I spent last night going through all of my past Practically Speaking postings from the last referendum up until Easter 2007. I gave them a quick read and made the appropriate subject tags.

Many of them are still very pertinent this year. I hope to make a master list with titles, but if that never materializes, you can just click on the High School tag or Elmbrook to the right and they all should come up.

Brookfield7's postings can be found by typing in High School in the search box at the top of that blog. (I will try to list those too if time allows.)

One tidbit I found of interest was about Matt Gibson's raise from last year, just before the referendum. Last year he got an extra $4,881.

Uncle Matt wants you, Even if it means we have to build bigger schools:

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

 

I wonder what it will be this year? 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.) 

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

 

The countdown begins: Just 20 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dear Mr. Prast,

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

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

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

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

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

Brad Schimel

Me to Brad,

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

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

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

Kyle

Brad back to me,

Mr. Prast,

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

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

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

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

Brad Schimel

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

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



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

One of my regular readers sent me this today. I think if fits in well with the latest vote yes postcard.

"Today's the big day! Will our community whimsically vote to add more debt to our already outstanding sum of $2,798.66* for every man, woman and child in the Elmbrook school district? (YIKES) Or will we Just Say No!"

The way you vote for this referendum today will speak volumes to your children about what is important in life.

If you are trying to teach them to be fiscally responsible, manage their money well, and live within their means, a Yes vote will not reinforce those ideas.

If you are trying to teach them to be good stewards, a Yes vote will reinforce the idea that you don't need to be responsible with "the little" to be entrusted with more.

If you are trying to teach your children to be considerate of others and respect their elders, a Yes vote again will not reinforce those ideals. Most seniors already have a hard time deciding on whether to eat or buy prescriptions. This referendum will bring them to tougher decisions.

Will your vote today teach your children to be ruled by wants and emotions and value only the shiny and new or will it teach them to base their decisions on facts and the reality of budgets.

Lastly, IF you had to bring a check to the polling place today, made out for the entire amount of the referendum and dated so that the district could take out their yearly allotment in order to cast a YES vote, would you still vote yes?

Today is MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote! Besides 2 no votes on the referendums, I am writing in Jon Wolff against Bob Ziegler and Cindy Kilkenny against Glen Allgaier.

Please attend the Public Comment session at Brookfield's City hall tonight at 7:45 pm. This will be your final opportunity to speak out against the moving of 2 fire stations to the west. East High School will lose its 1 minute response time.

Post WW2 era buildings = modern construction

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com


*Source:
Wold Printing Services, Chicago, Il - online muni's
School District of Elmbrook, Waukesha County, Wisconsin Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds, posted 01/20/2005: $9,780,000 bonds w/ maturity 2006-2024
"direct, overlapping and underlying bonded indebtedness per capita: $2,798.66"

According to the Elmbrook LINK, “There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools.”

I heard that only 30% of the households in the district have school age children. Of that potential pool of students, 25% of them DO NOT attend Elmbrook schools. (This 25% either attend private or other district schools or are homeschooled. If taxes keep rising, it will be more difficult for parents to choose any option other than Elmbrook schools.)

Elmbrook has about 7,000 students in the system now or 75% of the total school age population. I figured that meant the remaining 25% of non-attendees would number about 2333. Elmbrook wants them all to come into the fold.

What is the reasoning behind Elmbrook recruiting each and every one of these potential students? Is it because we think we do such an outstanding job of educating them? Not according to The LINK. It went on to state that we need the higher enrollment totals to add to our numbers, which boosts our state revenue cap. That means we get more money from the state the higher our enrollments are. It is to avoid $1.5M yearly budget shortfalls.

If you recall, that was one of the reasons the majority of the board implemented our 4K program. Elmbrook wanted those new students to give the budget a boost.

So how much do we get for this lucrative business of enrolling a student in our system?

In 2004-05, Elmbrook received $1,701 per full time student. The state average was $5,500. There are some other Federal and Local revenue gains, but seeing as the total cost paid by property tax (us) was $9,480/student ($5,339 above state average) I fail to see how recruiting extra students helps us. (The total cost per student that year was $12,768, which was $1,724 above state average.)

