the values and leave everyone better off than before they started. It is a tall order and since many officials are not even aware of the struggle with these values, this is rarely the approach taken.

An educational system isn't worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn't teach them how to make a life. -- Unknown

Private organizations and institutions can promote one value over the others, but government cannot. We expect the American Civil Liberties Union to promote liberty, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to promote equality, the YMCA and Sierra Club to promote community, and the chamber of commerce to promote prosperity. But only one institution -- government -- is responsible for protecting and promoting all four public values. We prevent anarchy and tyranny, as the Founders intended, by making room for each public value in the public sphere.

And we ask our public officials -- both elected and appointed -- to make good public choices by balancing these values. In this context, public school leadership is not about power, authority, or public opinion. As James Madison might have put it, school boards and administrators are charged with refining and enlarging the public views so that they may best discern the true public interest.

So what do you think? Does this make sense? Does it explain to some degree why the BOE gets stymied? Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC... I will delete ALL posts that stray from this topic.

A Little GOP Hypocrisy

2008-09-07T20:11:00.002-05:00

I moved the link here from a different post... thanks anonymous...

I found this to be quite amusing, especially O'Reilly's comments on teen pregnancy...

Vocational Education or College Education?

2008-09-04T19:08:00.003-05:00

I found this article from the Washington Post very interesting please read the article (note the civility of the disagreement) and then join the discussion.

For those of you who don't want to read the article but want to participate in the discussion... basically the article was a discussion based on Chris Peters plan that would give both college-oriented and job-oriented students an equal chance. His 3 step plan is as follows:

Step 1:

Condense all universal high school requirements down to those which can be completed within two years and which consist of standards that are essential for the development of an informed citizenry and ensure that the student has the basic skills and knowledge base necessary for life-long learning. Then require all students to master these super-standards before starting either upper-level, college preparatory courses (AP/IB, intermediate algebra, chemistry, etc) or voc ed. course

Step 2:

When high school students reach the end of their sophomore year, present them with four choices:

(1) Continue on a college preparatory path leading to a four-year university or a four-year college transfer track at a community college. This choice would be contingent upon their having passed a standardized exit exam in English composition and literature, health and environmental science, elementary algebra and geometry, U.S. history and government and economics; or

(2) Enter a community college vocational program of their choice , with close supervision and support by their high school and continued access to the high school's extra-curricular activities. This would be contingent on their passing the same battery of exams the Choice 1 students take. Using existing and underutilized community college vocational programs means high schools would not have to reinvent the vocational wheel at their own sites, or:

(3) Receive intensive tutoring in high school, if unable so far to pass all or some of the exams, until they do so. They would have up to two year to climb over those barriers, and then an extra two years of free schooling to take AP and other prep classes on the college track if they so desire. This choice is just for those who want college prep their last two years of high school, including any who started the vocational track, choice 2, but changed their minds, or:

(4) Quit school and choose some other path.

Step 3:

Create a simple report card to evaluate the instructional effectiveness of individual high schools that everyone could understand. It would consist of five simple and largely unfudgeable - measures of the school's success: its pass rate on the two-year exit exams; its rate of graduate enrollment in four-year colleges (either right out of high school or as community college transfer); its AP/IB test-taking rate; its rate of students earning vocational certifications within four years of completing the exit exams; and its rate of graduates earning bachelor's degrees within six years of completing the college preparatory program.

The three steps would eliminate the high school diploma (an utterly meaningless document) and all standardized tests at the high school level except the eight subject-specific exit exams.

I think this is a discussion our school district should have... I don't agree with eliminating the high school diploma but I do think there is merit in much of Mr. Peter's plan. I also share some of the concerns of Mr. Mathews that there is a danger in sending students on one track or the other at the age of 16 (though many European countries do so at a much younger age and I don't believe it is the student's choice, the system decides).

So what do you think?

Mr. Gotcha at it again but I think it backfired

2008-08-27T23:32:00.002-05:00

At the school board meeting tonight, Mr. Becker pulled a number of executive session minutes stating that they were either incomplete, not accurate or violated the open meetings law. He further stated that the meetings were supposed to be started in open session with a reading of the statute that takes them to closed session. Mr. McDermott and Mrs. Bowen said that did in fact occur.

The fact is, if things happened as Mr. Becker explained he had a duty AT THE TIME to question why they were not starting in open session and reading the appropriate statutes, not participate in what HE is calling an illegal meeting and then waiting a few weeks to complain about it. If what he says is true he is JUST as "guilty" as the rest of the board for participating in what he knew was an illegal meeting.

This seems to me as Mr. Becker once again grandstanding, trying to cause problems and get a little attention. He wanted to play "gotcha" but he can't really do that successfully since he is right in the middle of it by staying for the meeting and saying nothing. His objection should have been made at the beginning of the meeting and he is the only one who stated that he knowingly attended such a meeting, since no one else recalled the meeting not being started in open session.

If his recollection is correct (and I doubt it since not a single board member agreed with him) he really shouldn't try and play gotcha -- he should state at the time there is a procedural problem and ask that the meeting be started in open session and the appropriate statue be read, not just go along with what he knows is wrong so he can try and play the hero later. He just ends up with egg on his face by acknowledging that he knowingly broke the law. Not good.

It is time the Silent Majority drown out the Vocal Minority

2008-08-11T23:43:00.002-05:00

I've been thinking about what have unfolded the last week regarding the Oshkosh Superintendent situation read this posting on Eye on Oshkosh, it explains things perfectly.

I wanted to look at things from a different perspective, while the majority of the blame for people being "run out of town" goes to the naysayers those who disagree but say nothing are guilty as well. My father taught me that if you stand by and say nothing when someone tells a racist joke (for example) by your silence, you are in essence agreeing with what is said, or at least that is what others will assume.

I really think it is time for those in our community who do believe in our district, who can see the many positive things happening (even while wanting some things to change) need to speak out now and sing the praises of the district! I am by nature a pessimist (expect the worst and you won't be disappointed) and sometimes I focus on all the things that are wrong or need to change, however, I realize there are many positives in our district.

If we hope to attract a quality candidate for Supt. I believe the community needs to present a positive image of our district and the many things it has to offer. Those in the Silent Majority need to speak out and drown out those who spew so much negativity. In the last election for school board, clearly the voters chose to eliminate the negative, now it is time to accentuate the positive.
There will be plenty of time to work on needed changes. Right now I think we need to come together as people who care about the education of the children of the Oshkosh Area School District and support those who are working so hard to find a leader for our district. Yes I am talking about the 6 Board Members who have spent countless hours meeting to interview candidates, discuss the candidates qualifications and select someone they believed, in good faith, would be best to lead our district. There are plenty of things I disagree with a number of members about, but from all I have read, those 6 have been dedicated to finding the best Supt. for Oshkosh. It must be incredibly frustrating to have one of your own colleagues undermine what you have worked so hard on. How Mr. Becker could possibly have the respect of his colleagues is beyond me. His grandstanding and ego stroking is NOT what we need in this district. I can only hope the voters agree.

I really don't want people to spend too much time focusing on the negativity the radiates from Mr. Becker, rather I want people to focus on the positives of Oshkosh and the Oshkosh Area School District. I would like posters to focus on why someone would want to be Oshkosh's next Superintendent... What are the district's assets, strengths, uniqueness? I will delete those posts I deem negative.

Disturbing Quote --- Does it Imply a Violation of the Open Meetings Law?

2008-06-11T12:59:00.006-05:00

Dan Becker was quoted in an article in the Waukesha Freeman on June 11th stating:

{Becker said that he and other board members “thought we had Todd Gray all squared away” to replace their outgoing Superintendent Ron Heilmann, ...}

What does that mean? Could that be a violation of the open meetings laws? Who are these other board members?

If Dan Becker didn't discuss making Todd Gray the new superintendent why is he quoted as saying they thought they had it all squared away? Wouldn't it take 3 other board member to "square it away"? I find such comments very troubling, they certainly give the impression board business was being discussed among Mr. Becker and other board members outside of the publicly noticed meetings.

OASD Future

2008-06-08T03:19:00.002-05:00

Well, it is official (or almost) according to the Northwestern Todd Gray has accepted the position as superintendent of the Waukesha school district.

While the timing is unfortunate (having to look for a business director before the search for a superintendent has even begun) I wish Mr. Gray well and I do not think the board has made a mistake in deciding to search for a superintendent rather than just pick someone "in house" who happens to have a superintendents license.

I have been following the OASD School Board for nearly 11 years and I have never felt as hopeful about the district's future as I do now. The new board really seems to get along well, they have fun, they disagree without being disagreeable and they really seem to want to focus on moving the district forward rather than engage in petty bickering.

As for the search for a superintendent, it was clear to me at the last board meeting that 6 of the 7 board members are prepared to find and hire the best candidate they can find, whether that person is already working in the district, or is employed by another district, even one outside the state of Wisconsin. I think that is a wise approach.

I think organizations should always strive for the best qualified candidate for any position but especially the top position in the organization. How can you know if an internal candidate is the best candidate if you don't even consider any others? Some say not automatically hiring someone from within the district with the requisite license is a mistake that will make it hard to find a superintendent... that makes little sense to me since obviously all external candidates would hope the district would not "hire from within". This district has "promoted from within" a number of times in the recent past, but always after an interview process... think Lincoln School, Oaklawn School, Webster Stanley Elementary School... each of those principals was a teacher in our district before becoming the principal. To say we don't promote from within simply is not based in fact.

I am willing to wait and see where this hiring process leads us. I think the board should seize the opportunity that has presented itself and find a new superintendent to lead the district forward.

How much or how little do you feel the public should be involved in this decision? Hiring a superintendent (as well as evaluating the superintendent) is the primary job of a school board. It seems few, if any, members of the public are interested in this process. Personally, I think a model similar to that the Common Council used would serve the district well. A chance to observe candidates interacting with the public, is vital. The rest is up to the board.

Could Oshkosh be Losing Another Administrator?

2008-06-03T19:39:00.002-05:00

As I was surfing the net I came across this story from the Journal Sentinel. The basics:

Waukesha - The School Board has narrowed its search for a new superintendent to two finalists - the superintendent of the Cudahy School District and the deputy superintendent of the Oshkosh School District - and could announce a decision later this week.

I wonder what this will mean for the district. Will it make things that much harder to find a superintendent if the district is also looking for a business director? It hasn't been all that easy to keep a business director in this district. I guess we will see sooner rather than later.

STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS... What about that 2/3 funding?

2008-05-16T18:33:00.004-05:00

Most people, even school people get confused by the 2/3 state funding and think that means the State of Wisconsin funds 2/3 of the budget for every school in the state. That is incorrect. The 2/3 funding is an average for the entire state. I found the following on the Madison School District site and while it pertains specifically to Madison, much of the explanation applies to Oshkosh as well (I will insert Oshkosh data when it differs from Madison)

From the Madison School District Web Site:

"The major issue facing schools currently is the revenue cap that limits the amount of money that a Wisconsin school district can spend -- based on a formula that does not take into account the actual increased costs that occur each year.

The state does currently fund 2/3 of the cost of education across the state. This is an average figure and varies dramatically from district to district. In the case of Madison, the state funds approximately 28% of our costs.[For Oshkosh it is nearly 2/3 I think about 62%] The revenue cap is a property tax measure, not an education measure. The more the state funds K-12 education, the less that property tax payers in a district have to pay.

The service reductions that district's across the state are having to make every year is the result of our inability to fund the same level of service each year. This happens because the amount of money we can use per pupil is not allowed to increase as rapidly as the cost of providing the service increases.

In the case of Madison, the state mandates that our budget can increase by only 2.6% a year,[that figure is about the same for Oshkosh] but our costs to continue providing the same services to our children increase at least 3.8% per year. This is the minimum increase that occurs because of the current state law that allows school districts to avoid arbitration with their teachers union if they offer that 3.8% increase in total salary and benefits. Obviously, that means that unions are never going to settle below 3.8%.

Salary and benefits are 86% of our budget,[about the same for Oshkosh] so the 3.8% creates a floor to our expenses. Our other expenses such as insurance and utilities rise much more than the 3.8% each year. In these areas, we are subject to the same market forces that homeowners and businesses are.

The gap that results from the difference between the 2.6% we can expend and the 3.8% minimum increase in costs (it is usually 4.0 - 4.2%) [again that is the same for Oshkosh] is the reason we and almost every other school district in Wisconsin has to reduce services to their students every year.

To put this in context, if we were doing everything today that we were doing in 1993 -- when the revenue cap law went into effect -- we would have 526 more employees and our budget would be $46 million higher that it is today. [I don't know those figures for Oshkosh but it would certainly be more significantly more than it is today]. I think this number quantifies the difference that the revenue cap has made in services to children."

I find the above to be a very understandable explanation for how 2/3 funding works, and why districts can't "live within their means" as some like to criticize. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe, school districts cannot just increase taxes to provide services, most are limited to a 2.6% increase in their budget and as the above explains, costs increase at a greater amount than revenue is allowed to increase, hence budget cuts are required, pretty much every year. Revenue controls have been good for property taxpayers but not good for school districts. The Revenue Controls have hit Oshkosh Schools especially hard because it has always been a frugal district and the Controls locked school districts in at what they were spending in 1993 and only allowed approximately 2.6% increases each year. It doesn't take an accountant to understand why so many school districts are struggling.

It is too bad more taxpayers don't understand this whole issue. It is not poor management on the part of school districts, it is an unfair funding formula (primarily favoring school districts in the Milwaukee suburbs).

SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH

2008-05-03T11:06:00.002-05:00

I think most people would agree the major task facing the school board over the next few months is to hire a new superintendent. A search firm will be hired to assist the board in this process. I imagine at some point the opinions of the community will be sought, I hope more people show up than showed up for a similar meeting regarding the City Manager. Sometimes it seems as if very few want to get involved but many like to complain. Then again sometimes I let the blogs skew my perceptions. If you really stop and count the number of posters on a blog that requires registration (Oshkonversation) you will note that for the most part there are 5-10 different posters on any given thread. Hardly the voice of the community.

At any rate, I'd like to know what readers think should be considered when hiring a new superintendent for the Oshkosh Area School District? Is previous experience as a superintendent necessary? Should board members visit the community where the final candidates work? What qualities are necessary in a new superintendent, what qualities would be nice to have and what qualities are not really important at all?

It appears that all the districts around us that are looking for, or have hired, a new superintendent have paid that person more than our current superintendent makes (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more), should this matter? Will we have to pay in that range to stay competitive or do we just set a dollar figure and see who is willing to come to Oshkosh for that amount?

How would you go about "including" the community or is this strictly a Board decision?

I guess that is enough to get people started...

DEFINITION TIME - Must post by April 14

2008-04-06T21:31:00.004-05:00

Throughout the whole facilities discussions, on blogs and forums and in discussions with people, I keep coming back to something... Supposedly this community values "neighborhood schools" yet I have never seen a definition of what that means:

So, please post your definition of "neighborhood schools" with the assumption that said definition to be used to determine that if a school closed, would there still be a school in the "neighborhood". Please be specific and make sure that is all you post... your definition of "Neighborhood Schools" anything will be deleted. You don't need to "criticize" some one's definition right now I'm just looking for definitions. This thread will be locked on April 15 (assuming I can figure out how to do that) and then I will take 3-5 definitions and (again assuming I can figure out how) post a poll to see how much agreement on a definition there is.

Thanks -- again I request you choose a "name" even just a letter works -- so much easier than time posted... PLEASE ;-)

UPDATE: As Smiley pointed out -- low turnout on this post. Apparently no one has a working definition of "neighborhood schools" or they don't want to share it.

I'll have a post on a new but related topic later this week.

Discussion of School Board Election Results

2008-04-02T22:35:00.003-05:00

Rather than just delete the comments on the Facilities Thread relating to what the election results mean... I will be moving them here... so if you want to discuss the results post here... I will delete them from the other thread.

Keep the discussion civil! Thanks

Moving On... Facilities Needs vs. Wants

2008-04-02T00:08:00.005-05:00

I am so excited about the election results I can't sleep.

I am hoping we can have a civil discussion about what the "wants" and the "needs" are in the facilities plan. Or what types of things people think are "wants" and what things people think are "needs". If the discussion is not on this topic or gets nasty I will enable comment moderation and delete those things not on point, even if I agree with the statement. I see this election as really changing the tone of the board and I want to shift my tone as well. While I will still correct factual errors, I would like to find areas where people can agree or at least compromise.

I do not have copies of all the architect reports so I can't give you specifics on what exactly was in or out but here are some of the things I think are needs:

a) Updated electrical, HVAC, plumbing etc. on all buildings that will not close
b) Computer lab with at least 30 working computers
c) Media Center large enough to take a class of 25 5th graders
d) When building new or remodeling, schools with at least 3 sections per grade, 4 is preferable
e) Separate Art Room and Separate Music Room

It is late and I am fading -- that is what I can think of right now... please post your thoughts, but remember, describe the things you think are wants in a facilities plan and or the things you think are needs... anything else I will be putting comment moderation back on and deleting the posts...

A FAVOR -- I will ask once again, would you please instead of choosing anonymous could you choose name and make up a name... it is only one more step than choosing anonymous... you just have to type in a name like "cubfan" did... I just find it so much easier to use monikers than posting times. It is also nice to get a feel for how many individuals are posting. I don't get any information if you choose "name" and you can ignore the URL box. Of course you don't have to choose "name", but I really hope you will. Thanks

The Northwestern's Endorsement got it Exactly RIGHT

2008-03-30T18:59:00.005-05:00

Two posters on the Oaklawn thread have asked that I start threads on two different topics. The first asks when I will have a new post on the 4-3 vote on the facilities plan. The answer, maybe after the election, maybe never. I must say I am frustrated at the end result of almost 2 years (some would argue 10 years) of discussions but if the board majority changes, this won't be the plan anyway (and there probably won't be a "plan" for another 2 years). So I'm leaving that alone until we know just who is on the board.

The other poster asked for a thread about the School board election, and as you can see from the Title of this thread, I will post on that one.

As the title of this thread implies, The Northwestern's Endorsement captures my feelings exactly.

Schneider is quick to point his finger at the board majority for allowing our buildings to fall into "disrepair". However, he served as Chair of the Facilities and Finance Committee for a number of years and not once did he show any leadership in getting our buildings repaired. He served 6 years on the board and how many resolutions did he bring forth to "fix" our facilities? None... It is so easy to point the finger and vote "no" repeatedly but where was the leadership from the chair pointing out the need to fix our buildings? Instead he preferred to "grandstand" and give taxpayers an approximate $15 tax savings, rather than using the money to fix our buildings. As the Northwestern asked "what does he stand for"?

McDermott in an effort to compromise brought forward a plan he could support... where was Schneider's plan? If he were to be in the majority, who can tell me what his plan will look like? I doubt anyone can since he has never said what he would or would not support. He talks a lot about wants and needs but your need may be my want and vice versa. I especially liked the Northwesterns line: "But ask Schneider how to move forward or what specific things should be tackled, and he invariably withers,". That doesn't sound like leadership to me. Over and over I have heard him say "I defer to the experts" yet he never does. To defer means "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" that is not what Schneider does... he invariably votes "no" on those things he "defers to experts". What it seems to me is he just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about an answer.

As far as Monte, the Northwestern is right in stating that she would be a divisive factor on the board.

Her stand on things seems to waffle as well... her opening statement at every forum talks about "if we meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. So, why does she feel the need to post this "I don't think Special Needs is the number one priority, though certainly in the top ten."

Then here are just some of her "thoughts" on a "Plan":

March 17 (Oshkonversation) -- The plan I had been working on would cost about $30 million to include the deferred maintenance, a renovated or replacement Oaklawn, and a few other things we have put off too long like permanent homes for some of our special needs programs. (How is this so different from McDermott's plan?)

Yet of McDermott's plan she said on March 21st on her blog: "However, there is far more to the plan I do not like. My personal views aside, no one I have spoken to or who has contacted me would be willing to support this plan. I believe that if there is little to no community support, we are barking up the wrong tree." And "While the amendment may have been well intentioned, I have to consider the timing. At any point in the last two years, McDermott or anyone else on the BOE or in the administration could have turned the focus on Oaklawn. Like other schools, it was the three-headed step-child and had to close." Yet 4 days earlier a replacement Oaklawn was part of HER plan...

