Thursday, June 19, 2008

Pay Klaus Even More Money to Go Away?

This possibility had occurred to me and it makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH. This is just one more disaster that can be hung on the decade of failed leadership that was headed up by Bill Klaus, Gregg Butler, Carol Olson, Mike O'Brien, JoAnne Evans, Bob Janke, Mary Kneer, and more recently even Brent Wogahn who all did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while the district headed into the pit of no Strategic Planning, no community involvement, no accountability, and just pretending they were a cozy private club at the top of the social heap in EC. The current BOE would be doing more long term damage by paying the jerk even more money to go away.

How much lower can we go before we hit bottom?

Maria



Updated: 6/19/2008 8:42:02 AM
The Eau Claire school district had paid $14,840 as of the end of April for legal costs associated with an investigation into contract changes for Bill Klaus, the Northstar Middle School principal and former superintendent.

Buyout of former superintendent's contract possible
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff

While firing former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus remains a distinct possibility, school board members haven't ruled out a negotiated agreement in which Klaus could leave his job as Northstar Middle School principal.

Klaus' contract guarantees him payment from the district through 2012, but that could be altered as part of any deal the board and Klaus might agree upon, school district sources close to the investigation into alterations to Klaus' contract said.

Klaus' contract calls for his receiving compensation for 2007-09 and 2009-11. As part of the deal the board approved on Feb. 5, 2007, an additional year was added to the contract, granting him payment through 2012.

Total compensation for Klaus' four remaining contract years totals about $550,000, not including Klaus' $225,000 stipend payment.

Specific terms of a possible separation deal have not been discussed by the board, but nothing has been officially negotiated between district officials and Klaus, sources said.

"This isn't something we can talk about in detail now because we're not willing to jeopardize the investigation," school board President Carol Craig said. "But we are working very diligently."

Negotiations to discipline or fire public-sector employees like Klaus often are time consuming and fraught with legal concerns, in large part because those employees have signed contracts guaranteeing certain conditions as part of their employment.

Terms of possible negotiations with Klaus remain uncertain, but severance payments or contract buy-outs are relatively common in cases of public employees who are dismissed.

Buying out employees who resign or have been fired has precedent in the Eau Claire school district. For instance, the district paid former North High School Principal Terry Downen $83,000 when he resigned eight years ago after attempting to exempt students from a state standardized test without permission to boost test scores, as well as concerns about his disobeying the school's truancy policy. Other district employees have been allowed to resign with full benefits rather than be fired.

"When you look at the cost of defending a lawsuit, you have to ask 'why not just settle this now and put it behind us?'" said one board member who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the Klaus contract investigation.

Another district official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called fears of continued negative publicity surrounding the ongoing investigation "a huge concern."

Klaus' contract change became an issue after an April 19 Leader-Telegram story detailing how former school board President Carol Olson, at Klaus' request, signed and backdated a memo authorizing that Klaus begin receiving his stipend earlier than his contract allowed. Olson signed the memo last summer, at least two months after having vacated her board position.

Olson and Klaus admit to creating and backdating the document but contend the board previously had approved granting the early stipend payment. However, other board members said they never even discussed the issue. Klaus' contract did not call for him to begin receiving stipend payments until he retired. District officials said he didn't receive stipend payments, and the school board voted Oct. 22 to deny them.

The board and Eau Claire Police Department launched separate investigations in the days after revelations of the contract alteration surfaced, and on Monday the board met for the ninth time behind closed doors to discuss the issue.

That same day police officials announced they had completed their investigation into the matter and forwarded their work to Eau Claire County District Attorney Rich White, who said he expects to decide whether to file criminal charges related to the case sometime next week.

School board members have said they want to give information to the public about the matter, but they must balance that with concerns about imperiling their investigation.

Slowing the process is the fact that district administrators who normally would be assisting with the inquiry are subjects of the investigation.

Klaus isn't the only district employee facing possible board reprimand, district officials close to the investigation said. Interim Superintendent Jim Leary, Deputy Superintendent Gregg Butler and Personnel Director Jim Kling could be disciplined - or fired - for their roles in failing to notify board members and others about the contract change once the issue surfaced last summer, sources say.

Instead, board members say those administrators kept much of that information secret even as the board questioned it in the weeks after the Oct. 22 meeting.

How much those administrators knew about the issue remains uncertain, but they have acknowledged having been involved in discussions with Klaus about it last summer and fall - before board members learned about it.

Leary's one-year interim superintendent tenure ends June 30, likely before the board would issue any possible disciplinary action against him.

Likewise, Butler is slated to leave the district July 3 after he recently announced he won't reapply for his position despite having expressed previous interest in continuing that job.

Butler retired as deputy superintendent at the end of last school year and was immediately rehired to continue in that position for the past school year on an interim basis after being denied the interim superintendent job.

Kling is expected to work at least one more year for the district before retiring.

Board members also said former board President Michael O'Brien apparently had knowledge of the contract change prior to Oct. 22, as evidenced by the fact that he requested a legal opinion on the matter from the Davis and Kuelthau firm prior to that meeting.

Several board members said O'Brien advised them against commenting on the topic to the Leader-Telegram. O'Brien said he and other school board members could not discuss the issue because discussion of it had occurred in closed session. He and other administrators also declined to release records related to Klaus' contract change to the Leader-Telegram.

Attorney Kirk Strang with the Davis and Kuelthau law firm subsequently determined those records should be released to the newspaper.

Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, 800-236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have finally completed my time line and looked at copies (on line) of the diputed documents, The last one I got was the Feb 5th 07 original-the one that carried the date that the disputed "addendum" signed by only Klaus and Olson had been obviously and indisputably postdated to.

It is the one Bob Schwartz lost and wasn't able in include in his blog.

It is now on the Leader Telegram list of sources.
It is very confusing in many ways, For one thing it makes a distiction between state reitrement and "district retirement" I'm not sure what that means but it did set the age at 53, the age Klaus assumed allowed him to draw on those funds.
I think there is enough confusion there to occupy a lawyer for many expensive hours.

And I'm now even more convinced that the DA will not bring criminal charges as it would make criminal "intent" more difficult to prove.

Pretty clearly it was a poor contract, poorly conceived and executed- a lawyer's dream.

When the DA fails to charge anyone as I think he
will rule, the ECASD Board probably has no pragmatic choice but to negotiate some kind of buy out.

Whatever else he does in these negoitatione you can be sure he will insist on a "no fault" clause
just as he did when he agreed to the leave with pay.

It does seem to be a viable option at this point to have him continue as an employee of the district.

I'm glad I'm not on the board at this time.

I try to look at these things sometimes from a personal point of view, and see this one as an
unfortunate end to a serviceable career in education. I think that Dr, Butler will be eligible for one of the many adminstrative openings in the state, and it is expected of a "deputy" that he or she take heat for whatever happens. A cynic might consider a little controvery a plus for that position.

Anonymous said...

Ufda



I meant to say It does NOT seem to be a viable option to have him continue as an employee.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I see you left your friend Mike O'Brien off the list of those whose leadership is questionable - likely an oversight,I'm sure. However, though I know you would not want to include Carol Craig or Trish Cummins on that list, I believe you must, especially if what is written about in this article comes to pass. I'm willing to give Faanes, Schiel and Bollinger a pass due to their newness on the board.

I think the negative publicity of caving in on this issue would do far more damage than standing on principal and paying to defend a potential lawsuit.

Maria Henly said...

Dear Anonymous,

Thanks so much for catching the Mike O'Brien omission. I have corrected the original posting to include him. You are correct, I have left off Craig and Cummins since their tenure on the board is less than the other "long timers". If you regularly watch the BOE meetings you will also notice that in the last couple of years Cummins and Craig have consistently raised many questions (Conflict of Interest, etc...) and have been equally consistently out voted 5 to 2 on all of them. I am certainly giving a pass to Faanes, Bollinger and Shiel as well.

I will be shocked and completely dismayed at every person on the board if the BOE does any special deal for Klaus. I also have heard "recall" in the community many times and would be hard pressed to disagree if those were the circumstances.

One thing that I do not understand is that the ECASD acts "as a whole" and, I assume that this means in Closed Session as well. So how do individuals or a minority of BOE members reasonably object to a process that they think is wrong when the Pres. of the Board (an attorney) and the legal counsel of the district (the President's boss) and a majority of other BOE members think it is okey-dokey?

I think that each and every BOE member who was warming a chair on Oct. 22nd when this came out should give the press and the public an explanation of what they thought and how they either acquiesced or objected.

Maria

BobSchwartz said...

The question of why this was not resolved in October is the one that will have hang time. At this point, all that is known with certainty is that the majority position on the board was to get out the broom and sweep it under the rug. So I think Shiel is the only one that is off the hook.

I also think that question and its associated hang time is going to lead to some board turnover in the coming years.

Anonymous said...

I have roughly organized the documents on my date line along with some quick and dirty notes with simple parenthetic documentation. I have stopped trying to draw conclusions from any of this.




Board members and other notes from documents at key dates

______________


Board on Jan15,2006 Olson President
Craig, Evans, Janke, Kneer, O’Brien, Olson, and Wogahn


Document-
Contract before decision to move to principal position;
retirement date and stipend eligibility set at 55:
survivor benefits for insurance and some health benefits set.
(from Bob Schwartz blog)

+++++++++++++


Board on Feb 5, 2007 Olson President
Craig, Cummins, Evans, Kneer, O’Brien, Olson, and Wogahn,


changes- Cummins replaces Janke


Document
Contract allowing move to Norhtstar and "district" retirement with stipend possible at 53 .
(From Leader Telegram news links page)


*********************


Late June-early July 2007 O'Brien President since May 07
Bollinger, Craig, Cummins, Faanes, Kneer, O’Brien, and Wogahn
changes- Bollinger, Fannes replace Evans and C. Olson.
O'Brien president instead of Olson.
Date of insertion of back-dated document into file
Document -the backdated two signature note note allowing payment (Schwartz blog)


*******************************


Board on Oct 22, 2007 O'Brien President
Bollinger, Craig, Cummins, Faanes, Kneer, O’Brien, and Wogahn
changes , - none
date of clarification of Feb 5 contract- retirement and stipend at
55; survivor benefits expanded to include retirement stipend,
Document - Board minutes Dec 2007 (Board web site)

*********************


Board on May, 2008 to present - Craig president
Bollinger, Craig, Faanes, Kneer, Shiel, Wogahn, Cummins.
This is the board that has conducted the main investigation of the Klaus contract issue,
Document the Apr 23, 2008, Leader Telegram story, (Contract issue angers board ,LT archives.)

Anonymous said...

Here's an idea: put Klaus to work. Find a small room at the board office, provide him with tasks that will fill his day (pencil sharpening, sorting, cleaning, whatever) and make him put in 8 hours/day until he qualifies for retirement.

Anonymous said...

The DA has announced that he will not press any criminal charges in this case.
I don't think any reasonable prosecutor who examined all of the detailed information could arrive at any other conclusion.

The ball is in the school board court.

Anonymous said...

The other shoe has dropped. Tom Guelzow, Klaus'
attorney, has come out praising the DA and critical of the school board. It is obvious that Klaus is not going to go "gently" but with a "bang" if the board takes any drastic action against him. At this point some type of agreed separation is the only practical outcome.