Folks,
Here is the official document of Findings and Conclusions in the "BackDateGate" matter that supports the one year suspension without pay for Former Superintendent Klaus. Following it are the proposed changes to ECASD Board Policies and Procedures that will be made to tighten things up a wee bit. The votes that were 6-1 were the result of Comm. Kneer being the "cheese stands alone" for her buddy, Bill. However, the final vote for the Order for Suspension was unanimous. Maria
STATE OF WISCONSIN
BEFORE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
FOR THE
EAU CLAIRE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
In The Matter Of The
Inquiry Of Dr. William Klaus
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER OF SUSPENSION
This matter has come before the Board of Education for the Eau Claire Area School District to
consider information concerning events related to the early retirement stipend for former
Superintendent, Dr. William Klaus. Specifically, the Board convened to determine the
circumstances surrounding a memorandum dated February 5, 2007, signed by Ms. Carol Olson
as School Board President, which was prepared to support Dr. Klaus’ claim for such benefits,
effective in August of 2007, immediately following his transfer to the position of Middle School
Principal.
The Board of Education met with Dr. Klaus on April 25, 2008. The Board also met with
members of its executive administrative team on April 29, 2008. Thereafter, the Board of
Education held a series of meetings to review and consider Board of Education policies, Board of
Education minutes and proceedings, responses to public records requests and e-mail
correspondence, related information from a separate police investigation, and District
administrative contracts.
Thereafter, a second meeting was scheduled with Dr. William Klaus. A meeting with Dr. Klaus
was originally contemplated for July 7, 2008, but was postponed at the request of Dr. Klaus’
legal counsel. The meeting was subsequently rescheduled for July 17, 2008. The meeting was
again postponed to July 28, 2008, to allow for additional notice to Dr. Klaus of the charges to be
considered by the Board of Education. Those charges were formally issued on July 22, 2008.
The Board of Education met with Dr. Klaus and his legal counsel on July 28. The changes were
reviewed with Dr. Klaus and he was provided with an opportunity to respond to each charge
presented. Dr. Klaus and his legal counsel were presented with information that had been
assembled by the Board of Education during its inquiry, and informed of additional matters that
the Board had taken notice of. Dr. Klaus’ legal counsel also encouraged the Board to ask
questions of Dr. Klaus concerning the charges, and the Board considered Dr. Klaus’ responses as
well as his demeanor in evaluating those responses.
Following the meeting with Dr. Klaus, the Board of Education deliberated for approximately
three (3) hours, but did not conclude those deliberations. The Board met again on August 4,
2008, to continue and conclude its deliberations.
The Board, having done so, makes the following Findings and Conclusions concerning the
Charges presented to Dr. Klaus. The Charges appearing in the notice for the July 28, 2008,
meeting are reprinted below, together with related Findings and Conclusions made by the Board
of Education.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Dr. Klaus had the document dated February 5, 2007, created and/or was responsible for
creating it, and then provided the document to District personnel for the purpose of
securing or receiving retirement benefits. In this regard:
a. The attached document was created using District staff, materials, and time.
b. The attached document was placed on District letterhead or paper that bears the
logo or insignia of the District.
c. The attached document was prepared to be signed, and was signed by former
Board President Carol Olson, although she was not Board President when the
document was prepared or signed.
d. The attached document was backdated to reflect the same date that Dr. Klaus’
administrator contract originally had been approved by the Board of Education
(February 5, 2007), although it was created and signed during the summer of
2007.
e. The attached document was presented to District personnel to process Dr. Klaus’
request for payment of retirement benefits, without disclosure to District Payroll
personnel that the document had not been prepared on the date set forth in the
document or by a current Board of Education President.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board noted that these charges were substantially undisputed and
unanimously found this information to be true and correct.
2. Dr. Klaus presented or had the attached document presented to District personnel that are
responsible for administering District retirement benefits, for the purpose of securing or
receiving those benefits.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board noted that this charge was substantially undisputed and
unanimously found this information to be true and correct.
3. Dr. Klaus intended, knew, and/or should have known that the attached document would
reasonably lead persons receiving it to believe that it had been prepared by a current
Board of Education President on the date appearing on the document, and that it
constituted an authorized statement of or on behalf of the District’s Board of Education
regarding Dr. Klaus’ eligibility for retirement benefits.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board concluded that this charge was true and correct by a 6-1
vote.
4. Dr. Klaus did not confer or request to confer with the full Board of Education regarding
his eligibility for retirement benefits prior to seeking those benefits through the means
identified in Paragraphs 1 and 2, above.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board noted that this charge was substantially undisputed and
unanimously found this information to be true and correct.
5. Dr. Klaus did not advise the Board of Education in advance or obtain Board of Education
authorization to arrange for or take the action(s) described in Paragraphs 1 and 2, above.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board noted that this charge was substantially undisputed and
unanimously found this information to be true and correct.
6. The Board of Education did not authorize payment of Dr. Klaus’ retirement benefitseffective August 1, 2007, before his actual retirement from District employment. In
addition, Dr. Klaus did not reasonably believe that the Board of Education had authorized
the payment of his retirement benefits effective August 1, 2007, before his actual
retirement from District employment.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board considered this question in two parts. As to the first
sentence, the Board concluded that the charge was true and correct by a 6-1 vote. As to the
second sentence, the Board concluded that this charge was true and correct by a 5-2 vote.
7. Dr. Klaus maintained custody of his own administrator contract file and made and
supervised the process of making periodic changes to his administrator contract. Dr.
Klaus did not obtain Board of Education authorization to follow this procedure and did
not provide copies of his contracts to the full Board of Education before they were signed
by representatives of the Board.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board concluded that this charge was sustained, in part, with the
remainder to be set aside by a 6-1 vote, finding that Dr. Klaus maintained his own administrative
contract, and made and supervised the process of making periodic changes to his administrator
contract without obtaining Board authorization.
8. Dr. Klaus failed to provide timely, accurate, and complete information to the Board of
Education regarding the events described in Paragraphs 1-2, above.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board concluded that this charge was true and correct by a 6-1
vote.
9. Dr. Klaus’ conduct was and has been a substantial factor in generating adverse publicity
and/or has impacted upon public confidence in the District.
Finding and Conclusion: The Board concluded that this charge was true and correct by a 6-1
vote.
ORDER
1. Dr. Klaus shall be suspended without salary, commencing on August 11, 2008, through
June 15, 2009. The District will continue to provide contractual insurance benefits
(health, dental, disability, and life insurance) to Dr. Klaus, but there will not be further
accrual, earning, or use of vacation, sick leave, reimbursable expenses, holiday pay, or
other benefits during the term of his disciplinary suspension.
2. Dr. Klaus shall be transferred to an administrative position to be determined by the
Superintendent, in his discretion, effective upon the conclusion of Dr. Klaus’ suspension.
In this regard, the Board disputes the validity of the 2009-2012 administrator contract for
Dr. Klaus, but acknowledges its belief that his administrator contract was extended
through 2009-2010, by action of the Board of Education.
__________________________________
President, Board of Education
Date: _____________________________
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of Education
Date: _____________________________
BOARD OF EDUCATION
FOR THE
EAU CLAIRE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
The following protocols and/or Board policies will be considered and evaluated by the Board of
Education. The Board will review and/or implement protocols or policies that may include the
following after receiving input from appropriate persons, if needed. Further, in some instances,
long term goals may need to be formulated where matters such as contractual commitments
prevent making more immediate change.
A summary of protocols/policies to be reviewed or considered, includes the following:
A. Administrator Contracts
1. Administrators shall have one (1) individual administrator contract, consistent
with s. 118.24, Wis. Stats., at any given time.
2. The term of individual administrator contracts shall not exceed two (2) years but a
contract for a term of two (2) years may provide for one or more extensions of
one (1) year each, consistent with s. 118.24, Wis. Stats.
3. All executive administrator contracts shall be provided to all Board members for
review before they are brought before the full Board and executed. In the case of
non-executive/affiliated administrators, individual contracts will be standardized
and exceptions must be provided to the Board of Education for review and
approval prior to their execution.
4. Individual administrator contracts shall be maintained by the Director of Human
Resources. The Director of Human Resources shall be responsible for advising
the Board of Education of any deadlines for Board action on administrator
contracts, whether provided for by statute or by contract terms.
5. Administrator contract review:
a. The Board will commission legal review of executive administrator
contracts.
b. The Board will review and consolidate policies relating to administrator
contracts.
6. Individual administrator contracts shall state that contracts entered into between
the District and the administrator supersede previous contracts between the
parties.
7. Each page of executive administrator contracts shall be initialed and dated by the
parties.
B. Meeting Procedures
1. Minutes of all meetings will be reviewed by the Superintendent and appointed
Board of Education representative within five (5) working days following official
meetings.
2. Official action taken by the Board of Education will be by motion and vote, which
shall be recorded in the Board of Education’s meeting minutes, whether the
meeting occurs in open or closed session. Where required by law, a roll call vote
shall be taken.
3. The person responsible for recording the minutes will be identified in the minutes,
as well as the beginning and ending times for the meeting.
C. The Board of Education will be advised of all public records requests.
D. Members of the Board of Education will be advised of official actions requiring Board of
Education officers’ signatures at or before regular Board of Education meetings.
E. The Board of Education will evaluate procedures for development of appropriate whistle-
blowing policies.
F. The Board will review the District’s annual audit procedures for appropriate
recommendations in segregation of duties.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Don Huebscher Lets Olson and O'Brien off the Hook (8-15-08)
I agree with the title of this editorial but in the last few paragraphs Mr. Huebscher ERRONEOUSLY characterizes Carol Olson and Mike O'Brien who were at the helm of the BOE during this fiasco (and Carol was a key player in the stupid, arrogant and unethical actions) as "volunteers" and therefore only Klaus should be held accountable. WRONG!! For a person whose professional life is words and communication, I think Mr. Huebscher has failed to do his job with this kind of soft-pedaling the actions of elected officials.
Volunteers sell hot dogs at concession stands, collect money for band trips and shelve library books to help teachers, staff and students. I daresay, most volunteers do their tasks with a greater amount of care and dedication than Olson and O'Brien who cavalierly ignored ethics and good board practice with the disastrous effects we have seen over the last several months. No, Mr. Huebscher, Olson and O'Brien are elected officials who chose to run for office and take on the responsibility of serving taxpayers and our community. Deciding to run for office requires that you know and obey the LAWS that govern everything from campaign expenses, Roberts Rules of Order, Open Meeting Laws and Conflict of Interest issues.
'Nuff said. Let's move forward and shake the crap of this mess off of our shoes and leave Klaus, Olson, O'Brien, Butler, Leary, Kling, and Iverson alone with their consciences and their little group of friends who will continue to tell them that the king is wearing fabulous clothes instead of standing butt-naked in front of the world.
Maria
Updated: 8/11/2008 6:17:02 PM
Secretive route was no way to amend contract
The issue: Bill Klaus' attorney claims his client is a "political scapegoat."
Our view: Amending a contract in such a manner can't go unpunished ... period.
If Bill Klaus challenges the severity of the suspension given to him last week by the Eau Claire school board, things could get even more interesting and/or ugly than they've been up to this point - and that's saying something.
Klaus, the former superintendent, was suspended without pay by the board for 10 months and had the length of his contract shortened by two years, from 2012 to 2010. The penalty is the result of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend starting at age 53 instead of 55 and directing (through his secretary) former school board President Carol Olson to sign and backdate a memo authorizing the early stipend payments. (Olson was board president when Klaus' contract was revised to reflect his move from superintendent to Northstar Middle School principal, but she no longer was on the board when she signed and backdated the memo.)
If this ends up in court, Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, may set out to prove that a faction of the school board - presumably board members Carol Craig, Trish Cummins and Brent Wogahn - were out to get Klaus. They are the three board members who said the board never discussed nor voted on the early stipend payments. Three other board members at the time - Olson, JoAnne Evans and Michael O'Brien - said it was their recollection the payments were approved. The seventh board member, Mary Kneer, told police investigators she couldn't remember either way.
"This is about the board using Bill as a political scapegoat and posturing for the citizens of Eau Claire," Guelzow told Leader-Telegram reporter Julian Emerson after the suspension was announced.
In an interview with police, Klaus said at the meeting when the stipend issue was discussed, "there were a number of (school board) members who were not getting along, having side debates and making side comments."
It might be interesting to put everyone under oath in open court and let attorneys from both sides have at them to see if memories can be jogged to determine which version is closer to the truth.
