Board votes to reduce workforce, impacting teaching, library and secretary positions
Luukas Palm-Leis, Reporter
At the Jan. 9 regular meeting of the River Valley School District Board of Education, the board discussed the details of its upcoming operational referendum, voted on cost reductions and voted on district grade level reconfiguration following last month’s vote to close the district’s last satellite primary school.
At the Jan 20 special meeting, the board voted on a reduction in workforce, which resulted in several staff reductions, including five staff members being eliminated, with an additional retirement and a transfer.
Cost, force reductions
Based on the board’s action at its Dec. 12 meeting to close the district’s Early Learning Center in Plain — formerly Plain Elementary — and its planned upcoming referendum, the board at its Jan. 9 meeting reviewed and discussed a list of cost reduction opportunities to go into effect after the end of the current 2024-2025 school year.
Cost reduction opportunities were sorted into two categories, one that includes savings from the closure of the ELC, the other from a reduction in district workforce. Each section provided an itemized list of each cut item and its expenditure for the district, as well as the total value of all the reductions.
The section for ELC closure included items for building maintenance, utilities, the decrease of three bus routes, cleaning services, a secretary and food service items, and totaled to $286,502. This itemized list was prepared to cut the individual items that go into the annual cost of running the ELC.
The section for general reduction in district force included reducing ten district positions at the conclusion of the 2024-2025 school year. Seven of which are teachers, two for business education, one each for regular elementary education, music education, physical education, English language and speech and language. The other positions include two secretaries, a librarian, as well as the elimination of one bus route this past December due to driver attrition. The reduction in force savings total $673,690.
The list also included one regular elementary education teacher and one contract for cleaning services to be reduced after the 2025-2026 school year, which totalled $137,000.
The grand total of all cost reductions made came to $1,043,692 annually, after the 2025-2026 school year.
The motion to approve the items for ELC closure and staff reductions for the passed with all board members in favor.
Specific employee decisions regarding the reductions were ostensibly taken up by the board at a special meeting on Jan. 20.
After calling the meeting to order, the board convened into closed session under Wisconsin Statute § 19.85(1)(c), which allows closed sessions specifically for the purposes of “Considering Employment, Promotion, Compensation, or Performance Evaluations.”
Wisconsin Open Meetings Law and relevant case law require governmental bodies t0 identify what specifically will be discussed in closed session — in addition to the specific statutory exemption — for the meeting to be properly noticed and legal, which the public notice from the district failed to do for this meeting. The board remained in closed session for around 30 minutes before reconvening into open session.
Upon reconvening in open session, the board took up the action item “Consideration & Action on Employees Selected for Reduction in Force at the End of the 2024-25 School Year”.
Board member Fred Iausley motioned to approve the reduction in force plan “as presented” at the conclusion of the 2024-2025 school year.
However, it was not clear to the public or gallery what exact plan was “presented” at the time of the meeting, as no specific plan was presented by the board upon reconvening and the motion did not verbally include specific employee reductions.
Legal Editor’s Analysis: River Valley School Board’s notice falls short of the law’s clarity standards, motion made to reduce staff likely insufficient
Just a brief note or two on the Jan. 20 meeting of the River Valley School Board.
The public notice that preceded the meeting contained three “Closed Session Items.” The first was, “Closed Session Meeting Minutes: December 12, 2024 Regular Meeting.” The second was, “Considering Employment, Promotion, Compensation, or Performance Evaluations. 19.85(1)(c).” The third was “Reconvene in Open Session.” After reconvening, there was one open session action item: ”Consideration & Action on Employees Selected for Reduction in Force at the End of the 2024-25 School Year.”
At the meeting, the board went into closed session and reconvened to approve a plan for this “as presented.” No plan was then and there publicly presented.
This whole scenario presents the same problem twice, once as a likely violation of Wisconsin Statute § 19.84 and once as a likely violation of § 19.85. The problem is probably minor, but conceivably very major, and that is the essence of the problem. I say “likely” violation because I don’t know of any cases that have addressed the precise issue this raises. I can argue either side, but I think this is unlawful and not just bad practice.