On March 14 (Oshkonversation) in response to a question from "tireless" about "Where did this "new Northside School' come from?"

Monte responds: "Tireless, If I remember discussions surrounding the idea of a new school on the northside, the architect on the attendance area team wasn't involved. I don't think there were even the six teams yet (teams were formed sometime in 2007) when that was brought into the equation. I know there were comments about making sure the amount of construction on both sides of town was balanced to be more fair. My understanding is that the new school is to replace Oaklawn in a more favorable location."

Then on her blog on March 21st she writes "When there is community opposition to building a new northside school, suddenly (my emphasis) the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn." Well was it before the six teams were formed (at least 6 months ago, probably closer to a year) or was it suddenly?

March 24 --- (Oshkonveration) UWBlade, the best I can do with the information I have is $30 million. That number includes the FCAP, estimating it to be $15 million. The remainder of the money would go to ADA requirements; conservative renovations to add Special Ed rooms; Fixed equipment needs, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades; and permits and fees identified in the architectual reports. I would look at closing Lincoln and Lakeside to start and converting Green Meadow to a larger school for the Lakeside and Green Meadow areas. (oops, what about a renovated or replacement Oaklawn?)

Feb 1st (Oshkonversation): "I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing... moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings...I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. ...I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum (emphasis mine). Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students. ...I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. ...Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. ...I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority." If you close Washington, would you not have to build classrooms somewhere to accomodate them? The north side really doesn't have excess seats. What is the cost of that?

Also on Feb. 1st Oshkonversation: "Libra, One of the problems Oshkosh is facing is a growing population that is crowding/has crowded Oakwood and Traeger. The new plans do not really solve for this as there is little/no room for future growth.
We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger." How does that fit into the $30M? Would the "Oakwood K-8 just not have Science Labs, Industrial Tech Lab, Orchestra and Band rooms?

On Jan. 14th on Oshkonversation "Where I disagree is that there is also the factor of mitigating the debt by selling the properties to be closed or reducing staff when numbers of buildings are reduced. ...

Take a look at the real estate market. We cannot count on the revenue of the sales because there is no way to ensure what will sell or for how much." See Feb. 1st post above...

After reading all this, I don't know what exactly Monte's plan would look like or if the $30M figure is accurate. Just like I don't think anyone really knows what Monte will support or not support, should she be elected.

To sum up, the Northwestern is correct in stating that McDermott is the only "leader" running for the school board.

Oaklawn was never part of the Jefferson referendum

2008-03-22T21:57:00.006-05:00

Just when I thought I could relax and enjoy my holiday weekend I read a blog post and feel the need to correct some inaccurate information.

This was posted on Mrs. Monte's blog in referenced to Oaklawn Elementary "One section is an older temporary section that has outlived its life expectancy. It was promised to be replaced with the Jefferson referendum but the district ran out of money and couldn't get another referendum passed."

I don't know what she means by "temporary section" --- it was built in the 50's by the neighbors but it wasn't meant to be temporary.

I worked on the very successful Jefferson referendum (72% of voters approved the Jefferson question and it was ONLY to build a new Jefferson -- NOTHING ELSE).

As far as the second question from the 1998 referendum, NOTHING is mentioned in that question about Oaklawn, only Merrill is mentioned by name. There is some reference to district wide capital improvements but I can assure you it was NOT a rebuild of Oaklawn. It is also incorrect to say "the district ran out of money" the FACT is the some of the work at Merrill came in under budget so Mr. Gray proposed to the board that the unused funds be used to finish up some items further down on the capital improvements list that the district didn't think they would have referendum money for.

Here is the actual text of the 1998 referendum questions (which, by the way received a 7-0 vote of the board ---members at the time Bird, Boss, Bowen, Kavanaugh, McHugh, Stratz and Werblow):

BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,300,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new Jefferson Elementary School, acquisition of land therefor and removing the existing school building.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of technology infrastructure and equipment; renovations and additions to Merrill Middle/Elementary School; and district-wide capital improvement projects.

Originally the Merrill School committee recommended spending $4,600,000 to repair and build onto Merrill, but the school board later cut the amount to $4,000,000. Most of the repairs were at the middle school. The money was to be used for fixing the heating and ventilation system, renovating science labs, painting and replacing floor tiles, and making other needed repairs. The addition was to include new music rooms, renovated science labs, a new cafeteria and new office spaces.

Here is another statement that is so misleading "suddenly the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn".

There is nothing "sudden" about it. Anyone who knew anything about the district and its facilities needs knew that one would never build a new school to only serve the 84 students who were at Sunset (in Tipler) and went to Read. There is no justification for building a new school that would serve less than 100 students.

This is from a Northwestern Article right before the Jefferson referendum "...the school district has several projects on back burners. They include a new north side school, an alternative school, an early learning center..."

This is from a Northwestern Article sometime before October 27, 2007

"Heilmann said there are already enough students in the Oshkosh school district to fill a new north side school. He said if students were taken from Oaklawn Elementary, Sunset Elementary and the far northeast part of the Emmeline Cook attendance area, about 300 students could be placed in a new school. "

"We would be looking to build it for about 400 students or so, so that it could accommodate growth," Heilmann said.

This is from a Feb. 3 2008 story in the Northwestern

"The facilities planning teams responsible for gathering information about schools and determining improvements necessary to existing buildings have not yet made a recommendation about where a new school would be located. However, a north-side school is being considered because Oaklawn, the district's northernmost school, would be closed."

The last two articles clearly show a new north side school would replace Oaklawn.

The blog post also says "I would propose tearing down the temporary section and building either a one-story or two-story addition to the newer section which is still serviceable if the deferred maintenance was addressed."

Well I don't know what expertise she has to state the newer section is still serviceable (the architect PMP hired suggested no more money be put into Oaklawn) but even if that were true, I don't see anywhere she addresses the fact that the school floods when it rains and the only way to alleviate that is to raise the playground so it is above (rather than below) street level. What is the cost of that? What about the fumes from the trucking company that is next door which enters the school whenever window are open? What would rebuilding Oaklawn, if one follows Mrs. Monte suggestion to "Base the size of the addition on expected enrollment." save in operating costs? Nothing since you would not be closing/consolidating any schools and you would not free up room at Read for Lincoln students so where would they go?

I hope to post next week on some interesting information I found while researching at the library. Stay tuned.

School Board Race

2008-03-16T08:54:00.007-05:00

Where to begin...I believe this election is crucial to the future of the Oshkosh school district, I really hope the voters who go to the polls are informed on the issues and the implications for the district of a board where Mr. Schneider is in the majority. In my opinion that would be very bad news for the Oshkosh school district. Why people continue to elect someone who says whenever questioned about educational concerns "I defer to the experts" yet when the experts bring forward plans, whether it be for roofs, facilities, educational programs, or other students issues, more often than not he votes against the "experts". Lip service is not what we need. A true commitment to making Oshkosh a quality district where the best interests of students is first and formost is what we need if we are to remain the quality district we are today. Here are some of my thoughts on some of the issues and candidates.

The most interesting piece I've read recently was a link on Eye on Oshkosh to an post by Kay Springstroh which details the candidates answers to questions about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues in our schools. Kay takes Mr. Schneider to task for his "open homophobia", lack of actual answers to the questions as well as his significant errors in grammar (note: Mr. Schneider was criticized for his grammatical errors on OshKonversation -- his response was to basically "take his bat and ball and go home":

Mr. Schneider's response to OshKonversation poster critical of grammar mistakes in his post:

"I am accessable and if a person wishes to reach me, (MY NOTE: according to a friend of mine who contacted Mr. Schneider, he stated that he typically won't respond to someone unless they provide both their first and last name - though he did respond to my friend who had only provided a first name in an e-mail) I am more than happy to respond to your request for information... if you wish to set up a mutually convenient time to sit down and discuss differences. KRC, I would be happy to meet with you and hope you take me up on my offer.

I will focus my efforts in the above methods of communication and hope the future communications will be more civil! I look forward to hearing from you with your questions or concerns but no longer through this blog. Thanks! Ben Schneider II"

I would think that a board member would take some care in grammar, usage, spelling in responses to questions during a campaign but, I found the lack of answers to the questions much more troubling.

It is no secret that I do not support Mr. Schneider's candidacy, I do not believe his stand on the issues is good for the students of Oshkosh. In fact what has he accomplished in 6 years? If by some cruel twist of fate Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Monte get elected, it is likely that Mr. Schneider will be board president and anyone who cares about the students of Oshkosh should be concerned by that. I have not seen any actions by Mr. Schneider that show he is concerned with students' learning. He pays some lip service to the topic but if you have ever watched him when Administration is presenting information on WKCE scores, or Charter School results, he does not pay attention to the presenters and tries to shut down discussion, apparently because he isn't interested in discussing student learning.

I just finished watching a portion of the "round table" discussion and found it very interesting that ONLY Mr. McDermott was willing to commit to what schools needed to be closed. Mr. Lemberger stated he would not close any schools, Mr. Schneider said something to the effect of it would not be fair to name schools to close without knowing where the students would go, and Mrs. Monte said it was too complex a question to answer in a minute but she didn't want to keep all schools open. Mr. McDermott said Oaklawn needed attention first and he would rebuild it on an alternate site, building large enough so that both Oaklawn and Lincoln could be closed (though instead of Lincoln students going to the New North Side school, Sunset students would, leaving room in Read for Lincoln students).

For those who are interested in some facts, I suggest you read the letter on the Northwestern website under Opinions, with the headline "Letter: Data shows Oshkosh superintendent excels". It provides facts that are in direct opposition to some of the misinformation certain candidates continually put out there.

I truly hope those who really care about education and the students in Oshkosh, inform themselves about where the school board candidates stand on the issues the district faces. Voters, especially those most concerned with our students should think about the consequences of voting for either Monte or Schneider. The school board needs people who understand the issues the district faces, who actually care about education and put the interests of all students above pandering for votes. This is a crucial time for the district, budget cuts will continue to be required. Please think about who is best suited to make those decisions. Why anyone would want someone like Mr. Schneider to run our board is beyond me. He has never made the tough decisions to vote on cuts needed to balance the budget but, instead just voted "No" on every budget . How can someone who just says "No" to a budget, actually lead a board --- are we really interested in being the district who can't pass a budget because the majority of the board just votes "No". I believe this community wants and expects more than that. We shall see soon enough.

Thoughts on School Facilities Direction

2008-03-01T09:27:00.004-06:00

I was disappointed that Team 6 did not bring a recommendation to the board but rather a choice of two, but given the dynamics of the board I can see why they didn't bother.

Once again the board majority had to compromise to move things forward --- I just hope they don't, once again, end up compromising with themselves because those they compromised for end up not supporting the plan because it isn't EXACTLY what they wanted.

While the board majority clearly supported the K-3, 4-8 configuration (and contrary to what a NW poster thinks - no one "admitted" they were wrong in supporting K-3, 4-8) but also realized that to get the 6-1 vote administration was asking for, they would need to abandon the K-3 configuration because that was the only way to garner Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker's support.

It was clear that Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker would not support a plan that was K-3 so the majority of the board, who actually preferred K-3 (because of the educational benefits for children) were willing to stay with the K-5 in order to get a 6-1 vote of the board for a referendum (of course it still remains to be seen if Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker will actually support any referendum and it appears the board is writing off getting Mr. Schneider's vote, since he said nothing at the meeting about what he would support and no one asked where he stood).

Some are already putting their "conspiracy theory" out there as to how it was $40M then $60M then $75M then back to $40M so that $40M looks like a bargain. Well the reason the referendum figure is now slated for under $40 M is that, that is the dollar figure Mr. Becker said it had to stay below for him to support a referendum. It seems that to reach that figure, much of the equity will be eliminated or the board will try in 3 or so years to attempt another referendum, much like the Traeger and Jefferson referendums which were several years apart.

I feel that staying with K-5 has already drastically reduced the equity for special needs students, while the K-5 plan is better than what we have currently the K-3 plan actually allowed nearly every school to have every special needs programs in their school.

I spoke with Karen Lieuallen, Director of Special Education Services and At-Risk for the district and she explained that she has 10 programs that would need to go into Webster Middle school but only 4 rooms available (and that isn't even counting space for Speech/Language teachers, OT or PT rooms). There is not enough space in Merrill Middle for all the needed programs either so once again, it is OK to bus special needs students across town so they can receive needed services. This plan will also, from a special needs perspective, require some schools to house large populations of special needs students, while others have few or no special needs programs/students. I see this as a far cry from meeting the needs of all our students in an equitable manner. Some will say, well just make this work like K-3 but it is not possible due to the fact that under K-5 the number of special needs students will be too low in many of their "home schools" to efficiently and effectively provide those services there (unlike K-3 where only 2 schools would not have every special needs program) not to mention that under K-5 even when the student numbers warrant it, in the North side middle schools, there simply aren't enough classrooms to provide all needed services.

It is too bad that a "belief" that K-3 is bad (based on nothing more than that is not the typical grade configuration) will have a negative affect on our special needs population. You know, we wouldn't have Middle Schools (6-8) and high schools (9-12) if the above so-called logic had been followed. Before the Middle School movement, the most common grade configuration in the country (at least for public schools) was Junior High (7-9) and Senior High (10-12) but somehow we were able to change that.

In the end it will be interesting to see if in fact there are 6 votes for this plan (I predict no more than 5). I think that if, in the end, there are only 4 votes for any plan, the whole thing should be scrapped, go to referendum for the $14M in deferred maintenance and reconfigure schools however you need to, and close as many schools as possible to get the greatest savings in operational costs and give up on the idea of equity or reconstruction of schools like Oakwood and Shapiro.

I guess we'll know in a couple weeks.

WHAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL?

2008-02-15T07:51:00.003-06:00

Please read this next sentence carefully... I am looking for people's definition of a neighborhood school, that is ALL. If you can't post your definition of "neighborhood school" then don't post on this thread. I'm just curious since that term is thrown out there a lot. I'm pretty sure there will be as many definitions as there are posters but I have only heard one "definition" that seems to fit with what happens when proposed boundary changes occur.

So please give us your definition of a "neighborhood school" -- anything off topic will be deleted.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION RE: SO-CALLED CALCULATOR TO PREDICT DROP IN PROPERTY VALUES

2008-02-14T12:33:00.004-06:00

Well it didn't take long but I didn't figure it would. A local blogger has jumped on a presentation from the board meeting last night and posted a link to a website that will supposedly calculate the value of your house based on its proximity to schools. I say supposedly because the blogger failed to include the disclaimer from said website. The disclaimer reads:

Data is provided for informational purposes only. Actual sales value of a home will depend on many factors, of which proximity to schools is one. Estimates are based off of a study of 1075 residential properties sold in the Oshkosh area over the past year as recorded by the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and City of Oshkosh Assessor's data. Beta Biostatistics makes ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY on the suitability of these estimates for any purpose.

Well the way I read the last sentence, these estimates are basically USELESS since the "site" gives ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY that the estimates are suitable for ANY purpose. The site itself says they won't say the estimates can be used for any purpose yet the blogger puts it out there as if it is a fact that your property WILL decrease as the site indicates.

The blog owner also doesn't understand how, even if these figures were accurate, this would work. Contrary to what is posted, property taxes are based on ASSESSED values, not speculative sales price and if the property values did actually drop, the city is still not allowed to increase taxes to "make up the difference", the state holds the city to pretty tight revenue controls and even if property values dropped (and remember there is NO WARRANTY that any of these figures can be used for ANY purpose) the city would have to cut the budget NOT raise taxes.

So don't be fooled by a website that won't vouch for itself. There is no way to verify any of this so called data or the calculations presented.

For those of you who still insist on believing this nonsense, then what you are saying is the district can never change a boundary line that would require a student to go even 6 blocks further to school as it would have a negative impact on property values. Of course once again if you insist on believing in this flawed data, those students who live on the South side of 14th and all of 15th between Oregon and Minnesota have to be happy, under the current plan, their property values would actually increase because Jefferson is closer to their house than Smith is! I'm sure there are many other locations that would find similar results but I'm not about to waste my time on this flawed non-verifiable, non warranted website.

School Board Election

2008-01-04T08:19:00.000-06:00

Well, it is that time of year again... local elections. I must say I was surprised that no one is challenging the incumbents for City Council. The only benefit to that is for once the school board election will not take second place to the Council.

So readers, what are the qualities you are looking for in a School Board Member? What criteria will you use to determine who to vote for in this election or do you think it is already a "done deal" with the incumbents getting re-elected?

I think there are a couple of interesting candidates to investigate this time around. I am looking for someone who is most concerned with providing a quality education (not doing things as cheaply as possible). I want a person who is willing to make the tough choices, to have the courage to do what is right, not someone who plays politics and is swayed by every small but loud group. I will not be voting for someone who believes we need to continue to have 16 elementary schools as I believe that is fiscally irresponsible. I want someone who has a command of the issues facing the district and who can accurately communicate those issues to the public. I want someone who is straightforward and doesn't put a biased "spin" on what they observe, changing the facts to put the district or administration in a bad light. I want someone who will give clear and specific answers to questions like: How many and which schools do you think should be closed? I will not accept an answer of "I will have to study the issue" because after 10 years of study it is time to act and if you are running for the board, you should have a handle on such issues by now --- this issue has been front and center for the last year.

Accuracy is very important to me, I don't think a candidate should make statements that are inaccurate in an effort to try and "set themselves apart" from the rest of the candidates. Case in point this is an excerpt from one candidate's blog (the inaccurate statement is in bold):

Michelle Monte For School Board
We must protect our neighborhoods and not bus kids to mega schools.We must have complete, open, and honest communication.We must meet the needs of our most challenged students to meet the needs of all our students.I am the only candidate with personal and current experience with special education, the fastest growing group in our schools.We need reasonable changes that raise achievement without bankrupting citizens.

The FACT is candidate Kevin Janke has a child in a special education program in one of our district schools so I would call him a "candidate with personal and current experience with special education". In the Northwestern article Mr. Janke referenced his interest in special education, I would think a candidate concerned with accuracy would have changed the inaccurate message, maybe the change is yet to come, time will tell.

Please share with readers (according to the reports I receive, I had over 50 visits to my site this week, even though I haven't had a new post in a month) what you are looking for in a candidate, or the types of questions you would like to see the candidates answer. What are the "burning issues" for you in this race?

UPDATE on 4K Charter

2007-11-28T22:12:00.000-06:00

I was able to speak to Mrs. Vickman after the School Board meeting tonight to find out what DPI's requirements were for the Charter Grant to be pursued. She told me DPI required that the charter school contain grades 4K through 5th grade because that is the current configuration of elementary schools in Oshkosh.

So to "create" a school that serves 4K - 5th grade, even if you only had one class per grade would cost $392,000 in staffing alone ($56,000 per teacher x 7 classes) the grant was for $150,000. NONE of the $150,000 could be used for staffing and presumably the 4K students would be "new" students for school funding purposes so the student count for the 4K students would cover one teacher which leaves the district to find $336000 to staff the other positions. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that the district would lose a lot of dollars with this scenario. Not to mention how is a school that serves grades 4K - 5th grade a 4K charter anymore, which is what the board had approved. Why the board needs a workshop to understand this is beyond me.

4K Charter School -- The Real Story

2007-11-18T16:02:00.000-06:00

The following is a post that was posted on another thread, the author asked me to start a new thread on this subject so here it is, I will comment on this post at the end of the post...
Note: I did some minor editing of statements I felt were not relevant to the subject.