What about those open enrollment transfer students from other school districts or the Chapter 220 students? The district always makes it seem like those students are money makers. In 2005 we had 397 open enrollment students and 317 Chapter 220. How much money does our district receive for these “money maker” students?

Open enrollment students gave us $5,500/student, but the total cost per student is $12,768. That is a $7,268 shortfall the taxpayers must make up*. (There may be some other funding here, but it would not be that much.)

Chapter 220 students bring a better dowry. We receive about $10,000/Chapter 220 student. Remember though, these students tend to be heavy users of special services such as social workers and vice principals for discipline issues. Taxpayers still must make up for the $2,768 shortfall between reimbursement and actual per student cost.

Much like the shop-a-holic racking up credit card debt to gain the free points or offers on their credit card, this kind of enrollment does not make any sense to me. Enrolling a student to gain $1,701, $5,500, or even $10,000 when the actual cost is $12,768 is purely Lucy Ricardo math. (I don’t mean to be picking on Lucy today, but it follows the same logic.)

Now let’s discuss the real cost of recruiting every last student we possibly can from within or without the district.

We have this unprecedented $108.8 million dollar referendum before us. One of the main reasons for it is that the district tells us we are short of classroom space—even though enrollments are declining. Current high school enrollment is 1,413 at Central, and 1,391 at East. (Projections show this number will decrease about 10% by 2011.)
In 2005, JSOnline reported, “At Wednesday's meeting, committee members expressed concerns that continuing to allow an unlimited number of non-resident students into the district would crowd the new high schools.
‘Then we would have to look at whether we need to build bigger high schools to accommodate all the open enrollment students,’ board member Steve Schwei said.”

The total non resident number of students this year is 724. 724? That is more than Swanson or Brookfield El’s maximum capacity. It is also greater than 10% of our own resident student enrollment.

Translating that to the high schools, in a ratio of high school enrollment compared to total enrollment, I estimated that non-resident high school students number about 265. Dividing that between Central and East, and you have 135 for Central and 130 at East. Divide that by 4 grade levels, and it comes to 30 - 34 students per grade level. 30 – 34 students = one classroom (at least).

Some English classes are at 30 students; the chemistry lab had 24 desks and lab stations. If you have a class full every hour, you also need a TEACHER for these students, EVERY HOUR. One reason we are short of classroom space at the high school level is that we have these non resident students. How many excess teachers do we have because of non-resident student enrollments?

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

I don’t think that is the districts main reason for recruitment. I think it is more the Lucy Ricardo math factor. They just see what they are getting and forget what it costs. Of course it is easier for them to ignore costs when it is not coming out of their pocket.

IT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

*2008 note: The Non-resident student cost is still not known. Much depends on if there was a true vacancy or if that student's presence required splitting the class into two new classes.  

Last weekend, I went on the mechanical tour at both high schools. I saw many things that should have been attended to but did not require a referendum to do. Others were items that in other districts would have just been taken care of within their operations budget, like painting door jambs, etc.

The third category would fall into a capitol improvement project during the summer, such as new chemistry cabinetry and counter tops. Nothing I saw was anything that a bit of diligence and a modest increase in budget could not remedy.

Right now I would like to focus on two problems that were just out and out neglect: a hole in the ceiling and holes in the wall. These problems challenge the Elmbrook LINK statement: “While the schools are well maintained within the scope of annual operating budgets...”

I question this statement because both would have been inexpensive and relatively easy to fix.

The first picture is of the ceiling in the girls locker room at Central’s pool. I think it has been like this since I took a mother and child swim class (my son is now 18). It is an access panel for something. The question is why was the ceiling never re-plastered around the frame? This is not a functional problem, just a cosmetic. I could even repair this one!

But these holes in the electric room are a real problem. They are the remaining sleeves from the abandoned oil tank lines which passed through the electrical room at Central. As you can see from the photo, water is seeping in through these holes and collecting on the electrical room floor.