With respect to the notice, it is very well established that you cannot just quote § 19.85(1)(c) like the board did. The public is entitled to understand not just what statute is being used but what action is contemplated that implicates the statute. But most people reading the notice in context would see that after the closed session, the board intended to vote on a reduction-in-force plan. So obviously that is what the closed session was about, right?
I don’t think this saves the notice.
Although it may seem to people that sometimes the law exists just to be picky, it really doesn’t (despite centuries of evidence to the contrary– we are trying to get over that still). A judge might well look at this and say, “people can follow this. It may not be ideal. But a reasonable person would understand what is happening. Hence notice is sufficient.”
But I think I like the counter-argument better. The law places more burden on government officials to spell things out than it does on citizens to put on their thinking caps, read above and below the text, and work things out. The law actually has developed a test for adequate notice that asks, “how much extra effort would it have taken the government to be more clear?” Not much here. I think the notice is a technical fail and the only question is whether it is minor or serious.
That depends on whether the obvious inference is actually correct. If the board used the closed session only as necessary to look at confidential materials necessary to review for their reduction-in-force plan, then it is a minor violation. If they did something else, then it would be a major breach of the law. (I don’t think that happened.)
The approval of the plan “as presented” displays the same issue in a different setting. When a governmental body meets in open session and then votes on something nobody in the public can actually see, I do not think that is really public. Public access means being able to understand what is happening.
Did the public get enough context and enough information to puzzle out what the vote really meant? Again there is reason to think yes. There was a public plan apparently (at least with positions rather than specific employees, at the Jan. 9 meeting); it was just not carefully specified at the meeting that that was the plan to be approved, with specific employee action laid out. Or was that the plan that was approved? Maybe not. Maybe the plan “presented” as something presented in closed session.
These kinds of questions, left open to speculation, undermine the transparency that the open meetings laws seek to provide. Definitely bad practice. Likely a violation of the law. Possibly bigger, possibly smaller.
Whatever else, they can definitely do better. Do better.
I’m an attorney, I’m not your attorney. This is not intended as legal advice.
—Gary Ernest Grass, esq., Legal Editor
The motion passed with all present board members in favor despite the lack of an explicit plan presented in open session. Board President Kathy Jennings and member Elizabeth Minich were absent.
In correspondence after the meeting with District Administrator Loren Glasbrenner and Business Manager Brian Krey, Valley Sentinel received what the administrators said was the board’s specific reduction in force plan that the board had approved on Jan. 20, which included the names of staff which are being reduced. These employees are associated with the positions in the general reduction in workforce plan which was approved during the Jan. 9 meeting.
Krey and Glasbrenner did not respond to a question inquiring if the decisions on specific employee reductions by the board were made in closed session, as the exact action was not clear in the motion.
According to Krey and Glasbrenner, the following teaching staff members will see reductions at the end of the 2024-2025 school year: business education teachers Lori Hoffman and Cheryl Ross will be reduced by 0.5 Full Time Equivalency and 0.25 FTE respectively, music education teacher Tony Cavagnetto will be reduced by 0.75 FTE, physical education teacher Jacob Marshall will be reduced by 1.0 FTE and English language learner teacher Laura Seybold will be reduced by 1.0 FTE. The secretary positions held by Nancy Tabrizi and Michelle Orcutt will both be reduced by 1.0 FTE.
According to the latest available 2023-2024 Department of Public Instruction data, Hoffman, Ross, Cavagnetto and Seybold all held 1.0 FTE teaching positions.
Marshall was hired at 1.0 FTE at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year. Tabrizi and Orcutt hold 1.0 FTE positions for the 2024-2025 school year, an increase from 0.75 FTE positions the prior year, according to DPI data.
Librarian Anne Howe was offered a regular teaching position for grade five as a transfer from her current position, and no reduction was necessary for the elementary teaching position as fourth grade teacher Tera Hollfelder will retire at the end of this school year. The librarian position and elementary teaching position will not be refilled as the positions themselves will be reduced.
The speech and language teacher position was provided by a contract with outside services, which will not be renewed at the end of this school year.