Anonymous said...
Teresa, would you please start a thread on the Ready 4 Learning Charter School grant money not being pursued by OASD? I understand M. Monte has posted Dr. Heilmann's letter to the charter school grant consultant for DPI on her blog, followed by a bunch of questions that she says she hopes will be answered by him in a future report. Unfortunately, this is more typical Monte hypocrisy. Throw out a fact or two, followed by questions designed to stir the pot of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and speculation. Why is this hypocritical of her? Because she always tells others to go directly to the source, but refuses to do so herself AS LONG AS SHE CAN GET PEOPLE RILED UP BY NOT DOING SO. I AM SO SICKENED BY PEOPLE LIKE HER ALWAYS VIEWING THINGS AS IF THERE'S SOME CLOAK AND DAGGER MYSTERY GOING ON. EVERYTHING IN THEIR MINDS IS CLOUDED IN SUSPICION, AND YET M. MONTEHAS TALKED ABOUT BEING A POSITIVE PERSON ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. I hope we hear answers from Dr. Heilmann too because they'll put this hypocrite in her place. He's done it to her before and I'm sure will do it again. Between now and then, might you be able to get some real answers on this from administration? If Monte knew how to work with people she could, but that isn't possible, given her reputation. Thank you for your help. You can transfer my comment to the new thread.
Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM CST

Teresa's Post:
First I will explain what I know in general about the Charter School Grants process this time around, then I will address specifically what I know about the Oshkosh 4K grant. Most of the information I have comes as a result of working for the CESA 6 Grant Office, our office writes grants for school districts, including some of the grants Oshkosh has submitted in the past.
Sometime in April the US. Dept. of Education notified DPI about issues they had with WI Charter School Grant funding namely; schools needed to encompass more than one grade, schools with-in a school were problematic, there needed to be much more autonomy in governance of the charter school from the school district (there were other issues I can't recall at the moment but these were the main issues).
During this year's DPI review of the Charter School Applications DPI funded only ONE Charter Planning Application and TEN Charter Implementation Applications (last year DPI funded around 35 planning grants and 13 Initial Implementation grants). In the past, if schools were successful in their planning year they were almost always funded for the Initial Implementation so we should have seen at least 30 Initial Implementation grants NOT 10.
This year DPI's review of the charter grants came back with the following: Fund, pending revisions, do not fund.
It is my understanding that the Franklin, Shapiro and Merrill applications were all "pending revisions" and the 4K was "do not fund" --- though they did have the option of resubmitting the proposal by Oct. 15 with the required revisions and a CHANCE for funding --- the resubmit was NOT a guarantee of funding. The main reason the 4K charter was not funded was the 4K was a single grade charter --- which was fine when the planning grant was funded but then the Fed's said -- NO more single grade charters so the 4K Charter as described in the planning grant was not fundable. My understanding is to be funded the school would have to encompass more than just 4K -- just how many more grades, no one seems to know. From everyone I've spoken to this is a case of the Feds. changing the rules in the middle of the game with nothing for the district to do but adapt where possible.

Now, I will address those questions from M. Monte's blog (her questions are in italics) that I have answers for (my answers are in blue) :

From M. Monte's blog:

Does anyone remember just a couple of years ago when Brad Caufmann sat before the BOE touting the revenue we could be expecting from four-year-old kindergarten?

See, these are the kind of comments that frustrate anonymous (Nov. 17) and me. The fact is Mr. Cauffman wasn't "touting" the revenue he was simply explaining that after conferences with DPI and the design of the 4K plan (mind you this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter School) namely it being community based with parent involvement as a component, the district could count the 4K students as .6 instead of the usual .4 which would result in a small (I don't recall the figure now) positive balance in the budget, rather than the initial reports of a cost to the district (again I'm not sure of the exact figure but I believe it was in the $30,000 range). See, first when 4K was proposed those opposed to it (or just opposed to the district?) said 4K was nice but the district just couldn't afford it. Then, when it is discovered that in fact, with the additional .2, 4K wouldn't cost the district anything and would bring in a small amount the first year -- suddenly those same naysayers we saying the district was making 4 year olds go to school just to raise money. Such a distortion of the facts, but they keep on saying it hoping people will believe them.

How about the argument that we have no choice but to go to universal 4K to get state funding or lose the 4K ESL program. Anyone remember when I questioned such a claim or other parents asking when children will be allowed to be children?

The first part of the question is still true, DPI told the district that if they didn't implement a universal 4K program, they would no longer get ANY funding for the 4K ESL program. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter as that was NOT universal 4K that was a Charter School with a special focus for 4K students in the charter. The district has already begun implementing 4K and is expanding the available sites as they can. As to the second part of the question: NO ONE I repeat NO ONE is required to send their child to 4K (or 5K for that matter) compulsory education in WI starts at age SIX!

Were the conditions DPI placed on the grant so difficult that we would throw away money for a program we have already implemented?

Right now I don't know specifically what conditions DPI placed on the 4K grant (but I will get that information) but I do know that ALL charters were told they cannot have a charter with only ONE grade so one of the conditions would have been to expand the 4K charter to more grades --- which as Dr. Heilmann wrote in his letter, would expand the charter beyond its original intent --- I also wonder just how loud M. Monte would be screaming if the district decided to do this JUST to get the money???? Not to mention, resubmitting the application was NOT a guarantee of funding.

How are we going to pay for 4K for this year and in years to come? Are we going to cut the program? What about all the children desperate for the leg up before regular kindergarten?

Um, I thought M. Monte said 4 K was implemented for the money ---so if she is right about that, what is the problem? Sorry, I guess I need to repeat, the Charter School was a separate program from the district's universal 4K, it was a CHARTER SCHOOL --- it will have no affect on the universal 4K program and the district's ability to fund that. The only affect it will have on those who were to attend the charter school, but I'm guessing the school is operating this year anyway so it will just be a matter of running the program without the added dollars, since Charter School funding NEVER covers teachers' salaries, the staff is still there, it is things like bringing in experts for intensive staff development (and subs for staff to attend such workshops), furniture, supplies etc. that either will not be funded or the funding will come from elsewhere (knowing Patti Vickman this is probably already in the works ---but that is JUST ME speculating) the lack of charter funding may result in the charter school not existing next year --- that is something else I will check on and report back on.

Can we now let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be?

Again, a repeat but I guess it bears repeating--- NO CHILD in The OASD has EVER been required to attend 4K, that is a parent's choice. (Remember in WI you don't have to start school till you are SIX!!). (SIDE NOTE: when parents of 3 year olds were surveyed before 4K was implemented the VAST MAJORITY were in favor of the district instituting 4K). So if you believe keeping your 4 year old home to "let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be" you have EVERY right to do so, where M. Monte got the idea you couldn't is beyond me.

What about 4-year-old ESL?

What about it? The district has implemented UNIVERSAL 4K therefore they are in compliance with DPI requirements and can continue the 4K ESL program with funding (in terms of fte) from the state.

Anonymous (Nov. 17) and anyone else who cares about what the facts are, I hope this helps... as Anonymous (Nov. 17) wrote, a simple phone call or e-mail to either Mrs. Vickman or Dr. Heilmann would have given M. Monte all the answers she needed. And those of you who are going to post about me attacking M. Monte don't bother --- I am NOT attacking her, I'm simply pointing out where her facts or her understanding or BOTH are in error.

SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISE

2007-11-09T14:19:00.000-06:00

Well, after what was it, a workshop and a retreat to try and find compromise that all 7 board members could support, in the end the boundary decision was a 4-3 vote, with not one of the 3 who voted no back in (July?) voting for the latest plan. It is clear Mr. Rylance was correct when he told Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Weinsheim on Eye on Oshkosh that one of the 4 (Bowen, Kavanaugh, McDermott or Weinsheim) would have to compromise as the other 3 were not going to. What is AMAZING to me is that the plan voted on Wed. night was essentially the plan that Schneider and Becker crafted at the retreat. I spoke to district officials who drafted the resolution and they spoke to both those board members telling them what was in the resolution and even working with Mr. Becker to revise the resolution prior to the board meeting(which is why they were referring to Mr. McDermott's amendment as the SECOND amendment to the resolution). Neither member gave district officials any indication they did not support their own plan. Someone on OshKonversation said they didn't support it because it was changed from their original proposal (hence the title of this post --- if I can't have it exactly my way I'm not voting for it --- that is NOT compromise) and I didn't hear either of them actually offer an amendment to be voted on to bring it back to the plan they developed. Schneider did offer a suggestion to just deal with the high school issue (which of course would have unraveled the rest of the plan and was not the plan developed at the "retreat") but never actually verbalized an amendment the board could vote on. So what you were left with is those who voted for Option E back in the summer in the really interesting position of compromising by choosing the Roosevelt Option, thinking it would be a unanimous, or nearly unanimous vote and in the end they were in the very odd position of compromising with themselves.

Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children.

One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else.

I am glad we are finally moving on to the rest of the facilities plan though I don't expect the 3 to compromise on anything left to come. And does anyone know why Becker and Schneider voted against hiring the architect? That is one of my pet peeves explain your NO vote!

Well I must pick up my children from school --- remember, keep comments on topic or they aren't going to be published.

Making Class Sizes Smaller May Be More Cost-Effective Than Most Medical Interventions

2007-10-19T23:47:00.000-05:00

Well hopefully in the next month the board will have moved on from the never-ending boundary issue and I think the SAGE committee report is up next. I recently read a very timely article regarding smaller class sizes, you can read it here or here .

Here are some interesting comments from the articles:

"The study indicates that class-size reductions would generate more quality-adjusted life-year gains per dollar invested than the majority of medical interventions. "

"Project STAR is considered the highest quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education. "

Project STAR is what the Wisconsin SAGE program is based on. Project STAR randomly assigned teachers and students to classes with either 22 to 25 students or 13 to 17 students. SAGE went much further than that, first there is no "random assignment" and SAGE requires a rigorous curriculum, professional development for teachers, and family involvement.

"The researchers acknowledged “some uncertainty” about whether the results of the Tennessee study could be reproduced nationwide or could “produce substantive health benefits,” but said their analysis suggests that reductions in class sizes would save money from the societal perspective."

"The researchers estimate that reducing class sizes would mean an additional 72,000 to 140,000 students would graduate high school each year, producing net savings of $14 billion to $24 billion."

During the whole boundary mess you have people saying "just direct the resources to where the need is". Yet, many of the same people are opposed to SAGE because they say it is too costly or it is unfair or unproven. Those comments would be laughable if they weren't so ill informed yet widely believed.

Just remember the researchers that came up with this latest study were not from a school of education but rather from the medical field, a school of Public Health. Not that it will matter to many of the naysayers, I don't post this information for those who care nothing about the facts and just want to criticize with no data of their own, I post it for those who really want to learn more and understand the issues... I hope there are a few out there.

Latest Boundary Plan

2007-10-11T22:54:00.000-05:00

Well it was clear to me at the ASC/CRT meeting tonight that the Lakeside Plan is not coming back. The strangest thing about the meeting is, it seemed the authors of the "Roosevelt Plan" (for lack of a better name) appeared to be backing away from the plan. Mr. Becker still wants everything to ride on "volunteers" and not get into areas to move.

In looking at the maps and capacity numbers for K-3 and 4-8 schools, my opinion is that the better option than the one the board seems to be looking at (check out the map here ) is to move sections 1, 5, 6 and 8 (rather than 1-4). I think section 1 should go Merrill/North because even though that area is currently not bussed, those children do and would have to cross Oshkosh Ave. without a crossing guard to get to Tipler/West, it would be safer to put them on a bus to Merrill/North and the difference in distance doesn't appear to be that much. The rest of the sections 5, 6, and 8 are already on a bus whereas those in sections 2, 3 & 4 can and do walk to Tipler and West. The other benefits to moving 5, 6 and 8 is it will free up space at Traeger 4-8 which would be near capacity for the foreseeable future if those sections continue to go to Traeger. Taking 1, 5, 6 & 8 is a geographic chunk, it gives children in section 1 a safer way to school and allows for some room at Traeger 4-8.

A few people have said they like Mrs. Monte's idea of moving East into North... I've already expressed my opinion --- but I wonder if anyone has asked the students at East how they would feel about that? It is my understanding that they chose East because it is NOT a traditional High School and many students do not want to be in a traditional high school environment. Perhaps if Mrs. Monte talked to East students she would understand why this is not a good solution.

Hopefully, come November, the board will move on to discuss other parts of this plan, leaving the boundary issue behind them. There are a number of issues with what is to come. Some of the numbers I heard tonight, further convince me that building a South school doesn't make any sense at this time. There are only about 150-175 students that would attend. It is ridiculous to build a school or add on to a school that would only have 175 students. The standard for any rebuilds or additions should be 4 classes per grade. That is the only way to get efficient staffing.

I am eagerly awaiting the new architect's (Mr. Bray) report on our facilities and what buildings are worth keeping and which are worth adding on to and which should be gone... hopefully the board will listen to this expert, especially if it is confirmation of what previous experts have said. I really think architects know a little more about this than parents do.

This facilities plan should be about efficiencies (especially staffing) and equity. NOT about appeasement and politics. I can only hope...

The "Lakeside" Plan

2007-10-08T16:34:00.000-05:00

A poster on another thread said I should address the "Lakeside" Plan:

That is easy, it makes no sense to me, how Mr. Traska thinks this makes sense geographically since that was one of his major complaints about Option E. I just can't get away from seeing this as nothing more than a way to keep the Option E people happy.

I was surprised to find (when I drove the routes) that it is only .5 difference from Lone Elm to North and Lone Elm to West but when students already live more than 10 miles from a school, why add any more miles?

I do not see the Lakeside plan as superior to Option E or an even acceptable plan. The board should go back to Option E, adopt it, with only 4 votes if necessary and MOVE ON to finishing this plan ---then take the ENTIRE plan to the public and see what people think of the whole thing.

While consensus is nice, this board is so unlikely to come together as evidenced by a workshop and retreat which doesn't appear to have resulted in consensus, though I guess we will see Wed. just where everyone is on this. I truly hope the Lakeside plan is NOT what the board ends up supporting. This one just doesn't seem to make sense to anyone, even those who are not at all affected.

The Latest "Solution" to the High School Disparity Issue

2007-10-06T20:34:00.000-05:00

WOW, Just when I thought I've read it all... I read Mrs. Monte's "solution" to North's declining enrollment as being "send Oshkosh East to North -- as a separate school." Shows such a COMPLETE LACK of understanding of so many issues I don't even know where to begin.
First of all the concern is not with underutilized classrooms, which is ALL sending East High to North as a separate school would do.

Her so-called "solution" shows a lack of understanding how some "At-Risk" students need to be in an ENTIRELY different enviroment than a traditional High School --- and yes Ms. Monte, there are students who live withing walking distance of East.

The suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the concerns administrators, staff and parents have of North dropping below current numbers, as the student population decreases the number of single sections of classes increases. North is trying to "ward off" a scenario where students find themselves having to decide between Honors English, Physics 2, AP Psychology and Orchestra where by all 4 classes are scheduled the same hour, resulting in students being unable to take 3 of 4 classes they wanted. If you've never created a "Master Schedule" for a niddle or high school perhaps you should talk to someone who has... the fewer the students, the more difficult it becomes!

The concerns relating to the projected growing disparity between North and West are not about North getting 100 students to fill up some classrooms, it is about maintaining the current equity of opportunity that currently exists at our high schools. After all it is called a "long range facilities plan" that means it is looking to the future. I have not heard any board member say we currently do not have equity, what I have heard is concern that if the gap between the two high schools gets too large and the number of students at North drops too low, it will have an effect on the equity of opportunity for North students.

Finally, all the talk about "social engineering" it seems to me plain common sense that if you have one high school with a 35% poverty rate and one with a 14% poverty rate, the best solution when moving 100 students to the higher poverty school is not to move the students who live in an attendance area that has a 77% poverty rate (the highest rate by far on the West side). You can bury your head in the sand all you want, or call world reknowned Ruby Payne's work "tripe" but after 7 years at Jefferson (not to mention having a mother who volunteered at Head Start for years) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, poverty has a negative effect on learning.

Here is another take on Ruby Payne:

This link has a very interesting article... the following excerpt begins to explain to me the comments from some that there is no correlation between poverty and learning and the schools should just ignore it:

"The problem here, of course, is that Kipp isn’t unusual. We don’t just ignore the effects of class, we deny them. We bury them, blind ourselves to them, and then act as if they don’t exist. Kipp’s is the kind of experience Payne reports having constantly. It’s the reason schools want her to come. And it explains why her seminars are so dumbed-down: so’s her audience. We are woefully ignorant of class distinctions and the effects of class on education, and we are ignorant despite years of our school systems trying not to be. "

Discussion on Taxpayer support of Athletics

2007-09-23T13:58:00.000-05:00

I'd like to start a discussion on district funding of Athletics. This school year the district will have a co-op Hockey team that is fully supported by donations, scholarships and fees, there are no taxpayer dollars going to fund this team.

Is this fair? Is this something we should look at for all our teams? If our sports teams had to be privately funded, would the teams disappear? Should the district at least have a minium number of participants to continue a team? Currently the district does not want to run academic classes if there are less than 15 participants, should the same standard hold for athletics?

I completely believe that athletics plays an important part in an adolescent's life but the question is, when educational institutions continually are cutting their budgets by millions, is the investment in athletics more valuable than the othe programs being cut?

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the issue.

More on High School Boundaries

2007-09-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

There was an interesting "Commentary" in the Northwestern from a former Oshkosh student who attended both West and North high you can read it here. She makes some good points and maybe it is worth a second look. I think it is better than the "lottery" idea I read somewhere. I still think the "High School Attendance by Mother's Birthday is better mostly just based on opportunities for students. Unless you have two of every club at the "split" schools, you will decrease students' opportunities. I also wonder what will happen to 8th graders from the North side who need to take Freshman level courses... will it be feasible to bus them to West High? The split high school raises some issues but should it have been dismissed as quickly as it was?

High School Boundaries

2007-09-16T23:33:00.000-05:00

So what do people think about high school boundaries by mother's birthdate? As someone wrote on OshKonversation... it isn't likely to happen given the sacred nature of athletics in this district and what such a scenario would mean for our athletic teams.

I would like to see what this would cost in bussing and administrative time and if it was less than what we pay now, I think it is the right thing to do for Oshkosh. It would almost guarantee balanced high schools and it just wouldn't matter where one lived anymore and you wouldn't have to adjust boundaries and have angry parents fill up board rooms. Everyone would know the day their child was born (well even before that) which school they would go to. Could make things interesting in the dating world. Oh, your birthday is an odd date, can't marry you, I want my children to go to ....

I think it is an idea worth considering but I'm 99% sure that won't happen.

Poverty and Education

2007-09-05T16:14:00.001-05:00

I have read and listened to comments from people who seem to believe that poverty plays no role in a child's learning. That poor, middle class and rich kids all have the same opportunities etc. Is that what most people believe or just a few bloggers? I have to ask a few questions for those who actually do believe that poverty makes no difference.

1. Why does the Federal Government give Title I funds to schools with high poverty rates?
2. Why does NCLB look at the gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged?
3. Why was SAGE created?
4. Why do schools with high poverty rates almost always have low test scores?
5. Why was Head Start created?
6. Why have a "War on Poverty" if poverty has NO effect on children?

Why do people want to deny that poverty does affect children and their learning? I am not saying that every child in poverty will be affected the same way or that if you are poor you will not succeed. But to deny that teaching and learning is more difficult in high poverty schools just has no basis in reality.

It was asked on OshKonversation, "Is it fair that only some of our children benefit from SAGE classes and not others; what happened to equitable?"

The poster is confusing EQUAL with EQUITABLE.. SAGE is the very definition of equitable... equal means everyone gets the same thing, equitable means giving everyone an equal opportunity, which is what SAGE does.

It just baffles me that some continue to argue that poverty has no effect... or like the speaker at the last board meeting... those whose children qualify for free or reduced lunch aren't poor --- they just need someone to show them how to spend their money more wisely. Yeah, you go on believing that the families who make $6 and hour don't have it any harder than those that make $20. I guess it makes one feel better to believe poverty really doesn't matter, because then we are not required to address a problem that doesn't exist.