Now most people’s first reaction is that water and electricity don’t mix. Pity the poor electrician that needs to work on or shut off any circuit breakers in there! That is a problem, but it's not the worst problem. According to new standards, electricians are not supposed to work anything "hot" (live).

No, the real problem here is that the humidity is very high in this closed room, and humidity and electrical contacts don’t mix. High humidity causes the contacts in the circuit breakers to oxidize and corrode. This eventually will cause the breaker to fail. Considering how many breakers are in this vicinity and the expense of changing them out, you would think the district would get after this, or at the very least put in a dehumidifier.

This would be a prime example of a very inexpensive repair that the district is ignoring. It does not require a referendum to fix it, just effort.

We had a similar situation in our home. The underground oil tank lines came in through our basement wall and water leaked in around the pipes. My husband dug down with a shovel from the outside, cleaned up the area, and used hydraulic cement to patch the holes.

Presto. No more leak.

Cost? About $10.00 in cement and a bit of sweat equity. That is all it would cost the district too. If the area above that wall is not accessible, it could be patched from the inside with the cement and epoxy.

There is no reason that the district could not fix this either. They still can and save the circuitry. Any responsible property owner would do so.

So why have they been neglected? Seems to me the district is a strange mix of Slum Lord: do as little as possible, combined with a welfare entitlement mentality: why take care of it; the taxpayers will just buy me a new one.

I’m hard pressed to come up with any other explanation for neglecting these simple repairs.

ONLY 2 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Be sure to read the Corridor Report

Referendum fever is hitting many school districts these days. Lisa Sink compiled a great chart of area referendums dating from 1988 to 2007 for her article, Elmbrook district casting big net. On it Janesville tops most costly, successful referendum list.

According to the article, “...most school districts with multiple high schools have chosen to spread work for the high schools over several referendums.” This is because it saves the taxpayers money—less money borrowed over a shorter time. But is that what Elmbrook is doing? No. If Janesville can do it all at once, certainly we can too? “Janesville was the only district Elmbrook Schools Superintendent Matt Gibson could cite that has sought large-scale improvements to two high schools at the same time”.

But wait a minute. Comparing Janesville to Elmbrook is not a fair comparison. Elmbrook taxpayers pay more in property tax to support their schools and state schools than Janesville taxpayers do. We are known as a “ ‘Primary Aid District’ due to our large tax base.” Because of that base, Elmbrook sends more money to the state than it receives back in state aid.

For our referendum, Elmbrook residents must pay “dollar for dollar” of all expenses. But according to Bob Borch, “They (Janesville) accounted for receiving 25% of every dollar needed to pay back the bonds as coming from state aid, this lowering the cost to the taxpayer for their borrowing.”

Elmbrook taxpayers also spend more per pupil than many other districts. Janesville gets $6,208 / student, while their property taxes contribute $2,900. Wausau recently passed a large referendum, but they receive $6,147 in state aid / student. Their taxpayers contribute $4,026. Closer to home Greenfield receives $4,317/student and pays $5,855.

What is Elmbrook’s benefit and cost? We receive only $1,701 in state aid, but our taxpayers must pay $9,480!

Do you see why comparing our district to Wausau, Greenfield or Janesville is not a fair comparison?

Coming up next: See why Janesville won the referendum, but lost anyway

ONLY 3 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Be sure to read this informative posting of Q & A between Bob Borch and an Elmbrook resident. Inquiring minds want to know! Q & A with Bob Borch as the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it a name you can trust?

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

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

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

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

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

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

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

THE REAL COST IS ROUGHLY 94 CENTS A DAY.

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

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

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

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

I received a bit more information about Signs of the times: What's wrong with this picture? from the police department. All signs must be 10 feet from the roadway, and if you have a complaint, you must have the address when calling it into the police department. Example: The Speedway at 18815 W. Bluemound Rd. Signs are 2 on Bluemound and are too close to street edge. (I also wonder if the Yes person obtained permission from the owner to post their signs.)