But even if it could be proved that Craig, Cummins and Wogahn somehow had it in for Klaus, there's still one big issue nagging at school district taxpayers: What is the proper way to straighten out an oversight or mere confusion involving a superintendent's contract? Should all parties be brought together to hash it out? Or should the superintendent arrange to have the former school board president stop by the office to sign and backdate a memo and say nothing to other board members?
To answer that question, administrators from other school districts should be put on the stand to testify how such things are handled in their districts. Maybe administrators from cities and counties could testify as well about how their contracts are handled.
Sure, Olson didn't have to sign the memo, and certainly in hindsight she wished she hadn't, but Olson and all school board members are essentially volunteers. The reason the superintendent of the Eau Claire public school system is the highest-paid administrator in the region is because we expect that person to be knowledgeable on a range of topics to ensure public trust and confidence, including the proper way to handle contracts.
Based on what came out of the 400-page police investigation, it will be very difficult for Guelzow to make the case that Klaus is simply the victim of a vindictive segment of the school board, then or now.
Legal experts may have to sort out whether the board has the authority to unilaterally trim two years off Klaus' contract and whether such a long-term deal was legal in the first place. If it wasn't, again it should be the responsibility of the administration, not the volunteer school board, to know such a thing.
- Don Huebscher, editor11008
Volunteers sell hot dogs at concession stands, collect money for band trips and shelve library books to help teachers, staff and students. I daresay, most volunteers do their tasks with a greater amount of care and dedication than Olson and O'Brien who cavalierly ignored ethics and good board practice with the disastrous effects we have seen over the last several months. No, Mr. Huebscher, Olson and O'Brien are elected officials who chose to run for office and take on the responsibility of serving taxpayers and our community. Deciding to run for office requires that you know and obey the LAWS that govern everything from campaign expenses, Roberts Rules of Order, Open Meeting Laws and Conflict of Interest issues.
'Nuff said. Let's move forward and shake the crap of this mess off of our shoes and leave Klaus, Olson, O'Brien, Butler, Leary, Kling, and Iverson alone with their consciences and their little group of friends who will continue to tell them that the king is wearing fabulous clothes instead of standing butt-naked in front of the world.
Maria
Updated: 8/11/2008 6:17:02 PM
Secretive route was no way to amend contract
The issue: Bill Klaus' attorney claims his client is a "political scapegoat."
Our view: Amending a contract in such a manner can't go unpunished ... period.
If Bill Klaus challenges the severity of the suspension given to him last week by the Eau Claire school board, things could get even more interesting and/or ugly than they've been up to this point - and that's saying something.
Klaus, the former superintendent, was suspended without pay by the board for 10 months and had the length of his contract shortened by two years, from 2012 to 2010. The penalty is the result of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend starting at age 53 instead of 55 and directing (through his secretary) former school board President Carol Olson to sign and backdate a memo authorizing the early stipend payments. (Olson was board president when Klaus' contract was revised to reflect his move from superintendent to Northstar Middle School principal, but she no longer was on the board when she signed and backdated the memo.)
If this ends up in court, Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, may set out to prove that a faction of the school board - presumably board members Carol Craig, Trish Cummins and Brent Wogahn - were out to get Klaus. They are the three board members who said the board never discussed nor voted on the early stipend payments. Three other board members at the time - Olson, JoAnne Evans and Michael O'Brien - said it was their recollection the payments were approved. The seventh board member, Mary Kneer, told police investigators she couldn't remember either way.
"This is about the board using Bill as a political scapegoat and posturing for the citizens of Eau Claire," Guelzow told Leader-Telegram reporter Julian Emerson after the suspension was announced.
In an interview with police, Klaus said at the meeting when the stipend issue was discussed, "there were a number of (school board) members who were not getting along, having side debates and making side comments."
It might be interesting to put everyone under oath in open court and let attorneys from both sides have at them to see if memories can be jogged to determine which version is closer to the truth.
But even if it could be proved that Craig, Cummins and Wogahn somehow had it in for Klaus, there's still one big issue nagging at school district taxpayers: What is the proper way to straighten out an oversight or mere confusion involving a superintendent's contract? Should all parties be brought together to hash it out? Or should the superintendent arrange to have the former school board president stop by the office to sign and backdate a memo and say nothing to other board members?
To answer that question, administrators from other school districts should be put on the stand to testify how such things are handled in their districts. Maybe administrators from cities and counties could testify as well about how their contracts are handled.
Sure, Olson didn't have to sign the memo, and certainly in hindsight she wished she hadn't, but Olson and all school board members are essentially volunteers. The reason the superintendent of the Eau Claire public school system is the highest-paid administrator in the region is because we expect that person to be knowledgeable on a range of topics to ensure public trust and confidence, including the proper way to handle contracts.
Based on what came out of the 400-page police investigation, it will be very difficult for Guelzow to make the case that Klaus is simply the victim of a vindictive segment of the school board, then or now.
Legal experts may have to sort out whether the board has the authority to unilaterally trim two years off Klaus' contract and whether such a long-term deal was legal in the first place. If it wasn't, again it should be the responsibility of the administration, not the volunteer school board, to know such a thing.
- Don Huebscher, editor11008
Tom Giffey Editorial: Aug. 10th
Updated: 8/10/2008 11:37:01 PM
Suspension likely best step in Klaus fiasco
The issue: The Eau Claire school board suspends former Superintendent Bill Klaus without pay.
Our view: The decision won't please everyone, but it's the best of a series of bad options to deal with Klaus' unethical actions.
Call it what you will - Klausgate, Backdategate, the Mess at 500 Main St. - but it looks like the controversy that has embroiled Eau Claire school district leaders for months is over. At least for a year. Maybe.
Eau Claire school district residents won't soon forget former Superintendent Bill Klaus' unethical attempt to backdate his contract to gain access to his retirement stipend before he actually retired. Nor will they forget the school board's long, bungled and too-secretive response. However, the board's decision Friday to suspend Klaus without pay - and not to buy out his contract - is a first step in repairing its tattered image with an angry community.
To recap: In February 2007, the board OK'd a deal to allow Klaus to step down as superintendent and become principal of Northstar Middle School. Later that summer, at Klaus' behest, former school board President Carol Olson signed a backdated memo stating Klaus could collect his retirement stipend beginning Aug. 1, 2007. The board balked when it learned of this, but refused to talk openly about the matter for months. After a Leader-Telegram investigation revealed the situation in April, public furor forced the district to put Klaus on paid leave and led to a police investigation (though no criminal charges were filed).
On Friday, the Eau Claire school board voted to suspend Klaus without pay until June 15. We're hesitant to predict a definitive end to the furor over Klaus' contract because the next move is his. Klaus will be old enough next year to start getting payments from his $267,209 retirement stipend, and hopefully he'll be wise enough to take the hint and retire, even though his contract with the district originally ran through June 30, 2012.
But things may not be that easy: The embattled school leader's attorney promised to sue the district if Klaus' dismissal deal didn't include the stipend and the pay he'd get under the remaining four years of his contract, a total of more than $800,000.
Nevertheless, the decision the school board made Friday may make a lawsuit less likely to succeed, which would make it one of the best decisions the board has made during this sordid saga. Under Klaus' contract, the board can suspend him, as long as it doesn't do so in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner; firing him requires "just cause" and a more complex process.
Contrary to the angry sentiments of some readers, who pilloried the board's decision on the Leader-Telegram's Web page as soon as it was announced, it's hard to imagine taxpayers getting a better - or more just - deal at this point. As satisfied as some would be to see Klaus ridden out of town on a rail, firing him outright and denying him his retirement benefit would be much more likely to prompt a costly lawsuit, which the district wouldn't necessarily win. Cutting him loose as cheaply as possibly is probably the best of a number of bad options.
- Aug. 10th
LT: Aug 16th , Policies were Pathetic and Poorly Practiced!
I am glad that Julian took the time to do this wrap-up and bring attention to the MANY, MANY leadership failures that led to this debacle. I am equally glad that as part of its decision, the BOE is choosing to make many policy changes to tighten up what most certainly was the most slip-shod leadership in the state.
Maria
Updated: 8/16/2008 11:52:02 PM
School board missteps were many
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
A list of policy recommendations by the Eau Claire school board in the wake of former Superintendent Bill Klaus' contract controversy reveals just how far district officials had strayed from following their own rules and state law.
They didn't negotiate Klaus' contracts in accordance with state statute. They didn't review his contracts before approving them. They didn't garner legal oversight of Klaus' contracts. And they failed to ensure his contracts were maintained by the personnel department, instead allowing Klaus to directly change his employment terms.
Violations of district policy and state law surfaced during Eau Claire police and school board investigations of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend at age 53 while still an employee instead of age 55 upon his retirement. Many of those offenses ran afoul of commonly held governmental practices.
"There were some things we found out that left us scratching our heads," said Ken Faanes, elected to the board in April 2007, two months after the board approved Klaus' contract that has spurred controversy about his retirement stipend.
"Some of what was going on certainly wasn't the way to conduct business in an organization like this," he said.
Last week, the board announced a suspension of Klaus without pay until next June 15. It was the conclusion of a nearly four-month investigation of the matter. The district will pay Klaus' health insurance during his suspension, and he will be eligible to begin receiving retirement stipend payments after reaching age 55 in July.
As part of its action against Klaus, the board shortened his previously negotiated contract. The board lopped two years off the agreement that had extended to June 30, 2012, saying that contract was not in conformance with state law.
Klaus, who left the superintendent's position last summer to become Northstar Middle School principal, had been on paid administrative leave since April 30.
Many irregularities
The list of policies school board members plan to evaluate and change if needed reads like a list of commonly accepted rules for governing. The problem was district officials didn't always adhere to those regulations.
For instance, one directive stipulates that board members review administrator contracts before approving them.
District officials ran afoul of their regulations in other ways. Among them was a failure to limit Klaus' contracts to three-year terms as required by state law and ensuring the superintendent's contract is overseen by the personnel department and not the superintendent himself.
Of the many irregularities associated with Klaus' contract, among the most puzzling is that Klaus often had more than one contract covering the same years during portions of his nine-year superintendent tenure.
For example, in 2003 the school board approved a deal for Klaus that extended his contract through 2006. The following year, the board renegotiated a two-year deal for Klaus from 2004 to 2006, a negotiation pattern repeated throughout Klaus' time as superintendent.
Board members did not have an explanation for the numerous contracts - 15 during Klaus' time as superintendent - but they may have been the result of updates to Klaus' contract such as salary adjustments or contract extensions. The board's new directives call for each administrator having just one contract for any given time period.
"Various operational procedures changed and evolved over the years, and there was not specific documentation as to why the modifications transpired," board President Carol Craig said when asked to explain Klaus' multiple contracts and other policy questions.
Additional revisions
Updates to district policies extend beyond Klaus' contract. They also include ensuring the accurate portrayal of board meetings via meeting minutes, the recording of board members' votes and the identification of people taking meeting minutes.
Among other changes to board policy is a procedure providing protection to whistle-blowers who report wrongdoing by district officials or employees. Board members learned last fall of alterations to Klaus' contract allowing the payment of his stipend earlier than allowed in previous contracts but refused to answer repeated questions about the matter.
The policy update also references the district's violations of the state open records law concerning Klaus' contract.
The Leader-Telegram filed a series of records requests with the district last winter and spring in an attempt to learn about alterations to Klaus' contract, but then-school board President Michael O'Brien advised district officials against releasing most of that information.
That decision was subsequently reversed by Kirk Strang, the attorney representing the district during its investigation of the Klaus matter. Strang advised district officials that the information the newspaper sought was public and should be released. The Leader-Telegram has received some but not all of those documents.
Board members said previous district administrators notified them of the Leader-Telegram's requests at some point after they were filed but didn't provide an update on the status of how that information was being handled. Board members will now be advised of all public records requests in a more timely manner.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Carol Olson - the former board president and no longer a board member at the time - to sign and backdate a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action. Other former board members argue the board approved Klaus receiving his stipend early.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Starting over
Revelations of a widespread failure to follow procedures by administrators and board members regarding Klaus' contract have prompted questions about whether those oversights extend to other district operations. Board members said they will examine other administrator contracts to make sure they're in compliance with district and state policies.
So who is responsible for the failure to follow district policy regarding Klaus' contract? Some people blame former longtime board members and Klaus backers Olson, O'Brien and JoAnne Evans, and current member Mary Kneer. Others blame administrators for the debacle, saying they're responsible for advising the board about proper policy.