Just wondering

2007-09-03T21:50:00.000-05:00

I've put off posting for awhile because I've been so frustrated, I've refrained from posting on the OshKonversation for awhile but couldn't stay away for long. I just can't really figure out why I keep bothering. I can't seem to stop operating under the misguided notion that people want the facts --- they don't! A poster says Smith's enrollment is increasing because a family with children moved in down the street. Well the WINNS data from DPI shows that the only significant increase in enrollment at Smith is due to Pre-K programs being put there. In the 2000-2001 school year there were 265 K-5 students last year (2006-2007) there were 181 K-5 students... how is that increasing enrollment? The response on OshKonversation? I was asked why I didn't send my children to Traeger when Jefferson was in disrepair? I had several reasons the primary one being Traeger did not/ does not have the diversity in its student body that Jefferson does, that diversity was very important to me as a mother. It is important to me that my children experience children of other cultures and economic situations so they understand that "everyone is not like them" which is not just OK but a good thing! Not that the posters really care about the answers to any of the questions they post, they just use it as another reason to bash someone. The question I keep coming back to is WHY do I keep posting???? Anyone out there have an answer???

One more irritation today --- I was perusing the blog of a former school board candidate and she had posted some questions on the state budget stalemate, the first one just had me shaking my head... it asked the governor (who has ties to education - she posts) why the education funds are being held up? Budgeting/State Government 101 --- The governor can only provide a budget to the legislature (which he did many months ago ---probably in April) then he must WAIT for a budget to be passed by BOTH houses (Senate and Assembly) this has NOT happened and the governor has no power to make it happen so why ask the governor why the hold up when HE is NOT the one holding it up!! I know I'm sure I misunderstood something ... just drives me crazy that people don't even get the basic functioning of our government.

I'm waiting for the Sept. 12th Board meeting to see if there is more delaying, yet another boundary option or if they will actually make a decison. I predict either more delays or they move the poor kids whose parents won't complain. Hope I'm wrong on both counts.

Will the Oshkosh BOE Cave or Stand Firm?

2007-08-09T22:56:00.000-05:00

Well as those affected by Option E put on the pressure, will the school board cave to the pressure and find yet another area to move, one this time that doesn't have such active parents? I sure hope not, but I certainly can't predict which way it will go.

I'm so tired of hearing about "driving clear across town". Let's look at what Mapquest has to say:

from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Oakwood it is .35 miles and est. 1 min
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Roosevelt it is 2.02 miles and est. 7 min.

from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Traeger Middle it is 3.12 miles and est. 9 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Merrill Middle it is 3.10 miles and est 10 min .02 miles closer than Traeger and a whopping MINUTE longer to drive to Merrill vs. Traeger

from 1220 Sheboygan Street to West High it is 2.27 miles and an est. 7 min. drive
from 1220 Sheboygan St. to North High it is 3.05 miles and 10 min.

Yes, Oakwood is closer than Roosevelt BUT, Roosevelt is closer than Traeger and Merrill is closer than Traeger too (though by a mere .02 mi.). The difference in the distance to the high schools is less than a mile.

Are you still going to argue that North is "clear across town and West is right in our neighborhood? Less than a mile difference and THREE minutes difference in drive times, sorry the facts just don't bear out the rhetoric.

With the K-3 configuration many families will live farther than 1/3 of a mile (as many do already). This is NOT sending kids clear across town.

Then there is the whole "friend" issue. First of all what does being in a school with your friend have to do with educational quality? In my childrens schools often the teachers have to decide that "friends" can't be in the same class together because it is too disruptive for others. Are these same people going to make sure their children go to college with their "friends" too, we wouldn't want them to be damaged by being separated from their friends.

I can't even believe people live so far under rocks they "had NO idea this was going on". Please we are going on 2 years since PMP was hired, and for 10 years the district has been looking at balancing enrollments. School newsletters discussed it, it is on the HOME page of the website, right in the middle of the page, the Northwestern, WOSH, Eye on Oshkosh, the Oshkosh Common Council have ALL discussed the facilities issues. If people choose not to pay attention that is their choice but don't turn around and say it was under the radar, being sneaked through in the summer or not communicated to people. What do you want? A door to door campaign? It is NOT that people didn't know facilities were being discussed, they just didn't pay attention, didn't really care what was being discussed because they were not being affected. Once they are involved everyone is all interested and NOW the process is moving too fast. I've been paying attention all along because I'm interested in what happens. Then there are the "perfect plans" put forth that have no numbers, no bussing costs, no construction costs just a lot of "I'm sure" it will cost less than Scenario 7. It all hinges on a NEW K-8 for Oakwood (apparently refurbishing isn't good enough for that school) and sending half that school to North (which of course would require an addition to North) and then build a new school for Green Meadow (I'm sure the costs will be low to build a school for 500+ on a septic system) and then just leave all the rest of the schools in the disrepair they are in. Just LOVE that idea. I guess if you are wealthy enough to build a new house your kids need to go to a brand new school, if you can't afford to, or choose not to live in a "new" house well then, your children don't deserve their school refurbished. You think I'm making this up... Check out OshKonversation

I really see no point in trying to educate people on the blogs about why the choices being made are necessary. Most posting don't "listen" to what is said... as they so quickly criticize others of not listening... yet I know and can repeat for you the "arguments" they give. I just happen to know that many posters miss the whole point of efficiencies of staffing and why some schools must close.

Back to my original question. I think this is the closest we have come to a board with a majority that understands action must be taken. Whether there is a majority to do so or not, we will have to wait and see. Clearly it has become impossible to continue to have all the schools we have and one of the lowest tax rates and per pupil spending amount of the 25 largest school districts in the state. In the end what will the tradeoffs be?

I really wish those who WANT the board to take action and those who do support the plan would come out and speak in favor of it but I understand the audience is rather hostile and it is an effort to come and speak. I just don't want to hear anyone tell me (as they have in the past) "the board needs to; close Green Meadow, get rid of all those little schools, stop putting this off etc... If the board caves once again, those who chose not to speak in favor will be partly to blame.

New Idea for the District Facilities Plan

2007-07-30T22:35:00.000-05:00

Today at the ASC/CRT meeting someone suggested that to save money, perhaps East High should be put into Emmeline Cook Elementary and that school could become a smaller Elementary school than it currently is and the left-over classrooms could be used for East High.

I wonder what people's thoughts are on that suggestion?

Let's Play Ostrich, Shall We?

2007-07-25T23:45:00.000-05:00

Do you subscribe to the "if we don't say it, it must not be true"? Do you think that pretending something isn't real makes it go away? OK, enough of the mystery.

Oshkosh is a divided community; certainly the school district community is divided by sides of town.

One poster on OshKonversation posted this:

"...particularly those who clearly choose to use the west-side/north-side language in describing our community and clearly favor certain schools or sides of town. I also question having administrators who act in the same manor (sic)."

So if we don't "talk about it" it makes it go away, I don't know if that is naïveté, ignorance, or politics, but I just don't think that if you sweep the dirt under the rug it means the dirt is gone.

For me, this post, from a different poster, also from OshKonversation proves my point:

...Perhaps we just need to hire a spot-on marketing team to promote Merrill and North? The question is what can you do to persuade people on the west side who seem to be afraid to send their children there. and from the same poster- ... When you look at the proximity of all the child sexual offenders living in the area around Merrill it's incredibly concerning. The test scores at Merrill are of course disappointing but the district won't even consider that as a problem since each school is supposed to provide the same quality of education.

I would tell parents who are worried about test scores, rest assured, your children's test scores will follow them to Merrill. My children went to Jefferson, not a school with the highest of test scores but my children got a WONDERFUL education and their personal test scores would rival those of any Oakwood student. I say this not to brag about my children but to point out that the major predictor of a student's standardized test score is their parent's education level and income. My children have two college educated parents and a middle class home. That is not the case with many Jefferson families and unfortunately that is reflected in test scores, it is NOT a reflection of the quality of education children receive. Does anyone really believe that if the entire staff at a Jefferson or Merrill were switched with the entire staff at Oakwood that the test scores at Oakwood would go down and those at Jefferson or Merrill would be the top in the district?

I would say there are definitely "sides of town" namely the West and the North, it is sad, it is divisive and it is not to any one's benefit to support a divided town. However, to criticize people for stating what is obvious and instead pretending no such divisions exist does absolutely nothing to fix a serious issue. Burying one's head in the sand like the ostrich does not bring people together. The first step to fixing a problem is ADMITTING there is one.

I have lived in this town for about 16 years and what struck me right away when I moved here was the constant talk about the "West Side" and the "North Side". I grew up in Milwaukee and there, there were 4 sides of town --- just like the 4 compass points East Side, North Side, West Side and South Side. I think a big part of there being only 2 sides is the fact that we have 2 high school --- is it really coincidence they are called North and West? (Note: I do know we now have 3 high schools but since East is an Alternative High School it doesn't really factor in the same way).

I remember the year Oshkosh North High was on their way to the state tournament for football and some West students were actually cheering for North's opponent to win the game so North would be eliminated, as West had already been. If that is not divisiveness I don't know what you'd call it. I have heard North students and their parents say West students are snobs with silver spoons in their mouth and West students and parents say North students are losers, etc. It is sad, it is wrong and it is time it stops. But I also believe it is wrong to criticize those who have brought it out in the open and spoken about it whether they be board members, administrators or average citizens. Let's admit the problem, face it and take steps to correct it. Perhaps the first step is to implement the selected boundary changes and give people a chance to see that the world goes on and life isn't so bad, even if you go to school with someone from the "other" side of town.

Is it appropriate for school board members to deny children an education?

2007-05-30T20:26:00.000-05:00

I was talking to someone about the last school board meeting and this person made a comment that really got me thinking. The comment "Why would you want to be on the school board if you are going to deny children an education?" The person was referencing the "no" vote by 2 board members to provide 4K education to Oshkosh children. For almost 10 years the Oshkosh district has had a 4K program for English Language Learners (ELL) students and the state informed Oshkosh that in order to receive state aide for that program the district needed to have a "universal access" 4K program. Meaning that 4K had to be available for all district children, not just targeted to certain groups. If the district did not move to universal access 4K they would not be able to have a 4K ELL program either because there is no money in the budget to fully fund such a program. I hadn't really thought about the fact that voting against 4K was denying children an education but that is what would have happened. Those same board members then voted against providing summer school programs for students because they believe that the pay for summer school teachers is too high, but that is something that is bargained with the union and cannot be changed unilaterally. It does seem strange that school board members would vote against providing programs that are not only needed by students but, in the case of 4K ,wanted by 85% of parents surveyed.

There is a multitude of research by not just educators but also economists that show that 4K is not only beneficial for children (with univeral 4K considered more beneficial for children in need than targeted programs) it has a huge return on investment for governmental units. Yet these board members still voted against 4K basically denying children an education. I just don't see how it can be justified that the best interest of the children were served by those "NO" votes.

Oshkosh School District and the Council

2007-05-22T23:32:00.001-05:00

Well I just finished watching the Common Council workshop on the School District's facilities plan. Some thoughts.

Could McHugh be any more rude (well of course he could and has been but nonetheless I don't think that is how you treat people who have come to provide you with information).

As a parent I'm a little insulted to think that people actually believe the only consideration a parent would have about a school is how close it is to my home... really if that were the only consideration shouldn't we have a school located within a mile of every home? What about the condition of the building... you really think people looking to buy homes in our city check out some of these schools and say oh, yeah, I'll buy there because the school is close, mind you the school floods when it rains, they have plastic gutters screwed to the walls to hold books because there is no storage but that is exactly what I'm looking for in a school for my child.

Some of the schools that will be closed are less than a mile from the school students will be sent to. I don't think you can use the "we are losing our neighborhood school" argument when, say, Smith school is a mere .6 of a mile from Jefferson. If you look at all the schools that are slated to be closed, for schools in the city limits, the school that students would be sent to is located no more than 1.9 miles away and as close as .6 miles. People looking to move into our community have no "ties" to a school so are unlikely to care if their child goes to Smith or Jefferson though I would imagine if a prospective family toured each building and made a decision on the building alone, they would choose the newest school.

The fact is, what is referred to as "growth on the West side" it was pointed out tonight is really just a shifting of people from other parts of the city to the West side. Is that in the best interest of our city. Will keeping substandard school buildings in the "central city" really encourage people to buy homes there, or would closing a substandard school and upgrading the school those children would go to be more appealing to prospective home buyers?

Pretty sad that some council members failed to understand the economics of keeping "failing" buildings open so "everyone" is happy. Doing that off the top throws out the $1.5M per year saved in operating costs... it also means spending dollars on buildings that an architect said he wouldn't recommend spending more money on. If you take out completely the $29M in functional issues and just address deferred maintenance you are looking at $10M in a referendum and all you've done is put a bandage on a gaping wound that needs surgery.

Let's go back to the $29M on functional issues, supposedly the community won't spend the money on this, how sad that supposedly the community doesn't believe our children all deserve to have similar experiences in school that it is OK for some to learn with constant distractions from other classes due to an open concept, or that some students never get to do a "clay" unit in Art because there is no kiln in the gym where Art class is held, or students wear coats in class because it is too cold without them, and I could go on about more inequities but I won't.

Everyone wants to know about Plan B --- while there is no specific Plan, I can tell you whatever it might be it will be ugly. Given the declining enrollment and the unlikelihood that the state will change the school funding formula, the cuts will be deep and they will affect students. Keeping all our schools and spending money to maintain them, will mean cutting millions each year. I predict class sizes will rise and the non-core subjects like Art, Music and Phy-Ed will be scaled back and cut in some instances. If things go on long enough, probably even the "sacred cow" athletics will be affected.

I just don't see any "Plan B" being something that will attract a lot of families to Oshkosh... why is it only Oshkosh and Neenah are declining enrollment districts in the Fox Valley? Perhaps in Oshkosh's case simply having an abundance of elementary schools isn't enough to draw families in. Let's face it, they weren't coming to the district in the 5 years prior to discussions of these scenarios. Our enrollment has been declining for a number of years. Could it be because other districts have more to offer people? Maybe it is because those districts don't operate on the "we're getting by" philosophy. Maybe the other Fox Valley school districts believe in providing quality facilities. My daughter played high school basketball this year and I attended games in every high school in our conference and every one of the facilities was superior to West's main gym. I'd be willing to bet none of those schools had bleachers built in 1960.

As time goes by I fear that once again this district will do little to nothing to address the inequities that exist. Sadly, the only place I find solace is in the fact that in 5 years I will no longer have children in the district.

Cost Benefit of Quality Pre-School Programs

2007-05-06T01:28:00.000-05:00

As I was doing some research for work I came across this report by an economist. I haven't had time to read the entire report, but a brief summary states:
"Research is increasingly demonstrating that the policy of investing in early child-hood development, particularly high-quality prekindergarten, provides a wide array of significant benefits to children, families, and society as a whole. Empirical research shows that all children, regardless of whether they are from poor, middle-, or upper-income families, benefit from prekindergarten programs. In addition, higher quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs."

And this: {"We can build on what we have," she said. "What's new about this study is that it is based on a sizeable, long-standing program funded and operating effectively in the real world."Lynch based his state-by-state analysis on a 40-year Chicago program helping low-income families with preschool and other services.} From an article in the Arizona Republic.

I'm sure there are some who will dismiss this research and analysis, but it is compelling to me, and some is just common sense -- is anyone really surprised that "higer quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs"?

Require students to fill out college application?

2007-04-30T15:34:00.000-05:00

I just read an interesting article, which you can find here about the state of Maine considering a bill that would require all high school seniors to apply to college. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue but I would love to hear your thoughts, is this something Wisconsin or Oshkosh should consider?

The City and the School District and the Facilities Plan

2007-04-22T08:35:00.000-05:00

I have started a new thread I have copied and pasted a post from a previous thread to begin the discussion because I think this topic deserves its own thread (I have also copied and pasted the two responses to the original post - the first date is the original post the second is when I posted them here):

I would ask the you keep to the topic of the impact of the facilities plan on the city.

Original Post by Anonymous
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST

Check out this open letter from Kent Monte to the mayor and members of the city council.

"To Mayor Tower and Oshkosh Common Council Members,I would like to address an issue that is evolving within our school district that will have a great influence on city assessments for many years to come. As most of you already know, the school board has approved an open ended scenario 7 to be addressed by the administration. If this scenario is allowed to be brought to completion, it will mean a drastic reduction in property values in many areas throughout the city while stagnating growth on the south/west section of the city. This scenario is NOT a viable option for Oshkosh and should NOT be considered acceptable by this council. I plea with you step in and protect the cities interest in this matter. It will have a lasting negative effect on this city and should not be allowed to be completed. Further scenario discussions should include City Administration to represent the council and homeowners/taxpayers.Thank you for your time and consideration.Kent Monte"

Where does one even begin to comment about his ridiculous ramblings? First, he has absolutely no idea what the board is going to ask for in a referendum, so to suggest it will have such long-term, devastating effects is asinine and irresponsible. We should be able to expect more from someone who wanted to be a city leader. Second, we have to take care of ALL sections of Oshkosh, not just the side he lives on. And in case he hasn't noticed, the city is landlocked so any growth we have -- and there will always be growth despite his prediction of stagnation under scenario 7 -- will be to the west.I'm sure there are others who can more appropriately address his complaints about scenario 7. But the one thing to remember about the Montes is they've never seen a scenario they liked; and probably never will. They will find reasons to bitch about anything the district comes up with because they are naysayers who want no change whatsoever.Last, but certainly not least, I realize Kent is not a product of the Oshkosh school system, but I question what he learned in whatever school system he did come from. Take a look at his sentence structure and grammar in the sentence that starts with the words "I plea." Wow, is this guy for real? So much for quality control in his letter. He might want to think about having English major wife Michelle check out his ramblings in the future. Oh, that's right, she's about as bad and makes the same mistakes as he.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST

OASD Facilities Plan and some misinformation

2007-04-16T21:37:00.000-05:00

I was reading some other local blogs and I'm just amazed at how one particular blogger continues to perpetuate misinformation. Mrs. Monte responded to a poster who had expressed her feelings about keeping 9th graders in the middle school and Mrs. Monte said that was being looked at "The possibility is that with declining enrollment, if the trend holds true, a switch to 10-12 could be temporary as a way to avoid building classrooms that would not be needed in the future."

I just find it amazing that Mrs. Monte, especially as a member of the CRT, does not understand that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would require the building of classrooms. The district would be approximately 575 seats SHORT if they added 9th graders to our middle schools. Aslo, she claims that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would address the Freshman failure rate --- really? How would having 9th graders in middle school "address" the Freshman failure rate? Does she not know how that rate has been dramatically reduced by what the high schools have done to address this? This is not to say this is not still an issue but much has improved already. How would this bring equity to our elementary buildings? What would the operational savings be by doing this, or would it increase? To jump on any idea out there just because someone suggested it doesn't make sense to me.

I just wonder how many people out there really want the facts and how many will just believe anything they hear or read?

The Governor and Schools:

2007-04-09T23:26:00.000-05:00

The following is a press release from the Governor's office that was shared with me courtesy of Cheryl Hentz:

Monday, April 9, 2007
Contact: Carla Vigue, Office of the Governor, 608-261-2162

Governor Doyle Details Rural Schools Initiative
Budget Proposals Would Address Declining Enrollment, Provide Additional Resources for Transportation, Special Education, and Smaller Classes
SUPERIOR, MERRILL - Governor Jim Doyle today detailed a Rural Schools initiative aimed at ensuring that kids in rural communities have an equal chance at a great education. The initiative, part of Governor Doyle's budget for the next two years, represents significant reforms in Wisconsin's school financing system, including measures to address declining enrollment, support school transportation needs, provide additional special education funding, and other measures to strengthen rural education. The Governor made the announcements at Cooper Elementary School in Superior and Washington Elementary School in Merrill."Rural schools play a vital role in our state, yet they face unique challenges," Governor Doyle said. "I believe that every kid, whether they come from a rural area, the city, or the suburbs, deserves the same chance to get a great education. These reforms will ensure that rural schools are treated fairly, and can prepare our kids for the jobs of the future." Addressing Declining EnrollmentDeclining enrollment is one of the biggest problems facing school districts across Wisconsin. The state currently has limits on the total amount that schools can spend based on a per pupil amount. When a school's enrollment goes down, its allowable spending goes down. Under the Governor's plan, schools will be able to receive more revenue to offset a one year decline in enrollment. For a district that saw steady declines year after year, as many districts do, this will help soften the blow and give them added flexibility, so that they never face a devastating loss in any one year. Reforming the School Transportation FormulaTo provide more support for students living in rural areas who have to travel more than 12 miles to get to school, Governor Doyle is increasing school transportation reimbursement rates by $900,000 a year. This reform will help give rural schools more flexibility in their spending limits, allowing them to focus more of their spending on classroom resources. Lifting Low Revenue DistrictsAs another step to give rural school districts more flexibility in their spending, Governor Doyle is raising the revenue ceiling by $600 per student over the next two years, and making sure schools have the resources they need for their students.
Increasing Special Education FundingTo provide more support for students in special education programs, Governor Doyle is increasing special education funding by more than $50 million - the largest increase in support for special education in nearly 15 years. Increasing SAGE Funding Smaller class sizes during a student's earliest years in school are critical for a good start to their education. That's why Governor Doyle launched the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) initiative - his plan to reduce class sizes from kindergarten through third grade. Today, Governor Doyle proposed increasing SAGE funding to $2,250 per student, to help raise student achievement, and create more opportunities for a good education.