“The School Board has considered reductions of staff since this fall, and has discussed this topic at the Budget committee meetings and School Board meetings. The Administration recommended approximately $610,000 in staff reductions at the end of the current school year,” Krey said in correspondence, emphasizing that the reductions are based on the district’s strategic plan which correlates staffing to student enrollment numbers. “While these reductions will have an impact, there will be minimal impact on our current course offerings, programs offered to students and class sizes.”
No reductions impact any of the district’s teaching contracts, as the teachers are employed through the end of the current school year. Those affected will not be offered a renewed contract for the 2025-2026 school year.
“It’s important to note that since 2010, the District has reduced the teaching staff by 24.67%,while our enrollment has decreased by 23.95%,” Krey said, while emphasizing the meaningful impact the reduced employees have had on the school community. “This includes the reductions approved on January 9, 2025 at the School Board meeting.”
Referendum
At its Jan. 9 meeting, the board also discussed utilizing an operational referendum to exceed the revenue limit for the district.
In Wisconsin, public school districts operate under revenue limits set by state law. These limits function as a cap on how much funding a district can raise through property taxes each year.
What’s a referendum? What’s a revenue limit?
Designed to control property taxes and encourage efficient use of funds, revenue limits combine local property tax revenues with state aid to determine the total amount a district can spend per student annually. The Wisconsin legislature’s decision to freeze or minimally adjust revenue limits has forced districts to rely heavily on referenda.
If a district determines it needs more money than the state allows, it cannot simply raise taxes to make up the difference. Instead, the district must ask voters for permission to exceed the revenue limit through a public referendum.
This process begins with the school board, which identifies the funding shortfall and passes a resolution outlining how much additional money is needed, for what purposes and for how long. The proposed increase—sometimes recurring indefinitely and other times temporary—is then presented to voters in the district as a ballot question during an election. If the majority of voters approve the referendum, the district is allowed to exceed the revenue limit and collect the additional property tax revenue.
On the other hand, if voters reject the referendum, the district must operate within the existing revenue limit, which often forces difficult decisions such as cutting programs, reducing staff or delaying maintenance. Exceeding the revenue limit is sometimes referred to as “exceeding the levy limit” because it directly affects how much the district can levy in property taxes.
Revenue limits are a cap on the total amount of money a school district can raise from two primary sources: state aid and local property taxes. Revenue limits determine the total budget a district can work with for general operations, such as teacher salaries, transportation, utilities and classroom supplies. This limit is set per student and varies between districts based on local property wealth and state aid formulas. A school district cannot exceed the revenue limit unless it holds a referendum and gains voter approval to raise additional funds.
Levy limits specifically control how much a district can collect from local property taxes—one of the two components of the revenue limit. The levy amount is determined after accounting for how much state aid the district receives. For example: If a district’s total revenue limit is $10 million and it receives $6 million in state aid, it can levy $4 million in property taxes. If state aid increases, the allowable levy decreases to stay within the revenue limit. While revenue limits cap the total money schools can raise, levy limits specifically cap the property tax portion of that total.
Revenue limits are the total amount of funding a school district can raise from state aid and property taxes combined. Levy limits are the maximum portion of that total that can come from local property taxes.
The board on Jan. 9 took up two resolutions regarding an operational referendum to exceed the revenue limit for the district.
The “Resolution Authorizing the School District Budget to Exceed the Revenue Limit” is the official decision by the school board to seek additional funding beyond the revenue limits set by state law. It specifies how much money is needed, over which years and for what purpose. For example, in the document, the River Valley School District proposed exceeding the limit by specific amounts in three consecutive school years for maintaining educational programs and district maintenance, $4,150,000 for the 2025- 2026 school year, $4,750,000 for the 2026-2027 school year and $5,200,000 for the 2027-2028 school year.
The “Resolution Providing for a Referendum Election” is the resolution that sets the stage for asking voters to approve the funding request. It includes instructions to prepare for the referendum, such as setting the election date, preparing ballots and notifying the DPI.
These resolutions are essential steps in the process of holding an operational referendum. The first resolution authorizes the district to seek additional funding, and the second ensures the public has a chance to vote on it.