The aftermath of the contract controversy has immediate and long-term impacts. Besides Klaus' suspension, Personnel Director Jim Kling resigned last month for his role in attempting to help Klaus receive his stipend early. Board members have expressed frustration with other administrators for failing to notify the board about the contract controversy last summer. And Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, said he plans to file a lawsuit contesting Klaus' suspension.
The situation has given the district a black eye that could make garnering approval of future school referendums an uphill battle. Board members and new Superintendent Ron Heilmann hope the policy revisions mark one step toward regaining public trust.
"That's not going to happen overnight," board member Mike Bollinger said of winning back public support. "It's going to take time, and it's going to take the public seeing us operate in an effective manner."
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, 800-236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
Maria
Updated: 8/16/2008 11:52:02 PM
School board missteps were many
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
A list of policy recommendations by the Eau Claire school board in the wake of former Superintendent Bill Klaus' contract controversy reveals just how far district officials had strayed from following their own rules and state law.
They didn't negotiate Klaus' contracts in accordance with state statute. They didn't review his contracts before approving them. They didn't garner legal oversight of Klaus' contracts. And they failed to ensure his contracts were maintained by the personnel department, instead allowing Klaus to directly change his employment terms.
Violations of district policy and state law surfaced during Eau Claire police and school board investigations of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend at age 53 while still an employee instead of age 55 upon his retirement. Many of those offenses ran afoul of commonly held governmental practices.
"There were some things we found out that left us scratching our heads," said Ken Faanes, elected to the board in April 2007, two months after the board approved Klaus' contract that has spurred controversy about his retirement stipend.
"Some of what was going on certainly wasn't the way to conduct business in an organization like this," he said.
Last week, the board announced a suspension of Klaus without pay until next June 15. It was the conclusion of a nearly four-month investigation of the matter. The district will pay Klaus' health insurance during his suspension, and he will be eligible to begin receiving retirement stipend payments after reaching age 55 in July.
As part of its action against Klaus, the board shortened his previously negotiated contract. The board lopped two years off the agreement that had extended to June 30, 2012, saying that contract was not in conformance with state law.
Klaus, who left the superintendent's position last summer to become Northstar Middle School principal, had been on paid administrative leave since April 30.
Many irregularities
The list of policies school board members plan to evaluate and change if needed reads like a list of commonly accepted rules for governing. The problem was district officials didn't always adhere to those regulations.
For instance, one directive stipulates that board members review administrator contracts before approving them.
District officials ran afoul of their regulations in other ways. Among them was a failure to limit Klaus' contracts to three-year terms as required by state law and ensuring the superintendent's contract is overseen by the personnel department and not the superintendent himself.
Of the many irregularities associated with Klaus' contract, among the most puzzling is that Klaus often had more than one contract covering the same years during portions of his nine-year superintendent tenure.
For example, in 2003 the school board approved a deal for Klaus that extended his contract through 2006. The following year, the board renegotiated a two-year deal for Klaus from 2004 to 2006, a negotiation pattern repeated throughout Klaus' time as superintendent.
Board members did not have an explanation for the numerous contracts - 15 during Klaus' time as superintendent - but they may have been the result of updates to Klaus' contract such as salary adjustments or contract extensions. The board's new directives call for each administrator having just one contract for any given time period.
"Various operational procedures changed and evolved over the years, and there was not specific documentation as to why the modifications transpired," board President Carol Craig said when asked to explain Klaus' multiple contracts and other policy questions.
Additional revisions
Updates to district policies extend beyond Klaus' contract. They also include ensuring the accurate portrayal of board meetings via meeting minutes, the recording of board members' votes and the identification of people taking meeting minutes.
Among other changes to board policy is a procedure providing protection to whistle-blowers who report wrongdoing by district officials or employees. Board members learned last fall of alterations to Klaus' contract allowing the payment of his stipend earlier than allowed in previous contracts but refused to answer repeated questions about the matter.
The policy update also references the district's violations of the state open records law concerning Klaus' contract.
The Leader-Telegram filed a series of records requests with the district last winter and spring in an attempt to learn about alterations to Klaus' contract, but then-school board President Michael O'Brien advised district officials against releasing most of that information.
That decision was subsequently reversed by Kirk Strang, the attorney representing the district during its investigation of the Klaus matter. Strang advised district officials that the information the newspaper sought was public and should be released. The Leader-Telegram has received some but not all of those documents.
Board members said previous district administrators notified them of the Leader-Telegram's requests at some point after they were filed but didn't provide an update on the status of how that information was being handled. Board members will now be advised of all public records requests in a more timely manner.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Carol Olson - the former board president and no longer a board member at the time - to sign and backdate a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action. Other former board members argue the board approved Klaus receiving his stipend early.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Starting over
Revelations of a widespread failure to follow procedures by administrators and board members regarding Klaus' contract have prompted questions about whether those oversights extend to other district operations. Board members said they will examine other administrator contracts to make sure they're in compliance with district and state policies.
So who is responsible for the failure to follow district policy regarding Klaus' contract? Some people blame former longtime board members and Klaus backers Olson, O'Brien and JoAnne Evans, and current member Mary Kneer. Others blame administrators for the debacle, saying they're responsible for advising the board about proper policy.
The aftermath of the contract controversy has immediate and long-term impacts. Besides Klaus' suspension, Personnel Director Jim Kling resigned last month for his role in attempting to help Klaus receive his stipend early. Board members have expressed frustration with other administrators for failing to notify the board about the contract controversy last summer. And Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, said he plans to file a lawsuit contesting Klaus' suspension.
The situation has given the district a black eye that could make garnering approval of future school referendums an uphill battle. Board members and new Superintendent Ron Heilmann hope the policy revisions mark one step toward regaining public trust.
"That's not going to happen overnight," board member Mike Bollinger said of winning back public support. "It's going to take time, and it's going to take the public seeing us operate in an effective manner."
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, 800-236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
LT: Aug. 8th, more on Klaus Decision
Updated: 8/8/2008 11:47:02 PM
Eau Claire schools Superintendent Ron Heilmann, left, and attorney Kirk Strang announced at a Friday news conference the details of the suspension of Bill Klaus, the Northstar Middle School principal and former superintendent, until next June 15. The school district has concluded a phase of a monthslong probe into allegations that Klaus tried to gain early access to his $267,209 retirement stipend.
School board suspends former superintendent Klaus
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
The Eau Claire school board's decision Friday to suspend Bill Klaus without pay wasn't an official firing, but it could have the same effect while making a successful lawsuit against that action more difficult.
As part of the decision, Klaus, the Northstar Middle School principal and former superintendent, could resume working as a district employee after June 15, 2009, in a yet-to-be-determined administrative job.
However, his return is in question given that Klaus will turn 55 in July, at which time he would be eligible for retirement, as well as the controversy surrounding him in the wake of his attempt to access his retirement stipend early.
If Klaus does return, he will not be principal at Northstar, where he began work last summer after nine years as superintendent, current Superintendent Ron Heilmann said.
The board's decision to suspend Klaus closes one phase of the much-scrutinized investigation into whether he improperly attempted to access his $267,209 retirement stipend earlier than allowed, even as the next step appears imminent in the form of a lawsuit. Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, said Friday afternoon he "most certainly" plans to file a lawsuit against the district on Klaus' behalf.
As part of the board's decision, Klaus will not begin receiving retirement stipend payments until next July.
Klaus will miss out on nearly $100,000 during his suspension, including his lost salary and other benefits such as vacation and sick leave. The district will continue to provide health insurance to Klaus during that time.
The board also decided to alter the length of Klaus' contract. That contract provided Klaus with employment through June 30, 2012, but board members shortened the contract expiration date to 2010 because of concerns it wasn't in compliance with state law.
State statute dictates that school district administrators receive two-year contracts that can subsequently be extended for one year. Klaus' contract, approved Feb. 5, 2007, did just that, but it was negotiated on top of an existing two-year contract, giving him, in essence, a five-year deal.
"The board had questions about (Klaus) having multiple contracts simultaneously," said Madison attorney Kirk Strang, who has represented the school district during its investigation into Klaus' contract matter.
Legal ramifications
Besides saving a payout of Klaus' salary, the board's decision to suspend him also is more difficult to challenge legally, according to terms of Klaus' contract and legal experts familiar with Wisconsin school law.
To suspend Klaus, the board must prove only that its decision to do so was not arbitrary but based on some behavior on his part.
Firing him is much more difficult because it requires the board prove "just cause" for termination and involves a much lengthier process, including a formal hearing with cross-examination of witnesses.
Guelzow acknowledged the board's suspension action negates his ability to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. But there are other legal avenues available to challenge the board's decision, he said, based on the removal of Klaus' salary and what Guelzow termed the board's "arbitrary decision" to shorten Klaus' contract.
"Clearly, we are going to court over this," Guelzow said. "The board will no longer be able to hide behind closed doors."
Guelzow criticized the board for failing to interview former board members Carol Olson, JoAnne Evans and Michael O'Brien during its investigation. Those board members have said they believed the board intended Klaus to start receiving his stipend at age 53.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Olson - the former board president and no longer a board member at the time - to sign and backdate a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Buyout rejected
The board announced Monday it had reached a decision regarding Klaus' future with the district. But that determination was subject to negotiation, and Guelzow and Strang discussed terms of a possible resolution to the conflict during the week.
On Thursday, Guelzow said Klaus offered to resign in exchange for payment of his salary through next June 30.
"He wants to move past this and realizes the school district needs to pass a referendum at some point," Guelzow said of Klaus.
However, the buyout wasn't palatable to the board, which denied the proposal.
"We felt, given our review of all of the facts of this case, that the decision we reached was a fair one," board member Mike Bollinger said.
The board's decision prompted mixed reactions. Some school district residents criticized the board for not firing Klaus, and others expressed anger that Klaus will receive his stipend.
"I can't believe they would let him come back as an employee," Evelyn Tweet of Eau Claire said.
But Larry Paulson, also of Eau Claire, said the suspension makes much more sense than the buyout of Klaus' contract that had been discussed as a possible resolution. The cost of a full buyout of Klaus' contract plus his stipend would have topped $800,000.
"This way we're really not paying (Klaus) anything," Paulson said. "I think that's appropriate."
Board members have endured criticism during their investigation, in part for their failure to resolve the issue sooner. But board member Brent Wogahn defended the board's actions, saying the issue merited a thorough, rigorous investigation given its complex nature and the high degree of public scrutiny it attracted.
Now board members and district officials are looking to move beyond the dark cloud that has enveloped the district since Klaus' stipend concerns surfaced. That will prove difficult, especially with a looming lawsuit.
"We know it will be tough to move ahead, but we've got to do it one issue at a time," board member Ken Faanes said.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, 800-236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
Eau Claire schools Superintendent Ron Heilmann, left, and attorney Kirk Strang announced at a Friday news conference the details of the suspension of Bill Klaus, the Northstar Middle School principal and former superintendent, until next June 15. The school district has concluded a phase of a monthslong probe into allegations that Klaus tried to gain early access to his $267,209 retirement stipend.
School board suspends former superintendent Klaus
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
The Eau Claire school board's decision Friday to suspend Bill Klaus without pay wasn't an official firing, but it could have the same effect while making a successful lawsuit against that action more difficult.
As part of the decision, Klaus, the Northstar Middle School principal and former superintendent, could resume working as a district employee after June 15, 2009, in a yet-to-be-determined administrative job.
However, his return is in question given that Klaus will turn 55 in July, at which time he would be eligible for retirement, as well as the controversy surrounding him in the wake of his attempt to access his retirement stipend early.
If Klaus does return, he will not be principal at Northstar, where he began work last summer after nine years as superintendent, current Superintendent Ron Heilmann said.
The board's decision to suspend Klaus closes one phase of the much-scrutinized investigation into whether he improperly attempted to access his $267,209 retirement stipend earlier than allowed, even as the next step appears imminent in the form of a lawsuit. Klaus' attorney, Thomas Guelzow, said Friday afternoon he "most certainly" plans to file a lawsuit against the district on Klaus' behalf.
As part of the board's decision, Klaus will not begin receiving retirement stipend payments until next July.
Klaus will miss out on nearly $100,000 during his suspension, including his lost salary and other benefits such as vacation and sick leave. The district will continue to provide health insurance to Klaus during that time.
The board also decided to alter the length of Klaus' contract. That contract provided Klaus with employment through June 30, 2012, but board members shortened the contract expiration date to 2010 because of concerns it wasn't in compliance with state law.