NOTE the last point, I don't think SAGE is in danger of being discontinued this budget cycle...

I found some of these items had some interesting information in them... students who travel more than 12 MILES to school --- and we have people making 5 miles seem like the end of the world... I guess it just proves everything is relative...

So what do you think of the Governor's school funding proposals?

Thank you

2007-04-04T20:39:00.000-05:00

I would like to thank everyone who voted for me and especially those who expressed their support and encouragement. I gave it all I had but it was not to be. I will remain passionate about education, just in a less visible way.

Thank you all!

SAGE and a candidate who just doesn't understand

2007-03-30T22:53:00.000-05:00

I was reading the Oshkosh Northwestern Candidate Site and the answer to a question about SAGE that was posted by Mrs. Monte. I truly don't understand how she could have been following the whole SAGE discussion as well as the facilities discussions and come up with what she did for an answer:

Mrs. Monte's post from the Northwestern site is here:

Here is my response:

I would like to correct a few mistakes in Mrs. Monte's post ...

First of all there is NO requirement by the state that a school has a certain percentage of students on free/reduced lunch. That was only required during the first two years.

Second; the "pivot point" Mrs. Vickman was referring to was the point at which SAGE pays for the additonal teachers and professional development without the district needing to supplement, that point is between 40%-45%. We would NOT lose SAGE if a school dropped below that point the district just might have to supplement the SAGE funding. It appears that under Scenario 7 SAGE funding would cover the cost of the additional teachers.

Third: There is no current SAGE school in our district that has just ONE student in a classroom that qualifies for free/reduced lunch. That would be a ridiculous way to assign students. If a school has 40% of its students qualify for free/reduced lunch approximatley 40% of students in a classroom will also qualify. SAGE no longer pays for classroom building.

Finally, the last paragraph is just not accurate. The district cannot afford to keep most of our elementary schools and "spread the students over all of the schools and have smaller class sizes" --- without the SAGE funds from the state where would the district get the millions it would cost to reduce class sizes and pay for all the additional teachers? There are no "educational savings" by spreading kids out. SAGE does not cause "liabilities to a district" and how would transportation costs be reduced from what they are today by reducing class sizes?

End of Post on Northwestern site

I believe a board candidate should have at least a passing understanding of SAGE and its funding and what exactly staffing efficiencies are...I am truly astonished by the comments made -- that somehow spreading our students out among 15 school buildings will create "educational savings" whatever that means. All it does is assure that you will have class sizes of 8 or 9 in some places... in larger schools you will have more classes of the same grade and thus more likely to have each room filled close to the 15 student limit (which can go to a maximum of 17 though 15 is optimal). The more schools you have the less efficient your staffing becomes.

The Final Weeks of the Campaign

2007-03-17T22:49:00.000-05:00

Well this might be an exercise in futility, as no one really has posted on this blog in some time and I'm not savy enough to figure out how many (if any) have viewed this but...

I really feel that this election is critical for our district. I think this election will either move this district forward or stall it and perhaps even begin a downward spiral. Two of my fellow candidates have made it pretty clear that they support the status quo as far as buildings go, both have stated, in writing that they would only close Lincoln for sure. Without a doubt that will mean deeper budget cuts that will affect our students negatively. If we keep all our buildings but one, we will have millions in repairs that we cannot afford and will be hard pressed to ever have the dollars for catch up and continuing maintenance. It is vital to the future of our district that Mrs. Bowen and I get elected.

Last year during his campaign, Mr. Becker started his opening statements with "Do you want a board member who..." Well I ask, "Why would anyone want a board member who spent 6 days trying to have as many votes thrown out as he possibly could?" The official minutes from last year's recount are at the end of this post. Mr. Becker had 200+ objections to Mrs. Weinsheim's approximately 15. I ask that you think about how much you feel an elected official is "representing you" when his mantra is "vote yes for me so I can vote no for you". Voting no certainly doesn't move things forward.

I have been very straight-forward in telling voters what I belive, even if it isn't popular. I do hope people respect that but even if it costs me the election, I will never regret being honest and making decisions based on what I believe is best for our students, instead of saying what special interest groups want to hear so I can get their vote.

Most of all, I would ask those of you who support me to go out and vote and tell everyone you know to do the same. Remember this election could be decided by ONE vote... yours does count so please vote Thiel and Bowen on April 3rd.

Thank you.

Now some bedtime reading, guaranteed sleep aid ;-)

Here are the official minutes from last year's recount.

OSHKOSH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF CANVASSERS
MINUTES OF RECOUNT HELD BY THE BOARDFOR THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERSPRING ELECTION HELD APRIL 4, 2006
April 7, 2006
April 10, 2006
April 11, 2006
April 12, 2006
April 13, 2006
April 17, 2006

APRIL 7, 2006
The meeting of the Board was called to order at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, April 7, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of recounting the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.
Board of Canvassers present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers

Candidates present were: Dan Becker, Amy Weinsheim, Michelle Monte
Also present were Paul Esslinger, Janie Robson, City Clerk Pam Ubrig
Dan Becker objected to Attorney Renning representing the Board of Canvassers because he also represents the Board of Education. Mr. Becker contended Attorney Renning has a conflict of interest. Mr. Renning indicated that no conflict of interest existed and that he would represent the Board of Canvasser.

Clerk Designee Teresa Collins (See Bowen letter) stated that the meeting was noticed on Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. (See Notice) It was determined that all election materials would be locked in a designated conference room at all times when the Board was not present. This conference room was re-keyed by a school district locksmith and Clerk Designee Collins has the only key to that room.

Clerk Designee Collins stated that Dan Becker submitted a petition (See Petition) for a recount at 6:10 p.m. on April 5, 2006. The petition along with a Notice of Recount Election was hand-delivered to each of the six candidates on Thursday, April 6, 2006, with a signed receipt obtained. (See Notices) A Certificate of Service was attached to a copy of each Notice for district files. (See Certificates of Service.)
Pam Ubrig read a statement into the record. (See Voting Statement)
Dan Becker submitted a list of people to act or speak on his behalf. (See Becker list) That list included the following: Amy Resop, Ann Rumbuc, Melanie Bloechl, Fred Boss, Anne Boss, Paul Esslinger, Michelle Monte, Andy Turner, Michelle Litjens, Tamara Mugerauer, Dennis McHugh, and Tom Sitter. There were no objections.

Becker asked City Clerk Pam Ubrig why out of all the clocks on the voting machines, two were not adjusted. Ubrig responded that she was training her assistant to do the testing. She watched her do the first 3 testings and the fourth one the assistant did on her own and she missed adjusting the clock. It was a simple error and she forgot to change the clock. When you view the 0 tape, it’s going to be an hour off.

Becker responded that there is no way to determine when the 0 tape was run. One could argue that it was run at 5:30. There is no way to prove when that tape was run.
Becker then questioned the ballot box at St. Andrews Church. Becker inquired as to whether, at any point, people standing in line would have perceived there was a problem and left. City Clerk Pam Ubrig responded that she could only speak to the time she was there and at the time she was there, there was never a long line and the voting never stopped. Ubrig further maintained that this is possible when the machine is working.

Becker asked City Clerk Pam Ubrig about the machine used at Franklin School. Memory cards were tested prior to the election so Becker inquired as to what actually happened to them between the test and the return to city hall. Ubrig responded that the memory cards are sealed in that machine’s compartment and stored in the vault until April 3. On April 3 they pick up supplies and tabulators and take them to the polls that morning. At the end of Election Day, an “ender card” is put through. At that time they break the seal and are instructed not to put the memory cards next to anything magnetic. We do a direct upload and modem over to the County. Becker asked if there was a reasonable explanation as to how the memory card wound up being blank. Ubrig responded that something as simple as an electric shock could clear out the memory card.

A test of the voting machine was run at 1:30 p.m. in front of the Board of Canvassers as well as Dan Becker and Amy Weinsheim. The result was verified. Mr. Becker asked if each voting machine is subjected to this test and City Clerk Pam Ubrig responded that yes, they were. There are 17 voting machines.

Janey Robson, a citizen speaking on her own behalf, asked if this recount was going to cost the district money. Mr. Renning responded that there will be a cost to the district and that will not be known until after the recount is concluded.

Paul Esslinger responded on his behalf that if there is a problem with voting machines, he thinks it is very important that we have this recount.

Amy Weinsheim stated that she has never been through this process and does not have anyone scheduled to speak on her behalf. She asked for the process in case she wouldn’t be available certain days. Mr. Renning asked her to provide a list of people who can speak/act on her behalf.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig asked if she could take the test materials back to her office since the test had been performed. It was noted that Winnebago County has all the same voting equipment so their memory cards will work in this machine. There were no objections.

Mr. Becker asked how this particular machine was selected to be here today. It was noted that the machine was #4, which was the same machine used at St. Andrew’s.
Mr. Becker asked for it to be noted that Helen Kind and Denise Butler are taking part and not being used as tabulators. That is not the function they are serving. Mr. Renning explained that they are not members of the Board of Canvassers but are being used by the Board of Canvassers as tabulators and for assistance.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig explained that poll workers have envelopes to put documentation into. Everything for the City is red, the County is blue, and the School District is green. From the City they will be pulling out the poll list. From the County, they will be pulling out the County poll list; absentee envelopes, which are stored in a vault until Election Day and opened at the polls; and any rejected absentee ballots. From the School District they will be pulling out the tape and any inspector statements. The other thing needed will be the memory card. Ms. Ubrig then explained the process of checking absentee envelopes and applications.

DISTRICT 1Absentee Envelopes – Ward 1DM – notified of address change to take effect in the future.
Mr. Becker objected that a signature was in pencil (Marked #1). The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to accept the signature.
Absentee Envelopes – Ward 2PH missing application for absentee ballot. (Marked #2)RH missing application for absentee ballot. (Marked #3)Becker objected that there were apparently no applications ever made for the above-named absentee ballot envelopes. Both absentee envelopes (Marked #2 and #3 above) were laid aside. No applications were found after going through all 3 application binders.
Mr. Becker requested that he or one of his representatives be in the room whenever the ballots are in the room.
Ward 1City Poll List Certification = 293County Poll List Certification = 293Canvass Tape = 294
Ward 2City Poll List Certification = 313County Poll List Certification = 313Canvass Tape = 312
It was determined that a wrong color ballot was given to a voter. District 1 total, which includes Ward 1 and Ward 2, is correct. Mr. Becker objected that an elector received a wrong color ballot.
The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope and Recreated Ballot Envelope were both empty.

Mr. Becker objected to Denise Butler speaking with Paula Steger, Amy Weinsheim’s mom. Mr. Renning stated that he did not see anything inappropriate with this since Ms. Butler is a tabulator and will not be making any decisions as part of the Canvass Board.

Mr. Becker requested minutes on a daily basis and the Board will try to facilitate his request to the extent possible.

Becker objected to LB not being on the City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #4)Becker objected to FC not being on the City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #5)Becker objected to MM #6 not being on the City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #6)
It was noted that the City’s absentee ballot log is an internal tracking piece.
Becker objected to AA not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #7)
It was noted that the tape run for Ward 1 was an hour behind. (See Ms. Ubrig’s statement above.)
Ellen Binder interrupted at 3:58 p.m. with a message that the Ripon School District was requesting ballots from the Town of Utica for purposes of a recount.
Dan Becker objected that absentee ballots needing to be recreated were not identified as being recreated. It was subsequently determined that absentee ballots were, in fact, recreated and the duplicates identified.
Dan Becker objected to an alleged over-vote on a ballot. The Board of Canvassers voted 2-1 that voter intent could be determined and a duplicate ballot was created.
Dan Becker objected to an over-vote and questioned voter intent (#47). The Board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined and a duplicate ballot was created.

Amy Weinsheim provided a list of people (See Amy’s list) with permission to speak/act on her behalf in her absence. These included John Weinsheim, Paula Steger, Jerry Steger, Karen Bowen, and Teresa Thiel. Mr. Becker reserved his objection.

Attorney Renning noted for the record that Davis & Kuelthau had contacted the Ethics Board and the State Elections Board and neither expressed any concern with Mr. Renning serving as legal counsel for the Board of Canvassers.

The ballot bag for District 1 was opened at 3:10 p.m. by breaking Seal #0073584. There were signatures of the election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
Ward 1Number of Absentee Envelopes: 73Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 54Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 89 90 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 152 152 MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 85DAN BECKER 142 142 AMY WEINSHEIM 116 117 WAYNE TRASKA 148 148
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 2Number of Absentee Envelopes: 26(2 were pulled – Previously marked #1 & #2)Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 128 128 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 161 161 MICHELLE A. MONTE 75 75DAN BECKER 116 116 AMY WEINSHEIM 147 147 WAYNE TRASKA 125 125
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag with Seal #0073500 at 5:52 p.m. Claudette Elliott moved, Kim Ringler seconded to recess until Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. and all election materials were returned to Conference Room A.

APRIL 10, 2006
The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:37 p.m. on Monday, April 10, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.
Board of Canvassers present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers.
Candidates present were: Dan Becker, Amy Weinsheim
Lois Linde and Margaret Gantner, both poll workers for the Town of Black Wolf, were introduced as tabulators to provide assistance to the Board of Canvassers should the need arise.

Dan Becker formally objected to the inclusion of Karen Bowen on Amy Weinsheim’s list of representatives to speak/act on her behalf being that Ms. Bowen is an active Board of Education member. Mr. Becker requested a copy of the Canvass Report completed at the end of Friday. A copy was provided.

There was discussion on Friday regarding a recount in the Ripon School District with regard to the Town of Utica. Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, stated that she had received a request from the Ripon School District on Friday with regard to a recount of a referendum question. Ripon’s recount will start tomorrow (Tuesday, April 11, 2006). The Board of Canvassers stated that they would count the Town of Utica this morning to allow the ballots to be transferred to the Ripon School District. Once the Town of Utica has been completed, the Board will resume with the City of Oshkosh. There were no objections.
TOWN OF UTICADan Becker objected that applications were missing for 2 absentee ballots; however, the ballots were counted. They were marked as follows: SF (#1) and LF (#2).Noted: There was a defective ballot – Voter #120 did not vote.
The ballot bag was opened at 8:43 a.m. The ballot bag had the signatures of the election officials, had been sealed properly, and had not been tampered with. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Utica Poll List Certification = 190County Poll List Certification = 191Canvass Tape = 190
The Board was asked to recount the ballots by hand. There were 91 ballots counted.Dan Becker objected to a discrepancy between the poll list and the ballots.
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 35 35 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 54 56 MICHELLE A. MONTE 21 21DAN BECKER 48 48 AMY WEINSHEIM 37 39 WAYNE TRASKA 32 33
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag and were released to Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, at 10 a.m.
CITY OF OSHKOSH – DISTRICT 2Seal #00733499 was broken from the bin holding the ballots at 10:07 a.m. Seal #0073579 was broken on the ballot bag for District 2 at 10:08 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to AB not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to DC not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to RF not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to GH not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected to JL not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #5)Dan Becker objected to MM not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #6)Dan Becker objected to JM not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #7)Dan Becker objected to MN not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #8)Dan Becker objected to ER not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #9)Dan Becker objected to PS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #10)Dan Becker objected to JS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #11)Dan Becker objected to JS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #12)Dan Becker objected to LS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #13)
Amy Weinsheim noted that the application drives the absentee process, not the City’s absentee ballot log.
Dan Becker objected to a blank absentee ballot – voter intent. Amy Weinsheim responded that Mr. Becker is questioning the voter and it is inappropriate.
Dan Becker objected to voter intent. The Board unanimously determined that they could ascertain voter intent. Ballot was Recreated #9.
Dan Becker objected to voter intent. The Board determined that they could ascertain voter intent by a vote of 2-1. Ballot was Recreated #5.
Ward 3City Poll List Certification = 248County Poll List Certification = 248Canvass Tape = 248
Ward 4City Poll List Certification = 99County Poll List Certification = 99Canvass Tape = 99Ward 3Number of Absentee Envelopes: 17Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 17Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 109 109 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 146 147 MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65DAN BECKER 101 102 AMY WEINSHEIM 109 109 WAYNE TRASKA 108 108
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 4Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 25 25 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 47 47 MICHELLE A. MONTE 26 26DAN BECKER 56 55 AMY WEINSHEIM 37 37 WAYNE TRASKA 51 51
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag with Seal #0073436 at 11:29 a.m.
DISTRICT 3 – WARDS 5 & 6Seal #0073042 was broken on ballot bag for District 3 at 11:37 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously determined that they could ascertain voter intent. The ballot was recreated #2
Ward 5City Poll List Certification = 38County Poll List Certification = 38Canvass Tape = 38
Ward 6City Poll List Certification = 32County Poll List Certification = 32Canvass Tape = 32Ward 5Number of Absentee Envelopes: 1Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 8 8 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 17 17DAN BECKER 20 20 AMY WEINSHEIM 20 21 WAYNE TRASKA 16 16
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 6Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 16 17 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN BECKER 6 6 AMY WEINSHEIM 16 16 WAYNE TRASKA 21 21
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag with Seal #0073196 at 11:53 a.m. The ballot bin was secured at 11:54 a.m. with a black tie.
City Clerk Pam Ubrig reported that the two missing applications (Marked #1 & #2) in City District 1 for the absentee ballot envelopes were found. A secretary had put the applications in February election materials instead of transferring them to the April election materials. Ms. Ubrig also stated that voters residing in nursing homes are assisted there; therefore, a separate internal log exists that has those names as well as their voting status, (See Supplemental Log) which explains why there were names missing from the City’s absentee ballot log.
City Clerk Pam Ubrig explained that on Election Day at certain polling sites, she discovered that some “original” ballots were inadvertently put in a folder for empty envelopes instead of being put in the ballot bag along with the “recreated” and other ballots. The Districts where this occurred were District 5, District 8, District 11, and District 12. Ms. Ubrig noticed this when going through the envelopes on Election Night and immediately put the ballots in the City’s vault. Dan Becker objected to the chain of custody of ballots and that the ballots ended up in unsecured envelopes.
DISTRICT 4 – WARDS 7 & 8Seal #0073575 was broken on ballot bag for District 4 at 1:10p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
The Recreated Ballot Envelope was empty. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained one absentee envelope which was rejected for no elector’s signature. The envelope was never opened.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to Absentee Envelope bearing first initial and last name. The Board unanimously accepted it as a valid signature based on the witness signature attesting to V. S. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to Absentee Envelope for PB not being entered corrected on the City poll list. The Board unanimously determined clerical error. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to no voter number on absentee envelope – poll lists show #159. (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to no voter number on absentee envelope – poll list showed #164 (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on ballot. The Board unanimously determined it could ascertain voter intent. Marked as Original Recount #19
Dan Becker objected to ballot with no initials. It was pulled (not counted). (Marked #5)
Ward 7City Poll List Certification = 276County Poll List Certification = 276Canvass Tape = 276
Ward 8City Poll List Certification = 575County Poll List Certification = 575Canvass Tape = 575Ward 7Number of Absentee Envelopes: 32Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 32Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 100 100 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 136 136 MICHELLE A. MONTE 81 81DAN BECKER 117 117 AMY WEINSHEIM 104 105 WAYNE TRASKA 137 137
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 8Number of Absentee Envelopes: 42Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 42Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 279 278 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 280 281 MICHELLE A. MONTE 131 131DAN BECKER 202 202 AMY WEINSHEIM 274 274 WAYNE TRASKA 289 289
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in ballot bag with Seal #0073480 at 3:08 p.m.
DISTRICT 5 – WARDS 9 & 10The seal was broken on the ballot bin at 3:15 p.m. Seal #0073596 and Seal #0073077 were broken on ballot bags for District 5 at 3:16 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained one ballot from Ward 9 and two ballots from Ward 10.
There were two original absentee ballots that did not have recreated ballots. Dan Becker objected that there were no recreated absentee ballots to match up to the two originals. The recreated ballots were found to be on the bottom of the pile as they were being fed through voting machine.
Dan Becker objected to an Absentee Envelope missing an application - PM (Marked #1).Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk stated that the State Elections Board does not require that an absentee ballot be rejected because of a lack of application.
Dan Becker objected to an Absentee Envelope missing an application – RM (Marked #2).Mr. Becker responded to an earlier explanation by City Clerk Pam Ubrig that voters return empty absentee envelopes to remain on the voter list. The back of the envelope specifically states “This envelope to be used by voter for return of marked ballot to officer from whom received.”
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with one set of inspector’s initials and one set of initials under “Absentee Ballot Issued”. The Board felt it was clerical error and accepted the ballot. The ballot was Recreated #3. Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously declared that voter intent could be determined. The ballot was Recreated #6.
Ward 9City Poll List Certification = 215County Poll List Certification = 215Canvass Tape = 215
Ward 10City Poll List Certification = 265County Poll List Certification = 265Canvass Tape = 265Ward 9Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 68 68 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 113 113 MICHELLE A. MONTE 76 76DAN BECKER 91 91 AMY WEINSHEIM 95 96 WAYNE TRASKA 98 98
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 10Number of Absentee Envelopes: 8Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 95 96 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 116 116 MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 84DAN BECKER 109 109 AMY WEINSHEIM 125 125 WAYNE TRASKA 121 121
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073456 at 4:34 p.m. Two ballot bins were sealed with black ties at 4:35 p.m.
Kim Ringler moved, Claudette Elliott seconded to recess to 8:30 Tuesday morning. The meeting recessed at 4:35 p.m.