Wis. Stat. § 121.91 sets strict limits on how much money school districts can collect through property taxes. To go beyond these limits, school districts must justify the need through a formal resolution and obtain voter approval via a referendum. A school board must hold a referendum to exceed the revenue limit unless there are exceptional statutory provisions allowing otherwise.
As written in the proposed referendum, taxes on property would be increased by approximately 8% per year, to $7.99 per $1,000 of assessed value per year for 2025-2026, $8.65 for 2026-2027 and $9.34 for 2027-2028. This tax rate is also commonly known as “mill rate”.
What’s a mill rate?
The mill rate is a way to calculate property taxes in Wisconsin, including those used to fund public school districts. It represents the amount of tax owed per $1,000 of a property’s assessed value. For example, if the mill rate is 5, a property owner pays $5 in taxes for every $1,000 of their property’s assessed value. To calculate the mill rate, the school district determines its total tax levy—the amount it needs to collect from local property taxes—and divides that by the total assessed property value in the district. The result is then multiplied by 1,000 to express the mill rate.
In 2011, the state legislature removed the law that linked mill rates to inflation, which has resulted in a significant decrease in the inflation-indexed value of money going to districts. This, along with reductions in state aid to public schooling has resulted in districts, like River Valley, turning to using operational referendums to help supplement their revenues and maintain sufficient operational budgets.
The current mill rate is $7.35, which has on average seen a 6% decrease per year since the 2019-2020 school year, and from 2010 to 2020 the mill rate was, on average, $10.50. River Valley School District’s mill rate is lower than seven of the ten surrounding districts, with Ithaca at $10.90, Highland at $10.70, Wisconsin Heights at $9.43, Weston at $9.27, Richland at $8.76, Barneveld at $8.41 and Sauk Prairie at $7.41. Only Reedsburg at $7.00, Riverdale at $6.43 and Dodgeville at $5.80 have lower mill rates than River Valley.
The board unanimously voted in favor of the resolution to exceed the state revenue limit for the district and unanimously voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the referendum.
The upcoming operational referendum, which will appear on the April 1 Spring Election ballot, is for academic courses, programs and classes and not for building maintenance.
District Reconfiguration
Due to the decision to close the ELC, the board at its Jan. 9 regular meeting discussed reconfiguration of the grade levels to fit most appropriately within its three central campus buildings in Spring Green.
The proposed grade configurations are as follows: pre-k, kindergarten, first and second grade will be in the current Spring Green Elementary school building, grades three through six will be located in the Middle School building and grades seven through twelve will be in the High School building.
The board voted unanimously in favor to reconfigure the existing grade levels as listed.
Going into the 2025-2026 school year, the configuration for district principals will be as follows: Carla Peterson, current principal for the ELC and Elementary, will oversee pre-k through second grades at the Elementary School; James Radtke, current principal for the Middle School, will oversee grades three through six at in the Middle School building; Jaime Hegland, current safety and activities director, will become a principal and oversee grades seven and eight in the High School while continuing as activities director; and Darby Blakely, current principal for the High School, will continue to oversee grades nine through twelve at the High School.
Spring Election
Five candidates have filed for the upcoming election, including incumbents seeking re-election and a new candidate vying for a seat on the board, according to the district.
Emily Beck and Jess Hisel have filed to run for a three-year term representing Area 6, Village of Spring Green. Current board member Sara Young has opted not to seek re-election and submitted a Notification of Noncandidacy.
Jeff Maier, the incumbent for Area 3, Town of Clyde, has filed to retain his seat for another three-year term.
In Area 9, Village of Plain, Bettinger, the current board member, has also filed for re-election to a three-year term.
The Spring Election is set for April 1. Board members are elected by district voters at large.
Looking ahead
The River Valley School District Board of Education is next set to meet Feb. 13 at 7:00 p.m. in the Middle School Library. The board streams meetings to the district’s YouTube channel.
Nicole Aimone and Taylor Scott contributed to this story.
Note: On Jan. 23, three days after the special board meeting and after Valley Sentinel had to request the document from the district, the River Valley School District posted online on their “January 20, 2025, Special Board Mtg. Packet” webpage the above “ELC Closure and Staff Reductions” document that was ostensibly passed Jan. 20 “as presented”.
One thought
Comments are closed.