Support, Opposition and Ridicule: the School Board Recall Attempt has Already Seen it All
By Brandi Makuski
Leaders from the group Save Our Schools (SOS) say they’ve gotten overwhelming support in their attempt to oust School Board Members Lisa Totten and Kim Shirek.
But that support, they say, has been largely private.
“So many people support the recall; they want to sign but they don’t- they say they’re afraid to come forward,” said Barb Portzen, a former district employee who sits on the committee. “People say they are afraid for their personal safety and of retribution.”
The group is trying to oust second-term Board Members Totten and Shirek after months of inappropriate behavior during public meetings, along with a night of drunken misbehavior during the 2014 state school board convention in Milwaukee.
Portzen, along with others on the committee, say the two are an embarrassment to the district.
“People have heard so many bad things about this board throughout the state, and it’s because of those two members,” said Lois Precourt, another member of the SOS committee.
Precourt said she’s been harassed by at least one person while attending the table at the group’s recall headquarters on Park Ridge Drive. She said a man came into the office feigning curiosity about the group’s intent but later began yelling at her, calling media reports about the two board members “untrue”.
“Just all of a sudden he started yelling that I didn’t know the whole story,” Precourt said. “I’m at the point now where I have nothing to lose, and this kind of thing can’t go on.”
Portzen and Precourt aren’t alone. Several district employees and members of the School Board themselves say since the recall attempt went public, they believe they’ve been followed home after board meetings, experienced threatening phone calls and texts and on at least one occasion, a board member’s children were followed by a slow-moving vehicle while walking on a neighborhood street.
But the claims of harassment haven’t stopped recall supporters from speaking out.
Armed with dates and specifics, three supporters of the recall publicly spoke at a January school board meeting. Erin Andrews, Jan Schultz and Greg Kroger all openly stated they had children in the district and were long-time residents.
“We do a lot of things right in this school district, and we do a lot of things right in this community,” Andrews said, but added the district wasn’t doing enough to correct problems in order to move forward.
“The basis for the school board recall is the failure to fulfill the official duties of the office,” Andrews said. “Our school board website contains several documents that serve a guidelines for our school board, including a code of conduct for School Board members- the behavior of certain members at board meetings is in direct violation of the code of conduct.”
She also read part of the code which outlines rules regarding respect, professionalism, compromise and being prepared for meetings.
“No one is perfect; I’m sure everyone on this Board has fallen short of some of these at times. But some members fail to uphold this code on a regular basis,” Andrews said, adding she encouraged people to watch meetings from Sept. 29, 2014; October 14, 2014; and November 10, 2014 via the district website.
Schultz also addressed the Board, saying Totten and Shirek are “failing to uphold the goals of the district,” and both have a voting record which doesn’t support either student achievement or financial stability in the district.
“At February 3, 2014 meeting, the two vote against phase 2 of the Sentry Foundation technology grant- a $2.6 million grant providing junior high students with laptops and elementary students to iPads for education in the classroom,” she said. “This decision shows a lack of regard for both student achievement and financial goals of the school district…it seems personal agendas trump student achievement.”
She also pointed out the two voted against the approval of the district’s new Life Skills Center, which educates special needs students in our district.
“The two members have repeatedly voted against cost saving measures, including a janitorial contract that would ultimately save the district nearly $1 million dollars. Our district can’t afford to have leaders who aren’t looking out for the best interests of our students,” Schultz said.
Kroger, who has kids in junior high and high schools, said the high cost of a recall election- estimated at $37,000- would be a “small in a small investment when talking about the education of future employees and leaders of our community.”
“Because of the behavior and voting record of certain board members, Save Our Schools weighs the cost of keeping these two people on the board would be greater than the cost of the election,” Kroger said. “Their votes nearly cost us a $2.6 million dollar grant from the Sentry Foundation. The district cannot afford to keep these members on the school board. In order to save our taxpayer money and move our district forward, Save Our Schools feels the recall is the financially responsible choice.”
Kroger also said if a successful recall, combined with a new superintendent, would allow a “culture of strategic thinking and responsibility”.
“Save Our Schools supports our teachers and employees, and we believe the recall is in everyone’s interest,” he said.
But Glen Reindl from the local teacher’s union- who thus far has been the only public voice opposition to the recall- likened the recall attempt to a personal attack due to difference of opinion.
“Half of it’s about payback, half of it’s about misunderstanding,” Reindl said. “For the past five years, I defy you to find anybody who has been here more often or watched more meetings than myself. This is not something that occurred six months ago or a year ago, this has been going on for five years. For five years Ms. Shirek and Ms. Totten have actively sought for different opinions, different information and different ideas from the superintendent. They have been at loggerheads from the beginning.”
Reindl also pointed out Shirek and Totten fought to save money by reducing Superintendent Attila Weninger’s compensation package, which shows fiscal responsibility.
“When we talk about the vote for the Life Skills Center, it’s a difference of opinion,” he added. “We’re saying ‘I don’t think they think the way I want them to, so let’s get rid of them.’ I’m not sure that’s a strong enough point of view. I agree, what they do on camera, other people don’t do on camera and that is there biggest mistake, because they’re emotional, they’re loud and they’re honest. But tabulate the truths over the past five years and you’re going to find something; when they had concerns about discrepancies with the bills, there were discrepancies.”
The recall committee needs just over 6,500 valid signatures to trigger a recall vote. Reasons given for the recall attempt are:
- Inability to work cooperatively with administration, staff and other board members to move the district forward;
- Disrespectful and rude in public televised meetings;
- Poorly represents the district by unprofessional demeanor.
The headquarters is located at 29B Park Ridge Drive, next to the former location of Zurawski’s Floral.
Portzen said volunteers are still needed to help collect signatures. For more information, email the committee at [email protected].