APRIL 11, 2006The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:36 a.m. on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.
DISTRICT 6 – WARDS 11 & 12The seal was broken on the ballot bin at 8:37 p.m. Seal #0073035 was broken on the ballot bags for District 6 at 8:38 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope signature in pencil (ST). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the signature as valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope not found on the City’s absentee log (RD). (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being marked incorrectly on the city poll list by one line. The number was recorded correctly on the county poll list. The Board unanimously determined that it was a clerical error. (Marked #3)
In the process of feeding ballots into the voting machine, a voting machine error message “Did not read ballot - See Official” was noted. The ballot was put through a second time with no error.
A ballot was pulled (not counted) due to only one set of inspector’s initials (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to a ballot having red pen marks underneath the black filled-in oval contending someone assisted a voter. The Board unanimously agreed that they could determine voter intent. The Ballot was recreated. (Marked #5).
Dan Becker objected to the validity of a ballot with one set of inspector initials on the line for inspector’s initials and one set of initials placed under “certification of elector assistance”. The Board unanimously agreed that initials were the same as on other ballots and determined that the initials were just inadvertently placed on the wrong line. The ballot was recreated. (Marked #6).
Ward 11City Poll List Certification = 282County Poll List Certification = 282Canvass Tape = 282
Ward 12City Poll List Certification = 158County Poll List Certification = 158Canvass Tape = 158Ward 11Number of Absentee Envelopes: 11Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 100 100 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 169 170 MICHELLE A. MONTE 85 85DAN BECKER 109 109 AMY WEINSHEIM 122 122 WAYNE TRASKA 132 131
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 12Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 50 50 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 81 82 MICHELLE A. MONTE 39 39DAN BECKER 66 67 AMY WEINSHEIM 77 78 WAYNE TRASKA 60 60
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073492 at 9:40 a.m.
DISTRICT 7 – WARDS 13 & 14The seal was broken on the ballot bin at 9:40 a.m. Seal #0073531 was broken on the ballot bag for District 7 at 9:42 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope and Recreated Ballot Envelope were both empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope and all absentee envelopes were identified on absentee voter log.
Ward 13City Poll List Certification = 21County Poll List Certification = 21Canvass Tape = 21
Ward 14City Poll List Certification = 39County Poll List Certification = 39Canvass Tape = 39Ward 13Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 7 7 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN BECKER 3 3 AMY WEINSHEIM 8 8 WAYNE TRASKA 5 5
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 14Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 19 19 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 26 26 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN BECKER 5 5 AMY WEINSHEIM 19 19 WAYNE TRASKA 8 8
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073445 at 10:56 a.m.
DISTRICT 8 – WARDS 15 & 16The Seal from the ballot bin containing the ballot bag for District 8 was broken at 10:05 a.m. Dan Becker objected to no signatures on the outside of the ballot bag for District 8.
Attorney Renning’s recommendation to the Board was to note Mr. Becker’s objection and to proceed to count the ballots, which was also the recommendation of the State Elections Board. City Clerk Pam Ubrig indicated that she would request the inspectors and the chairperson from District 8 appear before the Board to explain what had occurred. Ms. Ubrig stated that the lack of signatures appears to be an oversight. The Board decided to proceed with recounting District 9 and delay the recounting of District 8 until the District 8 chairperson and inspectors could explain. There were no objections to proceeding with the recount of District 9.
DISTRICT 9 – WARDS 17 & 18Seal #0073523 was broken on the ballot bag for District 9 at 10:48 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 6 absentee envelopes from Ward 17 and 4 absentee envelopes from Ward 18. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained one absentee envelope.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker renewed his objection to Karen Bowen representing Amy Weinsheim on the basis of conflict of interest.
An absentee envelope was initially rejected (not counted on Election Night) due to a missing address of the witness. The Board unanimously determined to validate the rejected absentee envelope based on the valid signatures. Dan Becker objected to the inclusion of the absentee envelope due to there being no address for the witness signature. The ballot was included in the count and Recreated #1. The absentee envelope was (Marked #1).
The Board unanimously agreed to pull (not count) the original ballot #5 as well as the recreated ballot #5 due to missing initials on the original.
Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature on an absentee envelope (BB). The Board unanimously determined the signature was valid and included the envelope. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to absentee envelope (RG) due to possibility of a duplicate vote as well as an objection to a missing return date on the absentee log. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature on absentee envelope (CH). The Board unanimously determined the signature was valid and included the envelope. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected to rejected absentee envelope (noted above) due to no voter number issued. (Previously Marked #1)
The Board unanimously determined absentee envelope (DS), new registrant, was valid. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to absentee envelope (RG) not having a corresponding absentee number in the poll list. The poll list indicates #76 next to (RG) and the absentee envelope indicates #89. The Board pulled the envelope and will determine whether to pull a ballot after an absentee ballot count has been performed. (This was previously marked #3.)
Dan Becker objected to Karen Bowen apparently touching the voter logs twice. Attorney Renning reminded the public that the Board of Canvassers are the only ones authorized to handle election materials.
Dan Becker objected to an address error on absentee envelope (DH). The Board unanimously determined it was an oversight (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to an address error on absentee envelope (RH). The Board unanimously determined it was an oversight (Marked #7)
A ballot was pulled from District 9 because the number of absentee ballots exceeded the number of absentee voters. (Marked #8)
A ballot was pulled from District 9 due to only one set of initials. (Marked #9)
Dan Becker objected to a ballot stating voter intent. The Board was able to unanimously determine voter intent and the ballot was Recreated #27.
Ward 17City Poll List Certification = 463County Poll List Certification = 463Canvass Tape = 463
Ward 18City Poll List Certification = 210County Poll List Certification = 210Canvass Tape = 210Ward 17Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 183 183 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 245 245 MICHELLE A. MONTE 121 121DAN BECKER 196 196 AMY WEINSHEIM 216 216 WAYNE TRASKA 199 199
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 18Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 82 82 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 105 105 MICHELLE A. MONTE 63 66DAN BECKER 84 84 AMY WEINSHEIM 107 107 WAYNE TRASKA 84 86
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073060 at 12:42 p.m.
DISTRICT 8 – WARDS 15 & 16City Clerk Pam Ubrig as well as election inspectors William Gerth, Dorothy Gerth, and Dorothy Unger were present to attest to the ballot bag for District 8. Jim Martinez was present to attest that the ballot bag was delivered to him at City Hall and that he takes all ballot bags to the City’s vault. Ms. Ubrig stated that at chairperson training, it is explained how to secure the ballot bag and to make sure everything is signed. There is a camera located behind Collections that shows a clock. It is set up so ballot bags can be seen being deposited into the bins and the bins being sealed by Mr. Martinez. Mr. Gerth attested that he put District 8 ballots into the ballot bag and helped Mary Ann Offer with the bag. Dorothy Unger stated that she watched Ms. Offer thread the yellow seal through the holes so the ballot bag could not be opened. City Clerk Pam Ubrig attested to the writing on the bag being her own.
It was noted that the second ballot bag for District 8 had the Chairperson’s signature.

Elizabeth Hartman, attorney for Dan Becker, stated that there are procedures that must be followed on Election Day. Ballot bags need to be signed by the chief inspector and two other inspectors. It goes to ballot security and she asked that the ballots be set aside because procedures have not been substantially complied with.
Amy Weinsheim commented that clearly the overarching issue is that fraud is suspected and she does not believe there has been fraud. She objected to these ballots not being counted. She noted that in Mr. Renning's conversation with the State Elections Board, they recommended that the ballots be counted.
Dan Becker asked City Clerk Pam Ubrig what security procedures are in place for unused ballot bags and who has access to those bags. Ms. Ubrig responded that the ballot bags are kept in her vault and approximately 25 employees on the first floor of City Hall have access to that vault.
Mr. Renning asked Jim Martinez if he goes through the bins or is responsible for transporting the ballot bins. Mr. Martinez responded that he accepts the ballot bags at City Hall from the various districts’ chairpersons, puts the bags in the ballot bins, and marks the label on the handle of the bins identifying which Districts’ bags are contained within. The only list Mr. Martinez has is the label on the handles of the bins. He seals the bins when they reach ¾ or full capacity. The bins are sealed in the front and the back. Mr. Martinez indicated that he recalled receiving a bag of ballots from District 8. Mr. Renning asked Mr. Martinez if the punched “District 8” on the label located on the handle of the ballot bin, would indicate that he had received the ballots from District 8 and Mr. Martinez indicated that it would have.
Dan Becker stated that if the ballots were received from District 8, there is no assurance that those ballots came from St. John’s Church.
Pam Ubrig stated that she had spoken with Chairperson Mary Ann Offer on Election Night. She had went through forms with her. Ms. Ubrig did not see the ballot bags because they were sealed in the ballot bin. She was not aware that there were no signatures until today.
Mr. Renning asked Ms. Ubrig if the Chairperson or any individuals have access to another bag from the vault. Ms. Ubrig responded that there is a bag she completes and an extra bag without the Clerk’s writing. She again indicated that her writing is on District 8’s ballot bag.

Amy Weinsheim commented that it is frustrating as a voter that one of the allegations is voter suppression and this entire process has been about suppressing votes.

The Board unanimously decided to delay the recount until they could hear from the District 8 Chairperson.
At 2:40 p.m. the District 8 ballot bags were again brought to the Board table. Mary Ann Offer, District 8 Chairperson, was present. Attorney Renning asked Ms. Offer for an explanation of the missing signatures. Ms. Offer stated that it was an oversight. Mr. Renning asked Ms. Offer if it was her responsibility to take District 8 ballots from St. John's Church to City Hall and provide them to Jim Martinez. Ms. Offer indicated that it was. Mr. Renning asked Ms. Offer if she could identify the bag and she stated that it was definitely the ballot bag from District 8. Mr. Becker asked Ms. Offer what distinguishing marks were present for her to identify the bag. Ms. Offer responded that the writing on the bag is exactly the same handwriting that was on the bag she wrapped up and put the tag around. Attorney Hartman asked why there were two bags. City Clerk Pam Ubrig stated that on Election Night when she went through the County envelope, she noticed recreated envelopes containing original ballots. Ms. Ubrig secured the original ballots in the City’s vault. The recreated ballots were correctly put in the original ballot bag. She contacted Ms. Offer, who arrived at City Hall at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday to secure the ballots, which should have been sealed in the first bag with no signatures, in a second ballot bag. Ms. Ubrig stated that the Board will be able to put the ballots from the two bags together and show there were no discrepancies. Ms. Offer stated that she was relatively new to the procedures and she put the Recreated Ballot Envelope containing ballots in the County envelope instead of the ballot bag. She did not dispute the fact that the instructions on the outside of the envelope indicate the need for signatures.
Attorney Hartman asked Ms. Offer to walk through exactly what she did.
Chairperson Offer stated that she sorted out the ballots by the two wards, she made sure the absentee ballots were together with the recreated ballots on top. She put the ballots in the bag, took the tag out, and sealed the bag with the lock tag. She had a number of different things to sign. Attorney Hartman asked Chairperson Offer if she realized her error after she locked the bag. Ms. Offer indicated that Pam Ubrig discovered the error. Ms. Offer thought she was doing the right thing by putting the Recreated Ballot Envelope containing the ballots in the County bag. She later realized that the only time the Recreated Ballot Envelope goes into the County bag is when it is empty. She admitted that it was definitely her oversight. Ms. Ubrig stated that when going through the County envelopes on Election Night and felt the Recreated Ballot Envelope, there should have been nothing in there; however, it contained ballots. She put them in the vault and called Ms. Offer on Wednesday morning. She explained to Ms. Offer that there were ballots that needed to be sealed in a ballot bag. Ms. Offer arrived at City Hall and together with Ms. Ubrig, sealed the ballots in a second bag. The bag was then put into a ballot bin and the bin was sealed. Jim Martinez then took the bin to the County. There is a document showing the delivery and arrival times. On Friday, April 7, 2006, the ballot bins were brought here to the District. Ms. Ubrig refused to open the original ballot bins which is why there is a ballot bin with four ballot bags containing a minimal amount of ballots.

The Board of Canvassers asked to confer with Attorney Renning. Attorney Renning subsequently stated that based on the statements of the chairperson and poll inspectors and based upon his recommendation, which was substantiated by the State Elections Board, the Board of Canvassers will proceed noting Dan Becker’s objection. The board unanimously agreed to go forward with the recount and Mr. Becker again objected..

Amy Weinsheim commented the there should not be suppression of votes.

Seal #0073547 and Seal #0073464 were broken on the ballot bags for District 8 at 2:54 p.m.There were no signatures of election officials. The bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty and the Recreated Ballot Envelope contained one ballot.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Ward 15City Poll List Certification = 141County Poll List Certification = 141Canvass Tape = 141
Ward 16City Poll List Certification = 121County Poll List Certification = 121Canvass Tape = 121Ward 15Number of Absentee Envelopes: 4Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 4Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 48 48 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 63 63 MICHELLE A. MONTE 40 41DAN BECKER 54 55 AMY WEINSHEIM 57 57 WAYNE TRASKA 57 57
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 16Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 49 49 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 68 69 MICHELLE A. MONTE 35 35DAN BECKER 45 45 AMY WEINSHEIM 60 60 WAYNE TRASKA 40 40
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073458 at 3:28 p.m.
DISTRICT 10 – WARDS 19 & 20Seal #0073522 was broken on the ballot bag for District 10 at 3:30 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 18 ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot stating voter intent. The Board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined. (Marked #1) Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope not having an application (IH). (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature. The board unanimously determined that it was a valid signature. (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope not having a valid witness signature. The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #5)Dan Becker objected to a ballot with a “printed” signature for Certification of Elector Assistance. The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature. (Marked #6)
Ward 19City Poll List Certification = 282County Poll List Certification = 282Canvass Tape = 282
Ward 20City Poll List Certification = 228County Poll List Certification = 228Canvass Tape = 228Ward 19Number of Absentee Envelopes: 20Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 20Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 83 83 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 165 165 MICHELLE A. MONTE 55 55DAN BECKER 92 92 AMY WEINSHEIM 135 135 WAYNE TRASKA 138 138
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 20Number of Absentee Envelopes: 14Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 79 79 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 123 124 MICHELLE A. MONTE 54 55DAN BECKER 79 80 AMY WEINSHEIM 117 117 WAYNE TRASKA 80 81
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073432 at 4:36 p.m. Three ballot bins were resealed at 4:38 p.m.
Moved by Kim Ringer, second by Claudette Elliott to recess and reconvene Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. The meeting recessed at 4:44 p.m.

APRIL 12, 2006The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:36 a.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member. Two ballot bins were opened at 8:37 a.m.

DISTRICT 11 – WARDS 21 & 22Seal #0073005 and Seal #0073061 were broken from the ballot bags for District 11 at 8:38 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained three absentee ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee ballot missing inspectors’ initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot (Marked #1) Mr. Becker commented on the inconsistency of the board – a ballot can be pulled without signatures but a ballot bag is acceptable without signatures.
Amy Weinsheim noted that when the Board went through District 8 ballots, all ballots that went through the voting machine had signatures.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot missing one set of inspector’s initials. The Board pulled the ballot (Marked #2)Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot missing one set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot (Marked #3)
Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot missing one set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker again renewed his objection regarding inconsistency.
Dan Becker objected to Ward 22 in its entirety regarding procedures.
Ward 21City Poll List Certification = 184County Poll List Certification = 184Canvass Tape = 184
Ward 22City Poll List Certification = 226County Poll List Certification = 226Canvass Tape = 226Ward 21Number of Absentee Envelopes: 10Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 9Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 1
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 64 63 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 94 94 MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65DAN BECKER 98 97 AMY WEINSHEIM 73 72 WAYNE TRASKA 87 88
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 22Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 77 77 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 99 97 MICHELLE A. MONTE 77 78DAN BECKER 111 108 AMY WEINSHEIM 87 88 WAYNE TRASKA 92 91
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073062 at 9:26 a.m.
DISTRICT 12 – WARDS 23 & 24The seal was broken from the bin holding the ballots at 9:27 a.m. Seal #0073599 and Seal #0073496 were broken on the ballot bags for District 12 at 9:29 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 9 ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained 1 envelope.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
The Board reviewed a rejected absentee envelope, which was missing a witness address. Everything else on the envelope was in order. The Board unanimously agreed to the validity of this absentee ballot. Dan Becker objected on the grounds that the poll worker had determined this envelope rejected and renewed his objection on the inconsistency of the board as to relevant information. The ballot was Recreated #1. The Absentee Envelope was (Marked #1)
The ballots for Ward 24 were counted by hand with a count of 426 ballots (425 + 1 rejected as noted above).
Dan Becker objected to a discrepancy between the number of ballots and the number of voters on the poll list. He requested that the poll list be counted; however, the board determined that there was one less ballot than voters; therefore, the results match for Ward 24.

Dan Becker objected to technical errors on an absentee envelope. The Board unanimously determined that the envelope was consistent with the application and, therefore, valid. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected that an absentee envelope contained the voter’s signature twice on the signature line. The board determined that the absentee envelope was valid. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #238 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #239 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #5)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #240 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #6)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #223 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #7)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #224 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #8)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #225 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #9)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #226 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #10)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #227 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #11)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #228 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #12)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #229 was not listed in the poll list as ABS.(Previously Marked #2)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #230 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #13)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #231 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #14)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #232 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #15)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #233 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #16)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #234 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #17)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #235 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #18)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #236 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #19)Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #237 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #20)
Dan Becker objected to a technical error on an absentee envelope that an address should not be accepted that does not exist. The address stated N. 16th Ave. and the correct address is W. 16th Ave. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the absentee envelope based on a matched name to 437 W. 16th Ave. (Marked #21)
Dan Becker noted an abnormality to an absentee envelope containing a clerical note on the back of the envelope. (Previously Marked #3.)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being marked in the County poll list under the wrong name. The City poll list was correct. The Board unanimously determined it was a clerical error. (Marked #22)
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #23)
Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of a signature but not eliminating a ballot bag for lack of signatures.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #24)
Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #25)
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #26)
Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #27)Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker objected to a signature at the bottom of a ballot (elector assistance) claiming it is initials. The board determined it was a valid signature. The ballot was not marked. Mr. Becker wanted it noted in the record.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #28. )
Dan Becker objected to a ballot claiming voter intent. The board unanimously agreed that there were no votes for school board on this particular ballot and voter intent could be determined. (Marked #29)
Ward 23City Poll List Certification = 294County Poll List Certification = 294Canvass Tape = 294
Ward 24City Poll List Certification = 426County Poll List Certification = 426Canvass Tape = 425 + 1 rejected = 426
Ward 37City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 23Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 18Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 110 110 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 145 145 MICHELLE A. MONTE 90 91DAN BECKER 130 131 AMY WEINSHEIM 116 116 WAYNE TRASKA 115 115
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 24Number of Absentee Envelopes: 21Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 21Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 144 142 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 187 188 MICHELLE A. MONTE 154 152DAN BECKER 218 215 AMY WEINSHEIM 149 151 WAYNE TRASKA 188 183
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 37Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN BECKER 0 0 AMY WEINSHEIM 0 0 WAYNE TRASKA 0 0
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073046 at 11:17 a.m.
DISTRICT 13 – WARDS 25 & 35Seal #0073570 was broken on the ballot bag for District 13 at 11:25 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Ward 25City Poll List Certification = 97County Poll List Certification = 97Canvass Tape = 97
Ward 35City Poll List Certification = 3County Poll List Certification = 3Canvass Tape = 3Ward 25Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 38 38 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 51 51 MICHELLE A. MONTE 24 24DAN BECKER 36 36 AMY WEINSHEIM 45 45 WAYNE TRASKA 43 43
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 35Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 1 1 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 2 2 MICHELLE A. MONTE 2 2DAN BECKER 1 1 AMY WEINSHEIM 2 2 WAYNE TRASKA 1 1
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073497 at 11:38 a.m.
DISTRICT 14 – WARDS 26 & 27Seal #0073059 and Seal #0073085 were broken on the ballot bags for District 14 at 12:51 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 15 absentee ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to absentee ballot original #15 for voter intent. The board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing a signature (RB). There appeared to be an X on the signature line; however, other absentee envelopes also contained X’s on signature lines in addition to a signature. The board was not able to ascertain whether it was a valid signature. The envelope was pulled. (Marked #1).
Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature of a witness on an absentee envelope (AF #386). The board unanimously determined that it was a valid signature. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to pencil signatures for a voter and a witness on an absentee envelope (AK #336). The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature in both cases. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to pencil signatures for a voter and a witness on an absentee envelope (KK #337) The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature in both cases. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature for voter on an absentee envelope (AF #233). The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature (Marked #5)
It was noted that the absentee envelope for (RS #241) had an incorrect voting number in the corner. The number was identified as 24; however, it should have been #241. The board unanimously determined it was a clerical error. (Marked #6)
It was noted that a witness on an absentee envelope does not have to be an Oshkosh Area School District resident. (Marked #7)
Dan Becker noted that an absentee envelope clearly states that a full address needs to be included on the witness signature. Amy Weinsheim noted that an absentee envelope cannot be discarded because the witness does not provide an address.
Due to the fact that there were 35 absentee envelopes and 36 absentee ballots, an absentee ballot was pulled at random and not counted. (Marked #8).
Dan Becker noted that a red tab with #273353 was found in the ballot bag. Pam Ubrig explained it was a tab she uses for the voting machine to ensure that the election card cannot be removed. The seal is broken when the card is pulled to be brought back to City Hall.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with no inspectors initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #9) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker noted that a voting machine message stated “unmarked ballot” and the voting machine did not accept the ballot even though the ballot was marked by a voter. The ballot was Recreated #2.
Dan Becker noted that a voting machine message stated “unmarked ballot” and the voting machine did not accept the ballot even though the ballot was marked by a voter. The ballot was Recreated #3.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #10) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #11) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined. The ballot was Recreated #9.
Ward 26City Poll List Certification = 454County Poll List Certification = 454Canvass Tape = 454
Ward 27City Poll List Certification = 326County Poll List Certification = 326Canvass Tape = 326Ward 26Number of Absentee Envelopes: 35Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 36Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 150 149 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 226 221 MICHELLE A. MONTE 133 133DAN BECKER 251 251 AMY WEINSHEIM 171 170 WAYNE TRASKA 217 216
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 27Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 109 109 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 159 159 MICHELLE A. MONTE 101 101DAN BECKER 159 159 AMY WEINSHEIM 133 133 WAYNE TRASKA 152 152
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073495 at 2:27 p.m. It was discovered that the red tag that Mr. Becker requested be put in the ballot bag was inadvertently left out. Seal #0073495 was broken at 2:29 p.m. and immediately resealed with Seal #0073047.
DISTRICT 15 – WARDS 28, 29, 34Seal #0073586 was broken on the ballot bag for District 15 at 2:31 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Ward 28City Poll List Certification = 470County Poll List Certification = 470Canvass Tape = 469
Ward 29City Poll List Certification = 428County Poll List Certification = 428Canvass Tape = 427
Ward 34City Poll List Certification = 2County Poll List Certification = 2Canvass Tape = 2The District 15 total, which includes Wards 28, 29, and 34 is correct. It was determined that a wrong color ballot was given to a voter. Mr. Becker objected to an elector receiving a wrong color ballot.
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope (RG) could have possibly voted in the wrong ward. The board unanimously agreed to pull the absentee envelope. Length of time at the noted address could not be determined. (Marked #1)

Amy Weinsheim noted that this has become an exercise in suppressing votes and is impeding voters’ rights.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MM #316). The Absentee Envelope was (Marked #2).
Dan Becker objected to a witness signature being on the wrong line on an absentee envelope. The witness signature and address are both present. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (HW #307) not appearing on the City’s absentee log. (Marked #4)
The Board pulled an absentee ballot from Ward 29 due to a rejected absentee envelope to match envelopes and ballots. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #6)Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #7)Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #8)
Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker asked for an explanation of the distinction the board is making between ballots and the ballot bag. The Board is making the distinction based on yesterday’s testimony of the Chairperson from District 8 identifying the ballot bag.
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #9)A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #10)A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #11)A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #12)A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #13)A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #14)A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #15)
Both parties acknowledged the need to remain consistent as to the lack of inspectors’ initials and signatures. Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #16) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #17) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #18)Dan Becker objected to ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #19)Dan Becker objected to ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #20)Dan Becker wanted it noted that the voting machine jammed with a system message stating “ballot counted”. The jam was fixed and the recount proceeded.
Dan Becker noted a relationship between Board of Canvass members Teresa Collins and Kim Ringler.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #21)
Ward 28Number of Absentee Envelopes: 27Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 27Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 213 208 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 243 237 MICHELLE A. MONTE 113 110DAN BECKER 206 201 AMY WEINSHEIM 220 209 WAYNE TRASKA 218 210
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 29Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 19Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 181 181 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 198 197 MICHELLE A. MONTE 107 108DAN BECKER 175 175 AMY WEINSHEIM 207 207 WAYNE TRASKA 197 196
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 34Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 1 1 MICHELLE A. MONTE 1 1DAN BECKER 1 1 AMY WEINSHEIM 1 1 WAYNE TRASKA 1 1
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073455 at 4:23 p.m.
DISTRICT 16 – WARDS 30 & 31Seal #0073137 and Seal #0073011 were broken on the ballot bags for District 16 at 4:39 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained one ballot from Ward 31 and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained 2 envelopes from Ward 30 and 2 envelopes from Ward 31.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
City Clerk Pam Ubrig stated that this district tape total has 2 more votes than on the poll list. She showed an example of a supply box, which is at each polling place. There are voter number tabs with the actual numbers that were used on Election Day. The number tabs which were on the spindle can be verified to the numbers on the poll list.
It was noted that both ballots (the original and recreated) were found in the Recreated Absentee Envelope.
Dan Becker objected to addresses missing on 3 rejected absentee envelopes. The board unanimously determined that addresses were not necessary. All other relevant information was provided. The 3 absentee ballots were counted. Absentee envelope (FN) (Marked #1) Ballot was Recreated #1 – Ward 30Absentee envelope (FRB) (Marked #2) Ballot was Recreated #2 – Ward 31Absentee envelope (JB) (Marked #3) Ballot was Recreated #3 – Ward 31
Dan Becker objected to the poll list and the tape in Ward 30 not matching and having a difference of 2 votes. Pam Ubrig stated that in speaking with the Chairperson for District 16, it was a possibility that two ballots were put through the machine twice.
The ballots were counted by hand for a total of 230.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to the signature of the elector as well as the witness signature being on the wrong line. The Board unanimously determined that the absentee envelope was valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to no witness address. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to 3 envelopes in Ward 30 being sorted into Ward 31.
Dan Becker noted that the poll number for MJ (#188) did not indicate ABS in the City’s poll list.
Dan Becker objected to ABS number being on the wrong line. The Board unanimously determined it was a clerical error and accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)
FRB was not on poll list for either city or county. The ballot could be identified as Recreated #2 and was pulled. Dan Becker objected to the pulling of the matching ballot. Attorney Renning recommended that the identifiable ballot be pulled and put back into the envelope along with the original. The Board concurred and both ballots were returned to the respective envelope.
Dan Becker objected to ABS ballots and envelopes not matching. There were more envelopes than ballots in both wards.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board unanimously agreed and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #7)
Ward 30City Poll List Certification = 230County Poll List Certification = 230Canvass Tape = 232
Ward 31City Poll List Certification = 417County Poll List Certification = 417Canvass Tape = 417Ward 30Number of Absentee Envelopes: 22Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 79 79 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 111 111 MICHELLE A. MONTE 79 79DAN BECKER 121 121 AMY WEINSHEIM 101 101 WAYNE TRASKA 96 96
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 31Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 140 139 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 208 209 MICHELLE A. MONTE 102 102DAN BECKER 193 194 AMY WEINSHEIM 181 182 WAYNE TRASKA 194 195
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the two ballot bags with Seal #0073454 and Seal #0073033 at 6:52 p.m.
Kim Ringer made a motion to recess and reconvene on April 13, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.. Claudette Elliott seconded. The meeting recessed at 6:59 p.m.

APRIL 13, 2006The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:39 p.m. on Thursday, April 13, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member. Dan Becker objected to ballot security regarding the County ballot bin not being sealed.
DISTRICT 17 – WARDS 32, 33, 36, 38The seal was broken on ballot bin at 8:41 a.m. Seal #0073001 was broken on the ballot bag for District 17 at 8:43 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 20 ballots from Ward 32 and 9 ballots from Ward 33. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to absentee ballot (original #22) being recreated in the wrong ward and District 11, Ward 21 being found in District 17, Ward 32 election materials. He challenged the validity of the ballot. A note was attached to the absentee envelope from the City directing poll workers to recreate as best they could. The board unanimously accepted the ballot as valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (PA) having no voter elector signature. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #2) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee voter application (SG #356) not being updated in the absentee log. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope bearing elector’s signature in pencil. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to no date voted or returned recorded in the internal log for absentee envelope (RO). The board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to no date voted or returned recorded in internal log for absentee envelope (ER). The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (BS) bearing witness signature in pencil. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #7)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (AS) contending that the elector’s signature was partially missing. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #8)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope on technical inconsistencies. A typed address was crossed out and an address was handwritten above it. Both signatures were present. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #9)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope bearing a pencil signature of elector. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #10)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #11)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #13)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope (LC) due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #14)
Amy Weinsheim noted that the absentee ballot log is not a requirement but an internal tracking piece.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope (VH) due to elector’s penciled signature. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #15)
Dan Becker objected to the County poll list not having ABS after #270 RR. (Marked #16)
Dan Becker objected to MG (274) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #17)Dan Becker objected to RG (275) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #18)Dan Becker objected to JL (258) having an illegible number in the county poll list in 33SD. It is marked correctly in the City poll list as 258ABS, which matches the envelope. Dan Becker contended it is an incomplete number on the County poll list. (Marked #19)Dan Becker objected to DP(276) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #20)Dan Becker objected to RP (278) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD (Marked #21)Dan Becker objected to KK (274) not being noted as ABS on county poll list. (Marked #22)
Dan Becker noted that there is 1 less absentee ballot than absentee envelope for Ward 32.
Dan Becker noted that there are extra ballots stored with initials PRU representing the city clerk being used as duplicate recounts. He noted ballot security as a concern.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of a ballot bearing PRU in inspector’s initials as well as ballot security. The Board unanimously determined the ballot was valid. (Marked #23)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. (Marked #24)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. (Marked #25)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. Voting Machine error stated over vote when trying to feed the ballot through. The ballot was Recreated #9. (Marked 26)
Dan Becker objected to two ballot jams. Amy Weinsheim commented that ballots are curled and as Pam Ubrig stated, it could affect the machine reading them.
Dan Becker noted prior objections of voting machine rejecting absentee ballots during recount when apparently it did not reject them on Election Night.
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. The voting machine error stated “blank voted”. The ballot was marked in ink. Recreated #16
Dan Becker noted his serious concerns with the voting machine. He requested that proceedings stop at this point until a new machine can arrive from City Hall. Amy Weinsheim objected to that. The Board unanimously agreed to proceed.
Dan Becker renewed his objection as stated above. Amy Weinsheim restated that City Clerk Pam Ubrig did tell us by virtue of the ballots being moved, folded, bent, etc., because it is a light reader that there may be some issues with ability to read.
Dan Becker noted an objection that the machine jammed when feeding a ballot. Suggested that it would be more expedient to request a new voting machine.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot containing only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #27) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.
Attorney Renning spoke with City Clerk Pam Ubrig, who was not aware of a ballpoint pen in a voting box. Attorney Renning gave the option of continuing to recreate ballots or hand count the ballots. It was determined to continue to recreate.
Pam Ubrig stated that in 2001 the City went through redistricting and 2 new machines were purchased which allows pen marks. Dan Becker asked if there is documentation that this machine was located at Alberta Kimball. Ms. Ubrig stated that each machine has a label identifying its polling location and proceeded to show the label on the machine. She also stated that everyone is encouraged to use black markers. She has no control over what people take into the voting booth. She attempted to contact the District 17 chairperson to find out if a pen was left in a voting booth but has been unable to make contact. Poll workers are also encouraged to view the booths periodically.
Because of the amount of ballots recreated by the recount, Pam Ubrig furnished the Board of Canvassers with a blank ballot bag. She recommended that the Board indicate the Wards, District, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, April 4, 2006, and indicate this was from the recount, give a brief explanation, and sign and date it today.
Dan Becker noted that there were 238 ballots recreated for District 17.
Dan Becker objected to the fact that the Board was going to proceed with the recount without his legal counsel. Attorney Renning informed him that when his legal counsel arrived, we would stop for whatever statements she needs to make.
The City ballot bin was sealed at 2:14 p.m.
Ward 32City Poll List Certification = 426County Poll List Certification = 426Canvass Tape = 426
Ward 33City Poll List Certification = 380County Poll List Certification = 380Canvass Tape = 380
Ward 36City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 38City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 32Number of Absentee Envelopes: 82Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 82Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 144 143 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 213 213 MICHELLE A. MONTE 134 133DAN BECKER 208 208 AMY WEINSHEIM 179 176 WAYNE TRASKA 181 178
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 33Number of Absentee Envelopes: 29Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 29Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 138 138 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 195 195 MICHELLE A. MONTE 108 108DAN BECKER 161 162 AMY WEINSHEIM 160 160 WAYNE TRASKA 212 213
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 36Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN BECKER 0 0 AMY WEINSHEIM 0 0 WAYNE TRASKA 0 0
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 38Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN BECKER 0 0 AMY WEINSHEIM 0 0 WAYNE TRASKA 0 0
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073071 at 1:07 p.m. A replacement bag was brought from the city because the Seal hole in the original bag was too big to reseal the bag and ensure security. Seal #0073426 was used and the replacement ballot bag was sealed at 2:10 p.m.
TOWN OF ALGOMATown of Algoma Clerk Sue Miller was present. It was also noted that the County ballot bin did not have a cover. Clerk Designee Teresa Collins was informed by Winnebago County Clerk Sue Ertmer that the County’s ballot bins do not have covers. Ms. Collins also stated that prior to this morning, the County’s bin has been held in Conference Room A.

Attorney Elizabeth Hartman brought to the attention of the Board of Canvassers recount practices that she feels are incorrect. One of the issues is counting absentee ballots that do not have applications associated with them. Those ballots should not be counted if there are no applications associated with them. The other practice is excluding ballots that have one inspector’s initials rather than two. Attorney Hartman concedes that Mr. Becker objected to the ballots but doing so was incorrect under the statute as well as case law. The ballots should be counted. Another issue is that Dan Becker was contacted by a voter in Vinland, which contains both Winneconne and Oshkosh school districts. This individual went to the polls to vote and asked for a Winneconne ballot but was given an Oshkosh ballot under his objection. There is no affidavit; however, Mr. Becker has the name of the individual. Attorney Renning responded that Vinland has not been counted yet so it will be noted. The second thing is the Board of Canvassers has a lot of work ahead of them to certify the results and go through the minutes. Attorney Renning’s recommendation was that the Board continue as they have been for consistency. The hope is that Monday we can reconvene to tie up any loose ends. In the event we agree, we can go back and rectify any concerns at that time.

Amy Weinsheim noted for the record that both parties objected to ballots with only one signature. However, Ms. Weinsheim contends the decision to pull ballots with only one signature is discretionary – permissive as opposed to mandatory.

The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Algoma at 2:18 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing application (CB #362). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application as well as a missing address from the absentee envelope (#363). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RG #366). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MM #376) as well as a signature from a legal guardian with no power of attorney attached to the envelope. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #4)

Amy Weinsheim commented on absentee envelopes missing applications. Once a voter has sent in an application, it is not incumbent on the voter to periodically check on the application status. She is concerned with keeping votes out of the process. Missing applications are a matter of town personnel and what they have done with records vs. voter error.

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (DR #382). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (AP #381). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MN #379). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #7)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (LN #380). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #8)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RK #373). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #9)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application as well as incorrectly identified in one poll list and not the other (LK #374). The Board unanimously agreed to clerical error and accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #10)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (BI #372). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #11)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing application (DG #365). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously agreed that they could determine voter intent. The ballot was Recreated #4
A ballot was identified with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #13)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #14)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #15)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #16)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #17)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #18)
Algoma Poll List Certification = 1010County Poll List Certification = 1010Canvass Tape = 1010
Town of AlgomaNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 30Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 5
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 370 370 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 481 478 MICHELLE A. MONTE 218 214DAN BECKER 405 405 AMY WEINSHEIM 409 407 WAYNE TRASKA 512 506
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073431 and Seal #0073446 at 5:46 p.m.
TOWN OF BLACK WOLFTown of Black Wolf Clerk Ellen Chmielewski was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Black Wolf at 5:47 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to a Town of Clayton recreated ballot being included with the Town of Black Wolf ballots.
Dan Becker objected to the Board recreating a Town of Black Wolf SD (pink ballot) on a Town of Black Wolf (white ballot). There were no extra pink ballots to accommodate Mr. Becker’s request. Recreated #1
Dan Becker noted a ballot with only 1 set of initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #1)
Black Wolf Poll List Certification = 407County Poll List Certification = 407Canvass Tape = 407
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 138 137 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 202 202 MICHELLE A. MONTE 134 134DAN BECKER 175 175 AMY WEINSHEIM 176 175 WAYNE TRASKA 195 195
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag and sealed with Seal #0073427 at 6:28 p.m.
TOWN OF OSHKOSHJeanette Merten, Town of Oshkosh clerk, was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for Town of Oshkosh at 6:34 p.m. The black tie was broken on the second ballot bag at 6:51 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector and witness. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector and witness. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled witness signature. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (DO #391). The Board unanimously determined it was valid based on appropriate signatures. The Town Clerk explained that the application was on file previously but lost with a change of clerk. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RW #401). The Board determined it was valid based on the signature. The Town Clerk stated that she had the application and would supply such application before certification of the recount. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to a completely blank ballot apparently being accepted on Election Night but rejected during Recount. Mr. Becker also objected to an incomplete inspector’s statement regarding this issue.
Oshkosh Poll List Certification = 548County Poll List Certification = 548Canvass Tape = 548
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 15Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 15Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 155 155 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 196 196 MICHELLE A. MONTE 86 87DAN BECKER 164 165 AMY WEINSHEIM 181 181 WAYNE TRASKA 160 160
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073092 at 7:45 p.m.
TOWN OF VINLANDTown Clerk Shirley Brazee was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Vinland at 8:14 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.