There is a stipulation that the sign must be in good condition. Some of the signs I have seen are flopping off the wires.

Please read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 first

On any given trip with children along you hear those familiar pleas: How many more miles? Are we there yet?

The parent then explains in terms a child can understand, just how long it will be before the destination is reached.

In my hypothetical $189,100,000 journey of placing those dollar bills end to end (representing the cost of the referendum and bond servicing--interest) you hopefully envisioned how that trail of dollars repeatedly crisscrossed our country and took from April to January to do it (walking nonstop).

Now the question remains, are we finished? Are we there yet? How many more miles?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. Matt Gibson doesn’t know. Bob Borch, the top bean counter, doesn’t know either. No one does.

You see, this journey that our school board and school district are asking Elmbrook taxpayers to embark upon has many unknown side trips waiting in the wings.

We know how much the referendum questions are: $108.8 Million dollars. We also know (about) what the bonding will be: $80.3 Million dollars. We do not know what the extras will be.

The extras are the trip into the unknown.

What will the additional operations costs be? The actual building process will incur cost overruns and the expected change orders. There is a small cushion for this, but normally, it runs higher than expected.

All the broker fees have not been accounted for and the district is counting on an additional 2% being added to the tax base every year.

More classrooms suggest more classes offered and the possibility of additional teachers and support staff.

The larger building sizes (footprints) will require more cleaning time and maintenance. (Yes, you still need to maintain new buildings, or they cease to look new.) The larger size may require an additional custodian and maintenance man—at least you would think they would if we want to keep those expensive buildings in tip top condition.

The point is: the referendum will cost that mythical, typical Elmbrook homeowner nearly $350 a year for the known costs. The unknown costs are a whole different trip!

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to walk that far.

ONLY 10 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Oh, joy. I am doing my income taxes today. (One of the many things I do myself to save money.)

I would encourage you, as you prepare your own taxes or get the paperwork ready for your tax man , to look at your past property tax bills and income tax papers.

Look at the ratio between property tax increases and income increases.

Hopefully, I will get this done quickly and then I will report what I find.

P.S. Though it is a bit chilly today, there are signs of spring being right around the corner. I saw a robin and an election sign for Glen Allgaier on a business property--all on the same day!

Happy Saint Patrick's Day


ONLY 17 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

For all of you who would like to see a change on our school board, Jon Wolff announced recently that he has agreed to be a WRITE-IN candidate for the AT LARGE seat.

"I feel very strongly that there is too much waste and poor decision-making in the district, and I think there needs to be another voice that echoes what the residents truly want," he (Jon) said...."I was asked if I would commit to being a write-in and I accepted." Stephanie Scott reported in a March 13 Community Watch post.

This means that you can write JON WOLFF in the write in space on the ballot, as an opponent for Bob Ziegler's At Large school board seat. Ziegler is running unopposed.


WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, votenoapril3

Guest Posting: Opposed to the referendum—here’s why by Barbara and Mike Shore

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, votenoapril3

Guest Posting: Residents DO support education IF the plan is reasonable! by Libby Wistrom, Brookfield

Guest Posting: Those in power possess a different vision by David and Marcy Schmidt, Brookfield

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield

ONLY 23 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!


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

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

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

What do you think?

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield

ONLY 24 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

I received a number of emails from readers about the need for anonymity when expressing VOTE NO sentiments. One reader even challenged me on my statement, “Thank Goodness our vote is still a private matter!” The challenger said that people might look at how you marked you ballot.

There are a number of simple solutions for prying eyes:
Bring a magazine or file folder with you. Place marked ballot face down or in between the covers.
OR
Hold your hand over the marked sections where the referendum questions are or hold it against your body when walking over to the vote tabulation machine.

Feed ballot into the machine face down.

As for writing letters or going public with their “vote no” stance, one reader summed it up this way, “I am voting no, but when you have kids in the schools, it is a little touchier.”

Don’t assume that if a person is employed by the district that they are for the referendum; they just cannot afford to take a stand and so remain silent.

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield