Will we ever be able to shake this "tar baby" from our community??? Maria
Updated: 9/5/2008 11:22:01 PM
Klaus seeks hearing but not before school board
By Christena T. O'Brien and Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Suspended last month by the Eau Claire school board, former Superintendent Bill Klaus is requesting an evidentiary hearing before an arbiter other than the board.
"Dr. Klaus has never been provided an evidentiary hearing affording him an opportunity to meaningfully respond to the allegations and materials presented by/to the board," Klaus' attorney, Tom Guelzow, said in a letter to Superintendent Ron Heilmann and board President Carol Craig.
However, the school board isn't required to grant the hearing, said Kirk Strang, attorney with Davis and Kuelthau of Madison, who has represented the board during an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Klaus regarding his contract.
Klaus' contract guarantees him a hearing before the board if he had been fired. But because the board suspended Klaus instead of firing him, board members don't necessarily have to grant Klaus' request.
Klaus' contract states that he have "a fair and impartial hearing before the board" but does not state the he be allowed a hearing before another entity.
"I will review this request with the board," Strang said, "but this board has afforded Dr. Klaus the opportunity to make his case."
Last month the board suspended Klaus without pay until June 15 after an investigation into his attempts to access his $267,209 retirement stipend earlier than previously called for in his contract. The board's inquiry spanned several months behind closed doors and included lengthy discussions with Klaus.
The board also shortened Klaus' employment contract by two years, and Guelzow said he "most certainly" planned to file a lawsuit against the district on Klaus' behalf after the board announced the suspension.
In the letter to Heilmann and Craig, Guelzow called the suspension imposed by the board "arbitrary and capricious" and demanded the hearing "as the risk of an erroneous decision by the board and the potential harm to Dr. Klaus are both substantial."
District officials received the request from Klaus' attorney on Friday and referred it to Strang, Heilmann said.
"At this point, it's in the hands of our attorney," Heilmann said.
Neither Craig nor Guelzow could be reached for comment Friday, and several school board members declined to comment when asked about Klaus' request.
Controversy about Klaus' contract surfaced in April after revelations that he directed Carol Olson - the former school board president who was 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, including Olson, said the board intended to give Klaus that money starting at 53.
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.
The controversy sparked investigations by Eau Claire police and the school board.
In June Eau Claire County District Attorney Rich White announced he would not prosecute two Eau Claire school district employees and a former school board member in connection with alterations to Klaus' contract.
Klaus transferred from his superintendent position - a job he held for nine years - in July 2007, when he took over as Northstar Middle School principal. He was suspended with pay in April after revelations of his contract discrepancy.
Emerson can be reached at 830-5911 or julian.emerson@ecpc.com. O'Brien can be reached at 830-5838 or christena.obrien@ecpc.com. Both also can be reached at 800-236-7077.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Official Findings and Conclusions re: Klaus
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)