State statute dictates that school district administrators receive two-year contracts that can subsequently be extended for one year. Klaus' contract, approved Feb. 5, 2007, did just that, but it was negotiated on top of an existing two-year contract, giving him, in essence, a five-year deal.
"The board had questions about (Klaus) having multiple contracts simultaneously," said Madison attorney Kirk Strang, who has represented the school district during its investigation into Klaus' contract matter.
Legal ramifications
Besides saving a payout of Klaus' salary, the board's decision to suspend him also is more difficult to challenge legally, according to terms of Klaus' contract and legal experts familiar with Wisconsin school law.
To suspend Klaus, the board must prove only that its decision to do so was not arbitrary but based on some behavior on his part.
Firing him is much more difficult because it requires the board prove "just cause" for termination and involves a much lengthier process, including a formal hearing with cross-examination of witnesses.
Guelzow acknowledged the board's suspension action negates his ability to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. But there are other legal avenues available to challenge the board's decision, he said, based on the removal of Klaus' salary and what Guelzow termed the board's "arbitrary decision" to shorten Klaus' contract.
"Clearly, we are going to court over this," Guelzow said. "The board will no longer be able to hide behind closed doors."
Guelzow criticized the board for failing to interview former board members Carol Olson, JoAnne Evans and Michael O'Brien during its investigation. Those board members have said they believed the board intended Klaus to start receiving his stipend at age 53.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Olson - the former board president and no longer a board member at the time - to sign and backdate a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Buyout rejected
The board announced Monday it had reached a decision regarding Klaus' future with the district. But that determination was subject to negotiation, and Guelzow and Strang discussed terms of a possible resolution to the conflict during the week.
On Thursday, Guelzow said Klaus offered to resign in exchange for payment of his salary through next June 30.
"He wants to move past this and realizes the school district needs to pass a referendum at some point," Guelzow said of Klaus.
However, the buyout wasn't palatable to the board, which denied the proposal.
"We felt, given our review of all of the facts of this case, that the decision we reached was a fair one," board member Mike Bollinger said.
The board's decision prompted mixed reactions. Some school district residents criticized the board for not firing Klaus, and others expressed anger that Klaus will receive his stipend.
"I can't believe they would let him come back as an employee," Evelyn Tweet of Eau Claire said.
But Larry Paulson, also of Eau Claire, said the suspension makes much more sense than the buyout of Klaus' contract that had been discussed as a possible resolution. The cost of a full buyout of Klaus' contract plus his stipend would have topped $800,000.
"This way we're really not paying (Klaus) anything," Paulson said. "I think that's appropriate."
Board members have endured criticism during their investigation, in part for their failure to resolve the issue sooner. But board member Brent Wogahn defended the board's actions, saying the issue merited a thorough, rigorous investigation given its complex nature and the high degree of public scrutiny it attracted.
Now board members and district officials are looking to move beyond the dark cloud that has enveloped the district since Klaus' stipend concerns surfaced. That will prove difficult, especially with a looming lawsuit.
"We know it will be tough to move ahead, but we've got to do it one issue at a time," board member Ken Faanes said.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, 800-236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
LT: August 8th D-Day for Klaus
Updated: 8/8/2008 2:52:02 PM
Kirk Strang, an attorney representing the Eau Claire school district during its investigation of the Bill Klaus contract controversy, discussed the school board's decision Friday to suspend Klaus without pay until June 15.
Klaus suspended for one year
One chapter of the Bill Klaus contract controversy came to an end today, but another could be just beginning.
The Eau Claire school board announced shortly before noon that it has suspended the former superintendent and current Northstar Middle School principal without pay from Aug. 11 through June 15. The district will continue to provide health insurance to Klaus during that time, but he will not accrue additional benefits such as vacation or sick leave.
As part of the decision, Klaus will be eligible to receive his $267,209 retirement stipend upon turning 55 next July but will receive no buyout of his contract, which ends June 30, 2012.
The board's decision apparently ends the nearly four-month investigation into Klaus' attempt to obtain his retirement stipend early. However, the Klaus contract controversy may not be finished but instead could be headed to court.
Klaus' attorney, Tom Guelzow, has said he would advise Klaus to sue the district for wrongful termination if any settlement offer to Klaus doesn't include his stipend and a buyout of the remaining four years of his contract. The total cost of the stipend and buyout would top $800,000.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed former school board President Carol Olson last summer to sign and backdate a document allowing him to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action. However, other board members said the board intended to give Klaus that money at age 53.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined that he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Kirk Strang, an attorney representing the Eau Claire school district during its investigation of the Bill Klaus contract controversy, discussed the school board's decision Friday to suspend Klaus without pay until June 15.
Klaus suspended for one year
One chapter of the Bill Klaus contract controversy came to an end today, but another could be just beginning.
The Eau Claire school board announced shortly before noon that it has suspended the former superintendent and current Northstar Middle School principal without pay from Aug. 11 through June 15. The district will continue to provide health insurance to Klaus during that time, but he will not accrue additional benefits such as vacation or sick leave.
As part of the decision, Klaus will be eligible to receive his $267,209 retirement stipend upon turning 55 next July but will receive no buyout of his contract, which ends June 30, 2012.
The board's decision apparently ends the nearly four-month investigation into Klaus' attempt to obtain his retirement stipend early. However, the Klaus contract controversy may not be finished but instead could be headed to court.
Klaus' attorney, Tom Guelzow, has said he would advise Klaus to sue the district for wrongful termination if any settlement offer to Klaus doesn't include his stipend and a buyout of the remaining four years of his contract. The total cost of the stipend and buyout would top $800,000.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed former school board President Carol Olson last summer to sign and backdate a document allowing him to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action. However, other board members said the board intended to give Klaus that money at age 53.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined that he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Two Weeks of Letters to the Editor
The Court of Public Opinion has weighed in and I have not seen a single apologist for Klaus in the Letters to the Editor. This is in contrast to many anonymous comments in the LT online version who are happy to defend Bill and Carol behind the screen of anonymity. But for those citizens who are signing their names and willing to state their opinions in the full light of day it is all "Thumbs Down!" on this illegal (maybe it did not reach the strict definition of criminal), unethical and GREEDY behavior of Carol and Bill.
Maria
Updated: 7/22/2008 5:52:02 PM
Just fire him!
I have read so much about the Bill Klaus case. Why wasn't he put on unpaid leave? Why, as a taxpayer, should we be paying for him? By now he should have been fired! Why are we, as taxpayers, paying someone who is so dishonest? Why hasn't former school board President Carol Olson been punished? And why is the school board member who can't remember what happened, Mary Kneer, still there?
If it didn't cost so much, we should recall all those who have not asked for Klaus' firing. If there are more members of our school system involved, they should be punished or released.
I would not want my children or grandchildren in a school where Klaus is involved. Where and when would our children learn to be honest and respectable citizens? It really leaves all our children wondering what is right from wrong. Let's see him get fired!
KAREN ADANK
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/24/2008 6:22:01 PM
Get it over with
I really don't care about the "he said-she said" theory. I feel the whole fiasco with the Eau Claire school board was started by former Superintendent Bill Klaus. It seems that the person who directed the changes, as well as the persons who altered the contract, should be dismissed from their positions.
We've already spent far too much money on attorney fees, paid leave, etc. It's about time to put this matter to rest.
HOWARD F. PRINCE
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/26/2008 3:07:02 AM
To move forward, school board must do the right thing
The issue: The Eau Claire school board moves closer to cutting ex-Superintendent Bill Klaus loose.
Our view: Even if he doesn't deserve it, Klaus probably will get the stipend money that started the controversy in the first place.
MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, got its start in 1998 with a simple petition urging Congress to "move on" from the effort to impeach President Clinton.
If the "move on" slogan hadn't been in use for 10 years, the Eau Claire school board probably would want to adopt it now. Since April, they've been involved in the public controversy surrounding former school Superintendent Bill Klaus. As the situation - which stems from Klaus' effort to backdate his contract and collect his retirement stipend early, before he retired, and without board approval - has dragged forward, most everyone involved has suffered from a diminished reputation. It's understandable that the board would want to conclude the matter sooner rather than later. Moving on would remove the cloud hanging over board members' heads. More importantly, it would allow the district to focus on its core mission, which is educating children, not haggling over contracts.
It seems that the school board may be close to moving on by cutting Klaus loose for good (last year, he became Northstar Middle School principal, but he's been on paid leave since the scandal broke). The board is in a difficult position: On one hand, it wants to avoid more negative publicity; on the other, it wants to avoid a costly, protracted lawsuit with Klaus (whose attorney has threatened one). Board members could fire Klaus, give him nothing and see him in court, or they could buy out his contract - which runs through 2012 and includes a $267,209 stipend - and see themselves ousted by irate voters.
Compromise is almost inevitable, and the two sides are scheduled to meet Monday. For unethically manipulating the system to try to get early access to a quarter-million taxpayer dollars, Klaus probably deserves something close to option No. 1; however, for practical reasons - namely the cost of litigation and the possibility Klaus would win it - the final deal will probably be closer to option No. 2.
The board already has given signs it may go that route. Last week, it accepted the resignation of Jim Kling, the district's executive director of personnel. The Klaus controversy contributed to Kling's departure: According to an article published Tuesday, "Board members have expressed frustration with Kling's apparent willingness to work on behalf of Klaus receiving his stipend as well as his failure to tell them about the matter prior to inquiries about the stipend payments by the Leader-Telegram and district employees last fall."
So how did the board express its "frustration" with Kling? They gave him 90 percent of his $148,500 retirement stipend - which he wasn't even eligible for, having only worked in the district eight years instead of the required 10. To put it more bluntly, the board is buying off an administrator embroiled in a controversy about trying to collect stipend payments before they were owed by giving him stipend payments before they are owed.
Considering this precedent, and the cost of taking Klaus to court, the board may be unable to move on without further tarnishing its reputation.
- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor
Updated: 7/30/2008 6:52:02 PM
School board folly continues
Our Eau Claire school board continues to display its ineptness by approving a $148,500 retirement stipend for Jim Kling, the outgoing executive director of personnel. To be eligible, his contract apparently required him to reach retirement age and work in the district for 10 years. Working less than eight years doesn't meet the requirements.
Why negotiate contracts with these people? The present school board won't adhere to them anyway. Thus, the administrators and educators know this and their greed forces them to take advantage. This kind of action by the school board continues to take money away from the classrooms where it is needed and our children are taught.
Just who does this school board represent and work for? The administrators and educators, or the citizens, taxpayers and parents? I think it is obvious! Unfortunately, I predict more folly will soon be forthcoming.
BILL MARKIN
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/30/2008
Klaus controversy raises questions
I would like to add my thoughts to the voluminous media coverage of the effort to determine the beginning payment date for the "retirement stipend" of former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus.
1. At a regular board meeting, it was discussed, agreed upon and recorded that Klaus' retirement age be reduced from 55 to 53.
2. It was further approved by the board that at retirement, the amount of his stipend would be based on his salary as superintendent.
3. Klaus did not retire at age 53. Instead, he requested he be allowed to step down as superintendent to become principal at Northstar Middle School.
In the public sector, this is termed a change in position, not a retirement. There was no lapse in Klaus' employment. Why now has the date of retirement become an issue? The issue should be that Klaus was instrumental in creating a document stating payments from his so-called retirement stipend should begin on Aug. 1, 2007. Further, in July 2007, he requested the former board president sign the document and backdate her signature fraudulently.
Why wasn't this request made to the board for interpretation, clarification and recording, if proper? The "$64,000 Question" is this: How did this document get into his personnel file without having first been seen and reviewed?
Another question: Why were the minutes for a school board meeting approved if such a glaring and important omission was made in them? At which meeting were the minutes approved, and what members were in attendance? Was Klaus there or did he have access to check them after publication?
What are our young people thinking of this fiasco made by responsible adults, people in whom we want them to place their trust and emulate?
GEORGIE GLADWELL
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/31/2008 4:52:02 PM
L-T Klaus editorial right on
The July 16 It Seems to Me column ("Editorial's call for charges in Klaus case unwarranted") raises some questions. If the writer is so certain that there was no wrongdoing in the attempted backdating of Bill Klaus' contract, then why did Klaus go to Carol Olson, who was no longer on the Eau Claire school board? The bottom line is that she had no right to sign a contract for the board when she was not a member of the board. What other business would allow an ex-employee to sign contracts and backdate them? Can we continue to write checks against an account that we closed? No! What's the difference?
The Leader-Telegram was right on with its editorial. I just hope the taxpayers (voters) remember this incident at election time. We need a new school board. When six people can't agree on something as major as several hundred thousand dollars, we are in big trouble. And let's not forget the member who tunes out the important stuff during the meetings.
I own land and pay taxes in the Eau Claire school district, so I am very interested in what happens. We need good, hardworking and honest people to run for school board. The taxpayers are getting ripped off on these deals. Why hire someone for more money than the one leaving? Maybe hiring someone with fewer years of experience would give a new outlook to the school system. We're in a recession. The taxpayers cannot afford top dollar for employees.
As for Eau Claire County District Attorney Richard White, if he thinks he cannot win a prosecution against someone, then he is right not to pursue it. I wish he had stated why he switched to the Democratic Party just now. It's my understanding that the teachers union supports the Democratic Party.
KATINA P. COX
Menomonie
Updated: 8/1/2008 6:12:02 PM
Keep pressure on
The headline of a July 23 letter about former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus expressed it very clearly: "Just fire him!" Instead, the school board and district administrators have the audacity to reward Jim Kling, the outgoing executive director of personnel, with his own unearned stipend and continue to hide behind closed doors with their "investigation."
I hope Leader-Telegram reporters and readers will continue to keep pressure on the board for full disclosure of all the shady details that have been kept from the taxpayers.
The same scrutiny should also be kept on the Eau Claire County Board and its confusion about personnel and cash needed for the new jail, and its refusal to have a referendum for taxpayer approval of the project.
No wonder the Leader-Telegram reported July 23 that Wisconsin's property taxes were the ninth highest in the country, or "4.4 percent of personal income in 2006."
GEORGE REINBACHER
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Innocent? Hardly
The author of the July 16 It Seems to Me column ("Editorial's call for charges in Klaus case unwarranted") needs to get in touch with reality. Does he think O.J. Simpson is innocent too? Bill Klaus, Carol Olson, Mike O'Brien and Patti Iverson, along with other school officials are all guilty of playing a role regarding the terms of Klaus' contract. The only thing they are sorry about is getting caught. I applaud the Leader-Telegram for breaking this story and the outstanding job reporter Julian Emerson has done.
I do not live in Eau Claire County, but if I did, I would find a way to vote District Attorney Rich White out of office this fall. He should have taken this to trial. I doubt any jury would have found Klaus not guilty. If Klaus is fired, he will be the one to file the lawsuit, which will put him in a more favorable position. I think Eau Claire needs to take a good look at its district attorney as well as its school board.
ALICE DROSKE
Elk Mound
I do NOT agree with Hal Davis on the following letter. This mess WILL impact education because the money and time spent on digging out of this mess has cost dollars and efforts from moving our district ahead with so many other pressing issues. In addition, the bitter taste of cynicism and lack of trust will be with citizens and taxpayers a LONG time and harm chances of any referendum any time soon. Maria
Updated: 8/5/2008
Klaus mess won't impact education
The Bill Klaus contract mess will have little impact on our schools. They will go on being the great schools they are in spite of stipends, contracts, and Brett Favre's on-again, off-again retirement.
The education of our students depends entirely on the dedication of teachers, school-level support staff and administrators. I doubt if a single math lesson, choir concert, drama production, field trip, or anything else that really matters will be missed because of this situation.
It can have a lasting impact only if residents reduce support for the resources our schools need to continue their core mission. At some time in the future, the school board will have to come to the public with a referendum to provide continuing support. It would be sad to see such a referendum viewed through the lens of this incident. When we are done stirring this pot, let's throw it out and let the stink go away.
HAL DAVIS
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Teachers no fans of buyouts
A letter published Friday commented on the Bill Klaus situation and District Attorney Rich White's decision not to prosecute. The letter ended with this non sequitur: "It's my understanding that the teachers union supports the Democratic Party."
The fact is, administrators don't belong to the teachers union. I seriously doubt any Eau Claire teacher is happy with the money being tied up for legal fees, extra board meetings and buyouts. Many teachers have been told that there "just isn't any money" when more services are needed or when they have an idea to improve student learning.
These administrator buyouts happen more frequently than most people know. They directly deplete the funds available for student services. It seems administrators, particularly in bigger districts, experience the same phenomena associated with politicians who go to Madison or Washington: Their initial intentions are honorable, but as time passes they get so involved with the power of the position that they lose touch with reality.
Perhaps administrators should be required to teach a year for every five they serve as administrators. Oops, maybe not.
JOHN KANNEL
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Golden parachute possible for Klaus
Who will be paying former Eau Claire schools Superintendent Bill Klaus' legal expenses? I hope not the Eau Claire school district. If it is, that shouldn't shock anyone, considering the way the entire situation has been handled. I have a feeling that he will get out of this mess in better financial shape than anyone could have imagined.
KEN KOOPMANN
Altoona
Updated: 8/5/2008
Give Klaus his day in court
The Leader-Telegram is to be commended for its tenacious reporting of the issues surrounding the attempt of former Eau Claire schools Superintendent Bill Klaus to obtain an early stipend and a backdated document being belatedly inserted into the files. There is little consolation in this knowledge, because these sordid events are being played out against the backdrop of closing schools, packed classrooms, maintenance reductions and essential program cuts. Ultimately, the students, teachers, support staff, taxpayers and community at large are being asked to make sacrifices and suffer the consequences. This is particularly galling because Klaus is demanding a buyout of his dubiously extended contract and the stipend as well.
Even though past events did not sink to the level of blatant criminality, there still are civil violations of law and, we all acknowledge, reasonable standards of behavior. The school board challenges students with a strict code of conduct. In the future, I suppose, if little Johnny gets caught changing his "F" in the teacher's grade book, he might demand at least a "B+" to allow everyone to put his matter behind them. If the superintendent is held to no standard whatsoever, why should a student?
Much more is at stake here than paying off someone who threatens a lawsuit if he doesn't get his way. By setting into motion a chain of events that culminated in fake documents and clandestine activity to get them into the file, the former superintendent essentially shredded his own contract. In order to truly set this episode behind us and restore confidence in the board, these events need to come out in the open. If we believe there are indeed minimal standards of behavior and they have been grossly violated, we should confidently let the former superintendent have his day in court.
TOM PONTY
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Make Klaus pay
One more thing about the Bill Klaus case. I agree - and anyone I talk to agrees - with the letter published July 23: "Just fire him!"
The writer left just one thing out: What is his mistake going to cost me? He should also be made to pay for the legal expense (lawyers, closed meetings, the district attorney's investigation, etc.) he has incurred for us. If people that run the school board think they are all so "high and mighty," some of them should be let go too.
With so many dishonest people in charge of our children, why do you think there are more parents homeschooling?
NORMA OTTERSON
Eau Claire
Maria
Updated: 7/22/2008 5:52:02 PM
Just fire him!
I have read so much about the Bill Klaus case. Why wasn't he put on unpaid leave? Why, as a taxpayer, should we be paying for him? By now he should have been fired! Why are we, as taxpayers, paying someone who is so dishonest? Why hasn't former school board President Carol Olson been punished? And why is the school board member who can't remember what happened, Mary Kneer, still there?
If it didn't cost so much, we should recall all those who have not asked for Klaus' firing. If there are more members of our school system involved, they should be punished or released.
I would not want my children or grandchildren in a school where Klaus is involved. Where and when would our children learn to be honest and respectable citizens? It really leaves all our children wondering what is right from wrong. Let's see him get fired!
KAREN ADANK
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/24/2008 6:22:01 PM
Get it over with
I really don't care about the "he said-she said" theory. I feel the whole fiasco with the Eau Claire school board was started by former Superintendent Bill Klaus. It seems that the person who directed the changes, as well as the persons who altered the contract, should be dismissed from their positions.
We've already spent far too much money on attorney fees, paid leave, etc. It's about time to put this matter to rest.
HOWARD F. PRINCE
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/26/2008 3:07:02 AM
To move forward, school board must do the right thing
The issue: The Eau Claire school board moves closer to cutting ex-Superintendent Bill Klaus loose.
Our view: Even if he doesn't deserve it, Klaus probably will get the stipend money that started the controversy in the first place.
MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, got its start in 1998 with a simple petition urging Congress to "move on" from the effort to impeach President Clinton.
If the "move on" slogan hadn't been in use for 10 years, the Eau Claire school board probably would want to adopt it now. Since April, they've been involved in the public controversy surrounding former school Superintendent Bill Klaus. As the situation - which stems from Klaus' effort to backdate his contract and collect his retirement stipend early, before he retired, and without board approval - has dragged forward, most everyone involved has suffered from a diminished reputation. It's understandable that the board would want to conclude the matter sooner rather than later. Moving on would remove the cloud hanging over board members' heads. More importantly, it would allow the district to focus on its core mission, which is educating children, not haggling over contracts.
It seems that the school board may be close to moving on by cutting Klaus loose for good (last year, he became Northstar Middle School principal, but he's been on paid leave since the scandal broke). The board is in a difficult position: On one hand, it wants to avoid more negative publicity; on the other, it wants to avoid a costly, protracted lawsuit with Klaus (whose attorney has threatened one). Board members could fire Klaus, give him nothing and see him in court, or they could buy out his contract - which runs through 2012 and includes a $267,209 stipend - and see themselves ousted by irate voters.
Compromise is almost inevitable, and the two sides are scheduled to meet Monday. For unethically manipulating the system to try to get early access to a quarter-million taxpayer dollars, Klaus probably deserves something close to option No. 1; however, for practical reasons - namely the cost of litigation and the possibility Klaus would win it - the final deal will probably be closer to option No. 2.
The board already has given signs it may go that route. Last week, it accepted the resignation of Jim Kling, the district's executive director of personnel. The Klaus controversy contributed to Kling's departure: According to an article published Tuesday, "Board members have expressed frustration with Kling's apparent willingness to work on behalf of Klaus receiving his stipend as well as his failure to tell them about the matter prior to inquiries about the stipend payments by the Leader-Telegram and district employees last fall."
So how did the board express its "frustration" with Kling? They gave him 90 percent of his $148,500 retirement stipend - which he wasn't even eligible for, having only worked in the district eight years instead of the required 10. To put it more bluntly, the board is buying off an administrator embroiled in a controversy about trying to collect stipend payments before they were owed by giving him stipend payments before they are owed.
Considering this precedent, and the cost of taking Klaus to court, the board may be unable to move on without further tarnishing its reputation.
- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor
Updated: 7/30/2008 6:52:02 PM
School board folly continues
Our Eau Claire school board continues to display its ineptness by approving a $148,500 retirement stipend for Jim Kling, the outgoing executive director of personnel. To be eligible, his contract apparently required him to reach retirement age and work in the district for 10 years. Working less than eight years doesn't meet the requirements.
Why negotiate contracts with these people? The present school board won't adhere to them anyway. Thus, the administrators and educators know this and their greed forces them to take advantage. This kind of action by the school board continues to take money away from the classrooms where it is needed and our children are taught.
Just who does this school board represent and work for? The administrators and educators, or the citizens, taxpayers and parents? I think it is obvious! Unfortunately, I predict more folly will soon be forthcoming.
BILL MARKIN
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/30/2008
Klaus controversy raises questions
I would like to add my thoughts to the voluminous media coverage of the effort to determine the beginning payment date for the "retirement stipend" of former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus.
1. At a regular board meeting, it was discussed, agreed upon and recorded that Klaus' retirement age be reduced from 55 to 53.
2. It was further approved by the board that at retirement, the amount of his stipend would be based on his salary as superintendent.
3. Klaus did not retire at age 53. Instead, he requested he be allowed to step down as superintendent to become principal at Northstar Middle School.
In the public sector, this is termed a change in position, not a retirement. There was no lapse in Klaus' employment. Why now has the date of retirement become an issue? The issue should be that Klaus was instrumental in creating a document stating payments from his so-called retirement stipend should begin on Aug. 1, 2007. Further, in July 2007, he requested the former board president sign the document and backdate her signature fraudulently.
Why wasn't this request made to the board for interpretation, clarification and recording, if proper? The "$64,000 Question" is this: How did this document get into his personnel file without having first been seen and reviewed?
Another question: Why were the minutes for a school board meeting approved if such a glaring and important omission was made in them? At which meeting were the minutes approved, and what members were in attendance? Was Klaus there or did he have access to check them after publication?
What are our young people thinking of this fiasco made by responsible adults, people in whom we want them to place their trust and emulate?