Dan Becker objected to the Town of Vinland ballots and asked that they be excluded due to voter intimidation and voter fraud occurred at the polling place.
Amy Weinsheim stated that she does not believe voter intimidation or fraud occurred.

The Town Clerk made a statement which collaborated with the notation in the inspector’s statement. TheBoard unanimously agreed to proceed and open the ballot bag.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (LA #442) (Marked #1) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a penciled signature of elector and witness (BB #443) (Marked #2) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing witness address (CR #445) (Marked #3) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing witness address (KR #446) (Marked #4) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (WR #447) (Marked #5) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to the extemporaneous nature. Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (GS #451) (Marked #6) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (JS #452) (Marked #7) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to no witness signature (GT #439) (Marked #8) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.
The board unanimously agreed to accept absentee envelopes marked 1-8 as valid.
A ballot was pulled with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. (Marked #9)
Amy Weinsheim noted that poll inspectors’ initials on one particular ballot do not appear to match any other initials nor does the ink match any other ballot.
Vinland Poll List Certification = 453County Poll List Certification = 453Canvass Tape = 453
Town of VinlandNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 11 None in Oshkosh DistrictNumber of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 11 10 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 16 16 MICHELLE A. MONTE 5 5DAN BECKER 10 10 AMY WEINSHEIM 11 10 WAYNE TRASKA 12 12
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag and sealed with Seal #0073413 at 9:01 p.m.
TOWN OF NEKIMIClerk of Nekimi Jerry Braasch was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bags for the Town of Nekimi at 9:03 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty. There was no Recreated Ballot Envelope for the Town of Nekimi. The Clerk attested to the fact that there were no recreated ballots for the Town of Nekimi. Dan Becker objected to procedural issues.
Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on absentee envelope (KB) as well as a missing application. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on absentee envelope (HH) as well as a missing application. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (CO) (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (EO) as well as a pencil signature of elector. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (MW) as well as a missing application and the fact that there is no voter registration attached to the absentee envelope. (Marked #5)
The Town Clerk noted that there are 3 missing permanent absentee applications due to the fact that they were never transferred to him 12 years ago when he assumed the duty of Town Clerk of Nekimi. The Town Clerk also stated that prior to this election, towns under 2500 were not required to have registration lists. Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, explained that a voter registration statement is not a public record due to containing private information.
The Board unanimously determined that all 5 absentee envelopes (Marked 1-5) be accepted as valid.
Amy Weinsheim noted that the permanent list for absentee voters has been on file for 12 years and it is not incumbent on the voter to check on their records. It should be the responsibility of the town.
Nekimi Poll List Certification = 176County Poll List Certification = 176Canvass Tape = 176
Town of NekimiNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 5Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 5Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 59 59 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 93 94 MICHELLE A. MONTE 38 38DAN BECKER 91 91 AMY WEINSHEIM 63 64 WAYNE TRASKA 65 65
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073424 at 9:37 p.m.
Attorney Renning announced that the Board of Canvassers will meet in closed session at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006 pursuant to §19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., to confer with legal counsel and will reconvene in open session at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006.
Kim Ringler made a motion to recess until Monday, April 17, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. Second by Claudette Elliott. The meeting recessed at 9:47 p.m.

APRIL 17, 2006
The Board of Canvassers convened at 2:30 p.m. in closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding the challenges to the recount process raised by Dan Becker and to discuss strategy for responding to the same.

Present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, and Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers
The Board of Canvassers reconvened in open session at 3:09 p.m. in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of certifying the recount results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.
Candidates Present: Dan Becker and Amy Weinsheim
A draft of the minutes was distributed to the candidates and the media. The three (3) challenges raised by Mr. Becker were addressed by the Board of Canvassers as follows:

1. Absentee Envelopes lacking applications: Mr. Becker’s position was that these votes should not be counted. The State Elections Board has opined that when the intent of the voter is clear, there is no evidence of any fraud and the defect is no fault of the elector, we should count the ballot. There is no way to tell which ballot applies to which absentee voter. Furthermore, the absentee envelopes and electors are on the poll lists. In light of Lee vs. Paulson, the Board of Canvassers has decided to error on the side of caution. The applications for the absentee ballots have been supplemented to the extent possible. Once we match up the applications that we have, we will exclude those envelopes that do not have written applications on file. When necessary, we will reduce the number of ballots. 2. Ballots containing initials of none or one poll worker: Mr. Becker’s position was that ballots with no initials or one set of initials should be counted. Based on objections of both parties and the desire to remain consistent, the Board pulled (did not count) these ballots. In light of Roth vs. Lafarge School District, the Board of Canvassers reached a decision that we will count these ballots.
3. Qualifications of an elector in the Town of Vinland: The inspection statement from the polling site as well as the Town Clerk verified there was some confusion regarding an elector’s voting jurisdiction being Winneconne or Oshkosh. There was no evidence of fraud or voter intimidation. When we get to the Town of Vinland, we will reduce the number of electors by 1.
Absentee Envelopes and ApplicationsTown of Utica: The Town Clerk provided the Board with the 2 missing applications. There were no objections.
District 5: There were 2 absentee envelopes with no applications (PM and RM).
District 10: The City Clerk provided the missing application (IH). There were no objections.
District 15: The application was subsequently found in the application binder (MM). Dan Becker requested the application be held to compare the signature on the envelope to the signature on the application. This was subsequently done.
Town of Algoma: Eleven absentee envelopes will be eliminated and ballots, if necessary. The Town Clerk provided an application for (DG). Dan Becker reserved his right to object to this application until documentation could be provided proving DG returned an absentee envelope every year since he filed his permanent application.
Town of Oshkosh: One absentee envelope will be eliminated. The Town Clerk was able to provide an application for (RW). There were no objections.
Town of Vinland: The Town Clerk was able to provide all 4 applications. There were no Oshkosh Area School District applicants. There were no objections.
Town of Nekimi: Three absentee envelopes with no applications will be eliminated.
Ballots containing initials of none or one poll workerThe following voting districts and municipalities had ballots that were initially pulled (not counted) due to the objections of both candidates for lack of one or more inspector’s initials and will be added back into the vote totals:
District 4 1 ballotDistrict 6 1 ballotDistrict 9 2 ballotsDistrict 10 1 ballotDistrict 11 4 ballotsDistrict 12 6 ballotsDistrict 14 3 ballotsDistrict 15 16 ballotsDistrict 16 1 ballotDistrict 17 1 ballotAlgoma 6 ballotsBlack Wolf 1 ballotVinland 1 ballot
DISTRICT 5The ballot bin seal and the ballot bag seal were broken at 3:43 p.m.There were 13 absentee envelopes and 2 were removed (marked #1 and #2) leaving 11 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 2, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots. There were no objections. One vote was subtracted from Kavanaugh, Monte, and Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073104 at 3:55 p.m.
TOWN OF OSHKOSHThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:00 p.m.There were 15 absentee envelopes and 1 was removed leaving 14 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 1, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots.One vote was subtracted from Kavanaugh. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073443 at 4:07 p.m.
TOWN OF NEKIMIThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:09 p.m.There were 5 absentee envelopes and 3 were removed leaving 2 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 3, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots.Votes subtracted were 1 vote from Wilson, 1 vote from Kavanaugh, 3 votes from Becker, and 1 vote from Weinsheim. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073176 at 4:12 p.m.
DISTRICT 4The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:14 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials. Votes added were 1 for Wilson, 1 for Monte and 1 for Becker. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073171 at 4:16 p.m.
DISTRICT 6The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:17 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials resulting in one more ballot than electors. There were no ballots completely blank or with no initials. Accordingly, the ballot with one set of initials was deemed defective and not counted to reconcile electors and ballots. District 6 remained the same with regard to Wards 11 and 12. The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073493 at 4:26 p.m.
DISTRICT 9The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:28 p.m.Ward 18 electors and ballots reconciled. Ward 17 contained 1 more ballot than elector.There were no ballots completely blank or with no initials for Ward 17.Two ballots were objected to because of one set of initials. A random draw was made of these ballotsin order to reconcile the electors and ballots in Ward 17. Ballot #5 was not counted.Ballot #9 was counted. One vote was added for Monte. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073175 at 4:38 p.m.
DISTRICT 10The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:39 pmOne ballot was added in for lack of initials; however, there were no votes cast on the ballot for the Oshkosh Area School District so there was no change to the vote totals.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073180 at 4:40 p.m.
DISTRICT 11The seal was broken from the ballot bin at 4:41 p.m.The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:42 p.m.Four ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: (Ward 21) 1 votes for Wilson, 1 vote for Becker and 1 vote for Weinsheim and (Ward 22) 2 votes for Kavanaugh, 3 votes for Becker and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073197 at 4:44 p.m.
DISTRICT 12The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:45 p.m.Six ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 2 votes for Wilson, 3 votes for Monte, 5 votes for Becker, 1 vote for Weinsheim, and 5 votes for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073150 at 4:49 p.m.
DISTRICT 14The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:53 p.m.Three ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Wilson, 3 votes for Kavanaugh, 1 vote for Becker, and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bags were resealed with Seal #0073109 and #0073498 at 4:56 p.m.
DISTRICT 15The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:57 p.m.There were 16 ballots added in for lack in initials and votes were as follows: (Ward 28) 6 votes for Wilson, 7 votes for Kavanaugh, 3 votes for Monte, 6 votes for Becker, 11 votes for Weinsheim, and 8 votes for Traska and (Ward 29) 1 vote for Kavanaugh and 1 vote for Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0040552 at 5:05 p.m.
DISTRICT 16The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:06 p.m.
As City Clerk Pam Ubrig had explained earlier, Ward 30 had 230 ballots and the tape showed 232 because 2 ballots were put through the voting machine twice. The Board had hand counted 230 ballots in Ward 30. The Recount tape showed 232 because there were 2 absentee envelopes (Marked #1 and #5) that were initially rejected by poll workers (and, therefore, not identified on the poll list) but accepted by the Board. There is 1 ballot (Marked #7) that was not counted because of a defective absentee envelope. In Ward 30 the number of ballots exceeded the number of electors and, therefore, a defective ballot with only 1 signature was pulled to reconcile electors to ballots. There was no change to District 16.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073146 and #0073121 at 5:42 p.m.
DISTRICT 17The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:44 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Monte and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073161 at 5:45 p.m.
TOWN OF BLACK WOLFThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:46 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Wilson and 1 vote for Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073122 at 5:48 p.m.
TOWN OF VINLANDThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:49 p.m.The Board reduced the number of electors by one for the Winneconne resident who voted as an Oshkosh resident. There was one more ballot than elector. The Board determined the ballot with only 1 set of initials was defective and pulled the ballot to reconcile the number of ballots and electors. Therefore, the count remained the same for the Town of Vinland.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073178 at 6:25 p.m.TOWN OF ALGOMAThe seals were removed from the ballot bags at 6:26 p.m.There were 30 absentee envelopes. Dan Becker objected to an application submitted by DG as inappropriate because no verification existed that the elector had returned an absentee envelope at all times from the time the application was initially filed. The clerk stated that this individual did, in fact, return an absentee envelope at all times since she has been the Town Clerk. The application indicates DG is indefinitely confined. Attorney Renning pointed out that this application is similar to other permanent applications the Board has accepted. The Board unanimously accepted the application as valid. The Board reduced the number of electors by 11 because of a lack of written applications. Accordingly, 11 ballots were pulled (not counted). The Board discovered no blank ballots, eliminated 5 ballots with no initials, and randomly drew 6 other ballots. The votes were subtracted as follows: 3 for Wilson, 3 for Kavanaugh, 2 for Monte, 3 for Becker, and 1 for Traska. (See Tally) There was one non-absentee ballot added in for lack of initials and the vote was 1 for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bags were resealed with Seal #0073177 and #0073113 at 6:49 p.m.
CLOSING REMARKSDan Becker thanked everyone who participated in the recount. He stated that he owed it to the individuals who voted for him to request a recount. The citizens and taxpayers needed to know this election was legitimate. He would like the opportunity to address some election issues regarding process with the clerks from the city and county. He offered his congratulations to Mrs. Weinsheim.
John Weinsheim, on behalf of Amy, thanked the Board of Canvassers as well as the Oshkosh voters for their patience in this process.
Attorney Renning thanked both candidates for being very patient during the recount process. Hopefully, the Board did everything it could through the course of the recount to be fair. He thanked City Clerk Pam Ubrig and Winnebago County Clerk Sue Ertmer for helping the Board through this process as well.
Teresa Collins read off the certified election/recount results as follows:Lee Wilson 3,970Dennis Kavanaugh 5,410Michelle A. Monte 2,948Dan Becker 4,659Amy Weinsheim 4,670Wayne Traska 4,884
A motion was made by Claudette Elliott, seconded by Kim Ringer to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Dated this 17th Day of April, 2006

Thank You

2007-02-21T22:33:00.000-06:00

Sorry I'm late with the thank you but I was out of town today. I would like to thank everyone who voted for me. I'm not quite sure how to interpret the election results but I know there is a lot of work ahead.

I find it frustrating that so few people seem to be interested in the school board race, it is nothing new but frustrating none the less. Obviously this blog isn't doing much to get people interested either (of course I haven't figured out how to check to see how many "visitors" to the site but I do know there are very few posts. Perhaps things will heat up closer to April.

I do think there is a clear choice for school board, unlike the Common Council where the distinctions between candidates is difficult to discern.

Candidate Answers to Northwestern's Questionnarie

2007-01-28T13:10:00.000-06:00

have you read the School Board Candidates Answers? There are links on the right to the Northwestern Election Section with all Candidates Answers (Mayor, Common Council and School Board) as well as a link to just my answers.

Let me know if you want clarification or more details on any of my answers.

Happy Reading.

Some clarification

2007-01-25T18:42:00.000-06:00

The following is a post I made on Michelle Monte's site, there were several posts that were critical of me, which is fine, but I really wish people would at least acknowledge the facts. Since the "blog administrator has disabled new comments" I thought I'd address what I can here...

Wow, Michelle, for a member of a group (the CRT) who didn't feel validated for the work they did, you sure had no problem slamming the last "citizens committee" that worked for nearly a YEAR, and some for another 6-8 months after that, by saying: "Adding members was compared to the last boundary committee of enormous size where few actually got to express their thoughts and nothing got done."I personally attended 95% of the High School Sub-Committee meetings (group of about 40 people) and 100% of the Elementary/Middle School sub-committee meetings (group of about 20 people). I don't know who said "few actually got to express their thoughts" because that is NOT the way I remember it, the 40 member HS group, broke up into small groups to conduct much of the "work" and then came back and reported out to the whole group, there was a multitude of thoughts, ideas etc. expressed. The Elementary/Middle School sub-committee usually stayed together as a group for discussions but anyone who wanted to speak was allowed to and both groups allowed the public to speak during a public forum at the beginning of the meeting. Furthermore, the fact is, plans were presented to the board from both sub-committees and the board took the high school plan and decided they would look at the issue when the disparity between the high schools was affecting course offerings etc. The Elementary/Middle School subcommittee presented the board with a Plan "A" and a Plan "B", the board decided not to choose either plan and directed the Superintendent to set up another committee to develop ONE plan... that plan was the failed referendum (with some tweaks made by the board). Frankly I thought the Elementary/Middle School Plan "B" was a better choice becaues it changed boundary lines and closed a few schools rather than building on to every school that needed space but the majority of the committee disagreed and wanted to go ahead with build, build, build. I'm very frustrated hearing many people (who were NOT involved in these committees) say over and over, the committee of 100 --- didn't accomplish anything etc. that is so misleading since after the FIRST meeting (where I don't even believe then there were 100 people) the committee divided into sub-committees that worked hard presented their "plans" to the board and understood that the board wasn't going to take it as presented. In the end I also had frustration with the board that backed away from just about every suggestion that had anyone "mad" hence the referendum ---only one person I beleive came to a board meeting and said don't do the referendum --- many, many more came and said "don't close my school, don't make my children go to another school.
Wed Jan 24, 11:18:27 PM

Bits of the criticism:

"Three committees of various sizes worked on district issues including your committee and nothing got done in the past 8 to 10 years"

True, nothing has happened in the last 8 to 10 years but NOT because the committees did nothing but because the board refused to act on the committees' work.

Oh, look who I am talking to, "I'm confused" Thiel and "Not my South Park" Thiel.

Yes, I did point out to the board that the scenarios were confusing and left me with more questions than answers... if someone who had studied this for years had questions I can only imagine the questions of someone looking at them with no background.

As for "my South Park" my daughter would not even be a student there when it was proposed to be closed, I also said I was not convinced that ANY middle school needed to be closed (and hey what do you know, there aren't enough seats in the remaining middle schools to close any middle school). There was no logical reason given to close South Park the middle school with the second highest rating from the hired consultants, with a much higher ranking than Tipler which scored a zero. The major reason given at the board meeting was : Tipler has a larger playground...middle school students spend approximately 20 min. on the playground.

Exactly how much experience did Mrs. Thiel have when she was elected? Hubby is a teacher, she works for CESA. I doubt that prepares anyone for much of anything

I never claimed being married to a teacher gave me any experience and I didn't work for CESA when I was elected in 2001. I did however, spend 3 years attending nearly every board meeting before I was elected, I had a good understanding of the workings of the board and budget issues. I was a paraleagal for 7 years before I became a stay-at-home mom to raise my daughters, I have a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology from UW-Madison (which I achieved in 3 years) 12 graduate credits in Education from UW-Milwaukee and UW-Oshkosh and I volunteered for 3 years at Jefferson Elementary before I was elected as well as during the 3 years I was on the board and 1 1/2 years after my term ended. Actually being an educational grant writer for CESA gives me a great deal of exposure to research based successful school programs as well as the opportunity to visit a number of school district around the state to get an idea of how things are done in other places (I find it invaluable information).

NOTE: I posted this for those who actually care about facts and information, which seems to be the majority of posters to this site, at this point. I'm still waiting for more questions from people.

School Board Election

2007-01-17T13:26:00.000-06:00

So what does the title of my blog mean? Basically, it stands for what my candidacy will be about, what is best for the students of the Oshkosh Area School District. That is what I believe should be the primary concern of every board member. Of course there will be disagreement as to what is best but I want the discussion to revolve around what is best for the students and their education.

The district faces a number of issues and I believe it will take board members who have a thorough understanding of the workings of the district. I have followed the school board meetings, attending a majority of meetings since the fall of 1997, including serving one term on the board from April 2001-April 2004. I not only understand school funding issues, school budgeting, and the facilities issues the district faces, I also spent 7 years volunteering at Jefferson Elementary School, not just in my children's classrooms but at every grade level in the school. I saw first hand the challenges that our teachers face every day. I watched dedicated teachers struggle to meet the needs of their students while resources dwindled. This is not a time for us vs. them politics, whether it be teachers vs. administrators, parents vs. teachers, taxpayers vs. administrators. That is not ever productive. It is time to work together to make the district the best it can be... that can only benefit our students.

So ask your questions or post your comments and encourage your friends to do the same.