GEORGIE GLADWELL
Eau Claire
Updated: 7/31/2008 4:52:02 PM
L-T Klaus editorial right on
The July 16 It Seems to Me column ("Editorial's call for charges in Klaus case unwarranted") raises some questions. If the writer is so certain that there was no wrongdoing in the attempted backdating of Bill Klaus' contract, then why did Klaus go to Carol Olson, who was no longer on the Eau Claire school board? The bottom line is that she had no right to sign a contract for the board when she was not a member of the board. What other business would allow an ex-employee to sign contracts and backdate them? Can we continue to write checks against an account that we closed? No! What's the difference?
The Leader-Telegram was right on with its editorial. I just hope the taxpayers (voters) remember this incident at election time. We need a new school board. When six people can't agree on something as major as several hundred thousand dollars, we are in big trouble. And let's not forget the member who tunes out the important stuff during the meetings.
I own land and pay taxes in the Eau Claire school district, so I am very interested in what happens. We need good, hardworking and honest people to run for school board. The taxpayers are getting ripped off on these deals. Why hire someone for more money than the one leaving? Maybe hiring someone with fewer years of experience would give a new outlook to the school system. We're in a recession. The taxpayers cannot afford top dollar for employees.
As for Eau Claire County District Attorney Richard White, if he thinks he cannot win a prosecution against someone, then he is right not to pursue it. I wish he had stated why he switched to the Democratic Party just now. It's my understanding that the teachers union supports the Democratic Party.
KATINA P. COX
Menomonie
Updated: 8/1/2008 6:12:02 PM
Keep pressure on
The headline of a July 23 letter about former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus expressed it very clearly: "Just fire him!" Instead, the school board and district administrators have the audacity to reward Jim Kling, the outgoing executive director of personnel, with his own unearned stipend and continue to hide behind closed doors with their "investigation."
I hope Leader-Telegram reporters and readers will continue to keep pressure on the board for full disclosure of all the shady details that have been kept from the taxpayers.
The same scrutiny should also be kept on the Eau Claire County Board and its confusion about personnel and cash needed for the new jail, and its refusal to have a referendum for taxpayer approval of the project.
No wonder the Leader-Telegram reported July 23 that Wisconsin's property taxes were the ninth highest in the country, or "4.4 percent of personal income in 2006."
GEORGE REINBACHER
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Innocent? Hardly
The author of the July 16 It Seems to Me column ("Editorial's call for charges in Klaus case unwarranted") needs to get in touch with reality. Does he think O.J. Simpson is innocent too? Bill Klaus, Carol Olson, Mike O'Brien and Patti Iverson, along with other school officials are all guilty of playing a role regarding the terms of Klaus' contract. The only thing they are sorry about is getting caught. I applaud the Leader-Telegram for breaking this story and the outstanding job reporter Julian Emerson has done.
I do not live in Eau Claire County, but if I did, I would find a way to vote District Attorney Rich White out of office this fall. He should have taken this to trial. I doubt any jury would have found Klaus not guilty. If Klaus is fired, he will be the one to file the lawsuit, which will put him in a more favorable position. I think Eau Claire needs to take a good look at its district attorney as well as its school board.
ALICE DROSKE
Elk Mound
I do NOT agree with Hal Davis on the following letter. This mess WILL impact education because the money and time spent on digging out of this mess has cost dollars and efforts from moving our district ahead with so many other pressing issues. In addition, the bitter taste of cynicism and lack of trust will be with citizens and taxpayers a LONG time and harm chances of any referendum any time soon. Maria
Updated: 8/5/2008
Klaus mess won't impact education
The Bill Klaus contract mess will have little impact on our schools. They will go on being the great schools they are in spite of stipends, contracts, and Brett Favre's on-again, off-again retirement.
The education of our students depends entirely on the dedication of teachers, school-level support staff and administrators. I doubt if a single math lesson, choir concert, drama production, field trip, or anything else that really matters will be missed because of this situation.
It can have a lasting impact only if residents reduce support for the resources our schools need to continue their core mission. At some time in the future, the school board will have to come to the public with a referendum to provide continuing support. It would be sad to see such a referendum viewed through the lens of this incident. When we are done stirring this pot, let's throw it out and let the stink go away.
HAL DAVIS
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Teachers no fans of buyouts
A letter published Friday commented on the Bill Klaus situation and District Attorney Rich White's decision not to prosecute. The letter ended with this non sequitur: "It's my understanding that the teachers union supports the Democratic Party."
The fact is, administrators don't belong to the teachers union. I seriously doubt any Eau Claire teacher is happy with the money being tied up for legal fees, extra board meetings and buyouts. Many teachers have been told that there "just isn't any money" when more services are needed or when they have an idea to improve student learning.
These administrator buyouts happen more frequently than most people know. They directly deplete the funds available for student services. It seems administrators, particularly in bigger districts, experience the same phenomena associated with politicians who go to Madison or Washington: Their initial intentions are honorable, but as time passes they get so involved with the power of the position that they lose touch with reality.
Perhaps administrators should be required to teach a year for every five they serve as administrators. Oops, maybe not.
JOHN KANNEL
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Golden parachute possible for Klaus
Who will be paying former Eau Claire schools Superintendent Bill Klaus' legal expenses? I hope not the Eau Claire school district. If it is, that shouldn't shock anyone, considering the way the entire situation has been handled. I have a feeling that he will get out of this mess in better financial shape than anyone could have imagined.
KEN KOOPMANN
Altoona
Updated: 8/5/2008
Give Klaus his day in court
The Leader-Telegram is to be commended for its tenacious reporting of the issues surrounding the attempt of former Eau Claire schools Superintendent Bill Klaus to obtain an early stipend and a backdated document being belatedly inserted into the files. There is little consolation in this knowledge, because these sordid events are being played out against the backdrop of closing schools, packed classrooms, maintenance reductions and essential program cuts. Ultimately, the students, teachers, support staff, taxpayers and community at large are being asked to make sacrifices and suffer the consequences. This is particularly galling because Klaus is demanding a buyout of his dubiously extended contract and the stipend as well.
Even though past events did not sink to the level of blatant criminality, there still are civil violations of law and, we all acknowledge, reasonable standards of behavior. The school board challenges students with a strict code of conduct. In the future, I suppose, if little Johnny gets caught changing his "F" in the teacher's grade book, he might demand at least a "B+" to allow everyone to put his matter behind them. If the superintendent is held to no standard whatsoever, why should a student?
Much more is at stake here than paying off someone who threatens a lawsuit if he doesn't get his way. By setting into motion a chain of events that culminated in fake documents and clandestine activity to get them into the file, the former superintendent essentially shredded his own contract. In order to truly set this episode behind us and restore confidence in the board, these events need to come out in the open. If we believe there are indeed minimal standards of behavior and they have been grossly violated, we should confidently let the former superintendent have his day in court.
TOM PONTY
Eau Claire
Updated: 8/5/2008
Make Klaus pay
One more thing about the Bill Klaus case. I agree - and anyone I talk to agrees - with the letter published July 23: "Just fire him!"
The writer left just one thing out: What is his mistake going to cost me? He should also be made to pay for the legal expense (lawyers, closed meetings, the district attorney's investigation, etc.) he has incurred for us. If people that run the school board think they are all so "high and mighty," some of them should be let go too.
With so many dishonest people in charge of our children, why do you think there are more parents homeschooling?
NORMA OTTERSON
Eau Claire
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
LT article 8/5/08
Updated: 8/4/2008 11:42:01 PM
Board to disclose Klaus decision Friday
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus' future with the district remains a mystery despite the fact the school board on Monday reached a decision regarding his employment.
The decision marks an apparent resolution to the controversial Klaus contract saga that has prompted school board and police investigations and led to the resignation of Personnel Director Jim Kling and possibly Klaus' dismissal.
But board members weren't releasing any details about their decision, saying they won't convey that information until Friday morning.
"We're not going to give out those details right now," board President Carol Craig said.
Craig said the board is waiting until Friday to allow school district attorney Kirk Strang of the Davis and Kuelthau law firm time to draft its decision and "give this the kind of review it needs."
Eau Claire attorney Thomas Guelzow, who is representing Klaus, said Monday afternoon he wasn't aware of the board's decision regarding Klaus. He said the board's waiting until Friday to announce that action seemed unusual but might allow for negotiations of whatever terms the board reached.
Last month the board negotiated a settlement with Kling in which he received a $148,500 retirement stipend payment, posing the possibility of a similar action for Klaus.
Guelzow has previously said any settlement Klaus would agree to would have to include his full $267,209 retirement stipend plus a buyout of the remainder of Klaus' contract, which ends in 2012. On Monday Guelzow seemed to have softened his stance but said any agreement "still has to be something reasonable that offers fair compensation to Bill."
Guelzow criticized the board for its failure to interview former board members Carol Olson and JoAnne Evans during its investigation, given that they voted on Klaus' contract approved Feb. 5, 2007. Last week Guelzow presented the board with affidavits signed by Olson and Evans stating that the board intended Klaus' retirement stipend payments begin at age 53 instead of 55 when they previously were allowed.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Olson - no longer a board member at the time - to sign and backdate a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action. However, other board members said the board intended to give Klaus that money at age 53.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined that he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Last summer Klaus became Northstar Middle School principal. He was placed on paid leave on April 30 pending investigation results.
Board to disclose Klaus decision Friday
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus' future with the district remains a mystery despite the fact the school board on Monday reached a decision regarding his employment.
The decision marks an apparent resolution to the controversial Klaus contract saga that has prompted school board and police investigations and led to the resignation of Personnel Director Jim Kling and possibly Klaus' dismissal.
But board members weren't releasing any details about their decision, saying they won't convey that information until Friday morning.
"We're not going to give out those details right now," board President Carol Craig said.
Craig said the board is waiting until Friday to allow school district attorney Kirk Strang of the Davis and Kuelthau law firm time to draft its decision and "give this the kind of review it needs."
Eau Claire attorney Thomas Guelzow, who is representing Klaus, said Monday afternoon he wasn't aware of the board's decision regarding Klaus. He said the board's waiting until Friday to announce that action seemed unusual but might allow for negotiations of whatever terms the board reached.
Last month the board negotiated a settlement with Kling in which he received a $148,500 retirement stipend payment, posing the possibility of a similar action for Klaus.
Guelzow has previously said any settlement Klaus would agree to would have to include his full $267,209 retirement stipend plus a buyout of the remainder of Klaus' contract, which ends in 2012. On Monday Guelzow seemed to have softened his stance but said any agreement "still has to be something reasonable that offers fair compensation to Bill."
Guelzow criticized the board for its failure to interview former board members Carol Olson and JoAnne Evans during its investigation, given that they voted on Klaus' contract approved Feb. 5, 2007. Last week Guelzow presented the board with affidavits signed by Olson and Evans stating that the board intended Klaus' retirement stipend payments begin at age 53 instead of 55 when they previously were allowed.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Olson - no longer a board member at the time - to sign and backdate a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his stipend last August.
Several board members said the board never discussed granting Klaus his retirement stipend at age 53, and board meeting minutes don't show the board approved that action. However, other board members said the board intended to give Klaus that money at age 53.
Klaus didn't receive that money after the board in October determined that he couldn't access it until age 55. He said he requested the money early to ensure it went to his family in case he died before retirement.
Last summer Klaus became Northstar Middle School principal. He was placed on paid leave on April 30 pending investigation results.
LT article 8/4/08
Updated: 8/4/2008 12:22:02 PM
Board decides Klaus' case, but delays announcement
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
The Eau Claire school board has reached a decision regarding former Superintendent Bill Klaus' future with the district but isn't scheduled to release details about it until Friday.
Board President Carol Craig announced that the board had reached a board decision late this morning, but she refused to provide additional details. Left unsaid is whether Klaus will remain as a district employee.
Today's meeting was the latest in a series since revelations in April that Klaus had directed former school board President Carol Olson to sign and backdate a document allowing payment of Klaus' $267, 209 retirement stipend to begin last August, two years earlier than previously allowed. Several board members said they didn't approve that change to Klaus' contract finalized in February 2007.
The board's decision has been delayed by a number of factors, including questions about the stipend matter and concerns about whether the board must legally buy out the remainder of Klaus' contract, which ends in 2012.
Board decides Klaus' case, but delays announcement
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
The Eau Claire school board has reached a decision regarding former Superintendent Bill Klaus' future with the district but isn't scheduled to release details about it until Friday.
Board President Carol Craig announced that the board had reached a board decision late this morning, but she refused to provide additional details. Left unsaid is whether Klaus will remain as a district employee.
Today's meeting was the latest in a series since revelations in April that Klaus had directed former school board President Carol Olson to sign and backdate a document allowing payment of Klaus' $267, 209 retirement stipend to begin last August, two years earlier than previously allowed. Several board members said they didn't approve that change to Klaus' contract finalized in February 2007.
The board's decision has been delayed by a number of factors, including questions about the stipend matter and concerns about whether the board must legally buy out the remainder of Klaus' contract, which ends in 2012.
LT article 7/28/08
Updated: 7/28/2008 11:32:02 PM
Board considers possible severance deal with Klaus
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
The Eau Claire school board still hasn't reached a decision regarding former Superintendent Bill Klaus' future with the district, but that action appears to be coming soon, sources close to the situation said.
Board members and Klaus met Monday night in the latest of a series of meetings during the last three months as the board continues its investigation of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend earlier than previously allowed in his contract.
Monday's meeting - which included discussion with Klaus - continued late into the night as the board contemplated a possible severance agreement with him. Resolution of the contentious matter likely will involve one of two options: a deal in which the two sides agree to a buyout of Klaus' contract or an offer by the board that Klaus could contest and take to court.
Either way, it doesn't appear likely Klaus will remain a district employee long term.
Klaus' lawyer, Eau Claire attorney Thomas Guelzow, has said Klaus intends to retain his Northstar Middle School principal job and noted he would recommend Klaus contest any board action to fire him without a full buyout of his contract and payment of his $267,209 stipend.
However, district officials last week said Klaus has cleaned out his office at Northstar, prompting questions about his remaining in that position.
Board members have expressed a desire to move beyond the contract controversy before the start of the upcoming school year. Reaching an agreement with Klaus would presumably do away with concerns about lawsuit-related costs if Klaus were to contest his possible firing.
But the board may not be willing to buy out Klaus' contract to resolve the matter, especially given public sentiment against that action.
Klaus' stipend payments became an issue after an April 19 Leader-Telegram story detailed how former board President Carol Olson, at Klaus' request, signed and backdated a document that would have allowed Klaus to begin receiving his stipend - retirement pay in addition to that available as part of the Wisconsin Retirement System - last August. The document would have ensured that Klaus started receiving that money at age 53 instead of 55. District officials say Klaus has not received his stipend money.
Board considers possible severance deal with Klaus
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
The Eau Claire school board still hasn't reached a decision regarding former Superintendent Bill Klaus' future with the district, but that action appears to be coming soon, sources close to the situation said.
Board members and Klaus met Monday night in the latest of a series of meetings during the last three months as the board continues its investigation of Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend earlier than previously allowed in his contract.
Monday's meeting - which included discussion with Klaus - continued late into the night as the board contemplated a possible severance agreement with him. Resolution of the contentious matter likely will involve one of two options: a deal in which the two sides agree to a buyout of Klaus' contract or an offer by the board that Klaus could contest and take to court.
Either way, it doesn't appear likely Klaus will remain a district employee long term.
Klaus' lawyer, Eau Claire attorney Thomas Guelzow, has said Klaus intends to retain his Northstar Middle School principal job and noted he would recommend Klaus contest any board action to fire him without a full buyout of his contract and payment of his $267,209 stipend.
However, district officials last week said Klaus has cleaned out his office at Northstar, prompting questions about his remaining in that position.
Board members have expressed a desire to move beyond the contract controversy before the start of the upcoming school year. Reaching an agreement with Klaus would presumably do away with concerns about lawsuit-related costs if Klaus were to contest his possible firing.
But the board may not be willing to buy out Klaus' contract to resolve the matter, especially given public sentiment against that action.
Klaus' stipend payments became an issue after an April 19 Leader-Telegram story detailed how former board President Carol Olson, at Klaus' request, signed and backdated a document that would have allowed Klaus to begin receiving his stipend - retirement pay in addition to that available as part of the Wisconsin Retirement System - last August. The document would have ensured that Klaus started receiving that money at age 53 instead of 55. District officials say Klaus has not received his stipend money.
LT article 7/26/08
Folks,
This is one of my favorite articles in this series in that it definitely shows that Klaus, Olson, O'Brien and Evans all agree that there was NO motion to approve the stipend at age 53 and that their "modus operandi" routinely was to have these little "sidebar" discussions to make decisions in the operation of the district. The fact that other members of the BOE approved the contract without even reading it is NUTS and, again, highlights how unprofessional this has been for so many years under the leadership of Olson, Klaus and O'Brien (with Evans and Kneer and Wogahn as their biggest cheerleaders).
Also, the fact that the multiple and overlapping contracts that gave Klaus so much security over a number of years that is just plain ILLEGAL in the state of Wisconsin upholds my previous statements that our highly paid and "Interest Conflicted" legal counsel, Steve Weld of the Weld Riley firm were NOT EVEN DOING THEIR JOBS while collecting the big bucks and protecting their buddies on the board.
Maria
Updated: 7/26/2008 11:07:01 PM
Klaus tells police stipend talk was 'side debate'
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Perhaps the strongest evidence that the Eau Claire school board never formally approved allowing former Eau Claire school Superintendent Bill Klaus to access his retirement stipend last summer comes from Klaus himself.
During an interview with an Eau Claire Police Department investigator in May, Klaus acknowledged that no board member made a motion to change Klaus' contract to allow him to begin receiving his $267,209 retirement stipend starting last August.
Instead, Klaus told police that discussion of his stipend took place as one of numerous "side debates" occurring during the January 2007 closed-session board meeting where alterations to Klaus' contract were contemplated, according to a 400-page investigative report of the Klaus stipend matter.
"Deputy Chief (Eric) Larsen asked Klaus if there was a specific motion made by any board member approving the early stipend.
"Klaus said there was not," the report states.
The board's failure to formally approve the change allowing Klaus to obtain his stipend runs contrary to common governmental practice that stipulates that any expenditure of taxpayer money - such as Klaus' stipend - requires an official motion and approval by a governing board. Stipend payments are paid to retiring administrators and teachers on top of Wisconsin Retirement System benefits they receive. New school district hires no longer will receive stipends when they retire.
Klaus believed that the board's approval of his contract on Feb. 5 to move from superintendent to become principal of Northstar Middle School included approval of the early stipend provision. But legal experts familiar with Wisconsin school district law said Klaus' obtaining that money required a motion by a board member to move up the stipend payments, followed by discussion of the topic by the full board and vote on the matter prior to final contract approval.
"That's just the way that governmental bodies are supposed to conduct business," said Ronald Rutlin, a lawyer with the Ruder Ware law firm in Wausau, who has worked with school districts for three decades. Several other attorneys who work with school districts contacted by the Leader-Telegram agreed with Rutlin but asked not to be identified.
The lack of formal discussion and documentation of Klaus receiving his retirement stipend early not only veers from accepted practice but might explain board members' differing accounts about whether they approved Klaus accessing that money at age 53 instead of age 55 as previously stated in his contract. Klaus turned 53 last July.
Three board members - Carol Craig, Brent Wogahn and Trish Cummins - said the board never discussed Klaus receiving that money early. Board member Mary Kneer said she doesn't remember whether the board approved that provision.
In contrast, former board members Carol Olson, JoAnne Evans and Mike O'Brien, who were present at that meeting, said they believe Klaus' obtaining his stipend early was part of the contract they approved.
However, in their accounts to police, none of the former board members said they remember the board voting on the stipend issue. Instead, they described the board's action regarding the stipend in more vague terms, saying Klaus' receiving his stipend "was not made clear" and that his obtaining that money "could very well have been the intent" of the board.
Klaus' lawyer, Thomas Guelzow of Eau Claire, blames the board's "shoddy procedures" for the mix-up involving Klaus' stipend and said Eau Claire County District Attorney Rich White's decision not to file criminal charges in the matter shows there is a lack of clarity regarding Klaus' contract.
Granting Klaus his stipend is not mentioned in board minutes of Jan. 8 and Jan. 22, when changes to Klaus' contract were discussed.
Adding to confusion about the contract is the fact several board members said they didn't review Klaus' contract before voting on it. The contract was signed by Olson and Evans, but which other board members, if any, reviewed the document before it was finalized remains unclear.
Klaus' stipend payments became an issue after an April 19 Leader-Telegram story detailing how former board President Olson, at Klaus' request, signed and backdated a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his monthly stipend payments last August, two years earlier than called for in previous versions of Klaus' contract.
Olson was no longer a board member when she signed the document, and other board members said they were unaware of the contract change. Klaus did not receive his stipend payments, and the board voted in October that he is not eligible for them until age 55.
Stipend questioned
The accounts of Olson, Evans and O'Brien to police cast further doubts about the validity of Klaus receiving his stipend before age 55.
Those former board members told police that when they learned of Klaus' request to access his stipend early, they consulted district Personnel Director Jim Kling about changing the wording of the stipend portion of Klaus' contract to make those payments happen.
However, Kling told Klaus in July 2007 - five months after Klaus' contract was approved - that he needed further documentation besides Klaus' contract before granting the early retirement stipend, according to the police report.
"It was determined that although (Klaus') age in the contract for (stipend) eligibility was 53, more authorization was needed before I would approve stipend payment to begin," Kling told police.
Kling disputed the notion he was involved in crafting the early retirement portion of Klaus' contract. He told investigators those board members did not seek his input on that topic and that "he is certain he was not present for any such conversation" at meetings when Klaus' contract was discussed.
Kling and the board reached a resignation and retirement agreement on Monday, prompted in part by Kling's role in the Klaus contract matter.
No retirement
The attempt to pay Klaus his retirement stipend is also questionable given that he didn't officially retire.
According to Klaus' contract, he was eligible to begin receiving his monthly stipend payments upon "district retirement" and age 53. Backers of Klaus receiving that money say the "district retirement" phrase inserted into the contract referred to Klaus' retirement as superintendent.
But others said that phrase refers to the fact that Klaus must retire from the school district before receiving those payments. No other district employee contract has a similar phrase.
Retiring and then continuing to work in the district isn't uncommon. For instance, four district administrators last school year - interim Superintendent James Leary, Deputy Superintendent Gregg Butler, Business Services Director Dan Van De Water and Kling - held those positions despite having previously retired.
However, before working for the district they had officially retired and left school employment for 30 days as required by state law. In contrast, Klaus did not file for retirement and has told the Leader-Telegram he did not intend to retire.
Long-term contract
It's not just the retirement stipend portion of Klaus' contract that is questionable.
In approving Klaus' contract on Feb. 5, 2007, the board ran afoul of state statute 118.24, which limits school district administrator contracts to three-year terms, typically negotiated as two-year terms with the option to add a third year part-way through the first year.
In a sense Klaus' contract does just that. The board approved his employment from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011, with the addition of one year later if the board didn't object.
The problem, school law experts said, is that contract was negotiated on top of an existing two-year contract, giving Klaus five year's security at the time the deal was negotiated.
Having consecutive two-year agreements in place is highly unusual, legal experts said, violating the spirit of state law by providing Klaus with such lengthy security.
The longer contract could hinder a possible settlement between Klaus and the board as the two sides look to resolve the contract matter. Guelzow has said any settlement agreeable to Klaus would have to include buyout of the contract and Klaus receiving his stipend.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, (800) 236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
This is one of my favorite articles in this series in that it definitely shows that Klaus, Olson, O'Brien and Evans all agree that there was NO motion to approve the stipend at age 53 and that their "modus operandi" routinely was to have these little "sidebar" discussions to make decisions in the operation of the district. The fact that other members of the BOE approved the contract without even reading it is NUTS and, again, highlights how unprofessional this has been for so many years under the leadership of Olson, Klaus and O'Brien (with Evans and Kneer and Wogahn as their biggest cheerleaders).
Also, the fact that the multiple and overlapping contracts that gave Klaus so much security over a number of years that is just plain ILLEGAL in the state of Wisconsin upholds my previous statements that our highly paid and "Interest Conflicted" legal counsel, Steve Weld of the Weld Riley firm were NOT EVEN DOING THEIR JOBS while collecting the big bucks and protecting their buddies on the board.
Maria
Updated: 7/26/2008 11:07:01 PM
Klaus tells police stipend talk was 'side debate'
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Perhaps the strongest evidence that the Eau Claire school board never formally approved allowing former Eau Claire school Superintendent Bill Klaus to access his retirement stipend last summer comes from Klaus himself.
During an interview with an Eau Claire Police Department investigator in May, Klaus acknowledged that no board member made a motion to change Klaus' contract to allow him to begin receiving his $267,209 retirement stipend starting last August.
Instead, Klaus told police that discussion of his stipend took place as one of numerous "side debates" occurring during the January 2007 closed-session board meeting where alterations to Klaus' contract were contemplated, according to a 400-page investigative report of the Klaus stipend matter.
"Deputy Chief (Eric) Larsen asked Klaus if there was a specific motion made by any board member approving the early stipend.
"Klaus said there was not," the report states.
The board's failure to formally approve the change allowing Klaus to obtain his stipend runs contrary to common governmental practice that stipulates that any expenditure of taxpayer money - such as Klaus' stipend - requires an official motion and approval by a governing board. Stipend payments are paid to retiring administrators and teachers on top of Wisconsin Retirement System benefits they receive. New school district hires no longer will receive stipends when they retire.
Klaus believed that the board's approval of his contract on Feb. 5 to move from superintendent to become principal of Northstar Middle School included approval of the early stipend provision. But legal experts familiar with Wisconsin school district law said Klaus' obtaining that money required a motion by a board member to move up the stipend payments, followed by discussion of the topic by the full board and vote on the matter prior to final contract approval.
"That's just the way that governmental bodies are supposed to conduct business," said Ronald Rutlin, a lawyer with the Ruder Ware law firm in Wausau, who has worked with school districts for three decades. Several other attorneys who work with school districts contacted by the Leader-Telegram agreed with Rutlin but asked not to be identified.
The lack of formal discussion and documentation of Klaus receiving his retirement stipend early not only veers from accepted practice but might explain board members' differing accounts about whether they approved Klaus accessing that money at age 53 instead of age 55 as previously stated in his contract. Klaus turned 53 last July.
Three board members - Carol Craig, Brent Wogahn and Trish Cummins - said the board never discussed Klaus receiving that money early. Board member Mary Kneer said she doesn't remember whether the board approved that provision.
In contrast, former board members Carol Olson, JoAnne Evans and Mike O'Brien, who were present at that meeting, said they believe Klaus' obtaining his stipend early was part of the contract they approved.
However, in their accounts to police, none of the former board members said they remember the board voting on the stipend issue. Instead, they described the board's action regarding the stipend in more vague terms, saying Klaus' receiving his stipend "was not made clear" and that his obtaining that money "could very well have been the intent" of the board.
Klaus' lawyer, Thomas Guelzow of Eau Claire, blames the board's "shoddy procedures" for the mix-up involving Klaus' stipend and said Eau Claire County District Attorney Rich White's decision not to file criminal charges in the matter shows there is a lack of clarity regarding Klaus' contract.
Granting Klaus his stipend is not mentioned in board minutes of Jan. 8 and Jan. 22, when changes to Klaus' contract were discussed.
Adding to confusion about the contract is the fact several board members said they didn't review Klaus' contract before voting on it. The contract was signed by Olson and Evans, but which other board members, if any, reviewed the document before it was finalized remains unclear.
Klaus' stipend payments became an issue after an April 19 Leader-Telegram story detailing how former board President Olson, at Klaus' request, signed and backdated a document allowing Klaus to begin receiving his monthly stipend payments last August, two years earlier than called for in previous versions of Klaus' contract.
Olson was no longer a board member when she signed the document, and other board members said they were unaware of the contract change. Klaus did not receive his stipend payments, and the board voted in October that he is not eligible for them until age 55.
Stipend questioned
The accounts of Olson, Evans and O'Brien to police cast further doubts about the validity of Klaus receiving his stipend before age 55.
Those former board members told police that when they learned of Klaus' request to access his stipend early, they consulted district Personnel Director Jim Kling about changing the wording of the stipend portion of Klaus' contract to make those payments happen.
However, Kling told Klaus in July 2007 - five months after Klaus' contract was approved - that he needed further documentation besides Klaus' contract before granting the early retirement stipend, according to the police report.
"It was determined that although (Klaus') age in the contract for (stipend) eligibility was 53, more authorization was needed before I would approve stipend payment to begin," Kling told police.
Kling disputed the notion he was involved in crafting the early retirement portion of Klaus' contract. He told investigators those board members did not seek his input on that topic and that "he is certain he was not present for any such conversation" at meetings when Klaus' contract was discussed.
Kling and the board reached a resignation and retirement agreement on Monday, prompted in part by Kling's role in the Klaus contract matter.
No retirement
The attempt to pay Klaus his retirement stipend is also questionable given that he didn't officially retire.
According to Klaus' contract, he was eligible to begin receiving his monthly stipend payments upon "district retirement" and age 53. Backers of Klaus receiving that money say the "district retirement" phrase inserted into the contract referred to Klaus' retirement as superintendent.
But others said that phrase refers to the fact that Klaus must retire from the school district before receiving those payments. No other district employee contract has a similar phrase.
Retiring and then continuing to work in the district isn't uncommon. For instance, four district administrators last school year - interim Superintendent James Leary, Deputy Superintendent Gregg Butler, Business Services Director Dan Van De Water and Kling - held those positions despite having previously retired.
However, before working for the district they had officially retired and left school employment for 30 days as required by state law. In contrast, Klaus did not file for retirement and has told the Leader-Telegram he did not intend to retire.
Long-term contract
It's not just the retirement stipend portion of Klaus' contract that is questionable.
In approving Klaus' contract on Feb. 5, 2007, the board ran afoul of state statute 118.24, which limits school district administrator contracts to three-year terms, typically negotiated as two-year terms with the option to add a third year part-way through the first year.
In a sense Klaus' contract does just that. The board approved his employment from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011, with the addition of one year later if the board didn't object.
The problem, school law experts said, is that contract was negotiated on top of an existing two-year contract, giving Klaus five year's security at the time the deal was negotiated.
Having consecutive two-year agreements in place is highly unusual, legal experts said, violating the spirit of state law by providing Klaus with such lengthy security.
The longer contract could hinder a possible settlement between Klaus and the board as the two sides look to resolve the contract matter. Guelzow has said any settlement agreeable to Klaus would have to include buyout of the contract and Klaus receiving his stipend.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, (800) 236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
LT 7/24/08
Updated: 7/24/2008 11:17:01 PM
Klaus, board consider their options
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus reportedly has cleaned out his Northstar Middle School principal's office, but whether he's leaving the district remains uncertain.
Klaus and the school board are scheduled to meet Monday, at which time he and the board could reach agreement on his employment status and bring an end to the three-month board investigation into issues involving Klaus' contract.
Board members and other sources with knowledge of the situation said it's anyone's guess whether the two sides will reach an accord Monday. The outcome likely will hinge on Klaus' willingness to reach middle ground with the board, those sources said.
Among the options to resolve the issue are Klaus' dismissal - which could result in a lawsuit against the district depending on terms of the board's offer - and Klaus receiving his $267,209 retirement stipend payment and possible additional compensation for his contract that runs through June 2012.
The meeting will be the latest in a series as the board investigated changes to Klaus' contract designed to allow him to begin receiving retirement stipend payments last summer, earlier than previously allowed. Stipends are payments given to teachers and administrators in the Eau Claire school district upon retirement for up to five years in addition to what they receive from the Wisconsin Retirement System. New hires no longer will receive stipends when they retire.
Board members have said little publicly about what punishment, if any, they deem appropriate for Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend despite the fact he hadn't retired and without the knowledge of at least some of the board. The board subsequently voted in October against granting Klaus that money, which he said he wanted early in case he died before retiring.
Sources familiar with the board's investigation of Klaus' contract said board members' stances regarding Klaus vary, ranging from firing him with no buyout of his contract to paying Klaus his stipend and buying out at least a portion of his contract.
Those scenarios likely wouldn't be enough to persuade Klaus to agree to a settlement, according to statements in recent weeks by Klaus' lawyer, Thomas Guelzow of Eau Claire.
Guelzow has said he would advise Klaus to sue the school district if any settlement agreement doesn't include Klaus' full stipend payment and a buyout of the remainder of his contract.
Those significantly different stances could make an agreement Monday unlikely. But there are signs the two sides may have softened their positions somewhat and that a deal could be worked out.
Klaus' cleaning out his office - confirmed Thursday by district officials - points to his not remaining as Northstar principal. Guelzow previously said Klaus, who was placed on paid administrative leave in April, intended to remain working as principal at the school.
Board members, meanwhile, have expressed a desire to resolve the Klaus matter before the start of the upcoming school year. On Monday they approved an agreement with Personnel Director Jim Kling allowing him to resign and retire Aug. 15, the most recent sign the board wants to move beyond the Klaus issue.
Kling was among a group of district administrators who failed to notify board members of concerns about Klaus' contract after learning of it last summer, when Klaus requested that former school board President Carol Olson sign and backdate a memo authorizing his stipend payments to begin last August. Olson signed the memo even though she was no longer a board member and apparently without the knowledge of the board at that time.
Board members have expressed frustration with Kling's apparent willingness to work on behalf of Klaus receiving his stipend and about his failure to fulfill repeated Leader-Telegram requests under the state Open Records Law for information related to Klaus' contract.
Despite that frustration, the board decided to pay Kling, 64, a $148,500 retirement stipend he didn't qualify for.
As part of the deal, Kling will receive 90 percent of the stipend he would have been eligible for had he remained in that position for one more year. District rules stipulate that administrators must work at least 10 years here to qualify for retirement stipends, and Kling had worked here since 2000.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, (800) 236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
Klaus, board consider their options
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Former Eau Claire school district Superintendent Bill Klaus reportedly has cleaned out his Northstar Middle School principal's office, but whether he's leaving the district remains uncertain.
Klaus and the school board are scheduled to meet Monday, at which time he and the board could reach agreement on his employment status and bring an end to the three-month board investigation into issues involving Klaus' contract.
Board members and other sources with knowledge of the situation said it's anyone's guess whether the two sides will reach an accord Monday. The outcome likely will hinge on Klaus' willingness to reach middle ground with the board, those sources said.
Among the options to resolve the issue are Klaus' dismissal - which could result in a lawsuit against the district depending on terms of the board's offer - and Klaus receiving his $267,209 retirement stipend payment and possible additional compensation for his contract that runs through June 2012.
The meeting will be the latest in a series as the board investigated changes to Klaus' contract designed to allow him to begin receiving retirement stipend payments last summer, earlier than previously allowed. Stipends are payments given to teachers and administrators in the Eau Claire school district upon retirement for up to five years in addition to what they receive from the Wisconsin Retirement System. New hires no longer will receive stipends when they retire.
Board members have said little publicly about what punishment, if any, they deem appropriate for Klaus' attempt to access his retirement stipend despite the fact he hadn't retired and without the knowledge of at least some of the board. The board subsequently voted in October against granting Klaus that money, which he said he wanted early in case he died before retiring.
Sources familiar with the board's investigation of Klaus' contract said board members' stances regarding Klaus vary, ranging from firing him with no buyout of his contract to paying Klaus his stipend and buying out at least a portion of his contract.
Those scenarios likely wouldn't be enough to persuade Klaus to agree to a settlement, according to statements in recent weeks by Klaus' lawyer, Thomas Guelzow of Eau Claire.
Guelzow has said he would advise Klaus to sue the school district if any settlement agreement doesn't include Klaus' full stipend payment and a buyout of the remainder of his contract.
Those significantly different stances could make an agreement Monday unlikely. But there are signs the two sides may have softened their positions somewhat and that a deal could be worked out.
Klaus' cleaning out his office - confirmed Thursday by district officials - points to his not remaining as Northstar principal. Guelzow previously said Klaus, who was placed on paid administrative leave in April, intended to remain working as principal at the school.
Board members, meanwhile, have expressed a desire to resolve the Klaus matter before the start of the upcoming school year. On Monday they approved an agreement with Personnel Director Jim Kling allowing him to resign and retire Aug. 15, the most recent sign the board wants to move beyond the Klaus issue.
Kling was among a group of district administrators who failed to notify board members of concerns about Klaus' contract after learning of it last summer, when Klaus requested that former school board President Carol Olson sign and backdate a memo authorizing his stipend payments to begin last August. Olson signed the memo even though she was no longer a board member and apparently without the knowledge of the board at that time.
Board members have expressed frustration with Kling's apparent willingness to work on behalf of Klaus receiving his stipend and about his failure to fulfill repeated Leader-Telegram requests under the state Open Records Law for information related to Klaus' contract.
Despite that frustration, the board decided to pay Kling, 64, a $148,500 retirement stipend he didn't qualify for.
As part of the deal, Kling will receive 90 percent of the stipend he would have been eligible for had he remained in that position for one more year. District rules stipulate that administrators must work at least 10 years here to qualify for retirement stipends, and Kling had worked here since 2000.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911, (800) 236-7077 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)