News

See the Show
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Cultural Arts Center Gallery will be open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday this weekend to view the show in-person before the show closes on Sunday afternoon. Please review the hours and safety information posted online at whitewaterarts.org

If you haven’t already, please take a look at the virtual show, the award winners, and the video presentation where the judges review all of the awarded photographs.

 – Virtual Show: whitewaterarts.org/fran-achen-2020-virtual-show
 – Award Winners and Video Presentation: whitewaterarts.org/fran-achen-2020-award-winners

Viewers’ Choice Award
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have until the wee hours of Sunday, July 26 to cast your ballot for the Viewers’ Choice Award. Voting will be open until 7 a.m. that morning and will be announced on the website that afternoon. A link to the online voting page may be found on the Virtual Show page which is listed above.

Here’s looking forward to seeing you (in person) next year!

PLATTEVILLE, Wis. (July 24, 2020) – The University of Wisconsin-Platteville announces its Dean’s List, honoring those full-time students who earned high honors in the spring 2020 semester.

Students earned the honors at the three campuses: UW-Platteville, UW-Platteville Baraboo Sauk County and UW-Platteville Richland. Those students earned the high honors while making the quick transition from in-person classes to alternative delivery in March because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The College of Business, Industry, Life Science and Agriculture and the College of Liberal Arts and Education require grade-point averages of 3.75 and above for Dean’s List honors, while the College of Engineering, Mathematics and Science requires students to reach at least a 3.50.

UW-Platteville has been named the best public institution in Wisconsin for annual return on investment for the fifth consecutive year by Payscale and was just named the best public university in the country for getting a job, according to Zippia.

UW-Platteville, founded in 1866 and located in Southwest Wisconsin, is home to approximately 7,000 undergraduate and graduate students. For more information on the university visit www.uwplatt.edu.

Students from this area on the Dean’s List include:

Whitewater, WI

 Autumn Bultman, Elementary Education
 Emily Heckert, Animal Science
 Sydney Treder, General Engineering

By Lynn Binnie
Whitewater Banner staff
whitewaterbanner@gmail.com

The Whitewater Unified School District School Board has had several long, weighty meetings in the past two weeks as they have wrestled with difficult decisions about how to safely open the school year in the midst of a pandemic. It’s evident that the administration and board members are not united in their understanding of the decision that they made at their July 27 meeting, and are likely to clarify and/or revise that decision in their meeting this Monday, August 10. Below we will attempt to summarize the developments beginning on July 27.

Monday, July 27 Regular School Board Meeting: The administration proposed to begin the school year with a “fall instructional model” that would be primarily “virtual” for the first four weeks. Under the plan, 1/4 of the elementary students would each attend in-person learning with 4-8 students on the days of Tuesday – Friday from 12:30 – 3:00 p.m. 4K students would be in school two mornings or afternoons per week. Middle School and High School students would only attend a single orientation session during the first week of September, and then be online for the rest of the month. Special arrangements would be made for ELL students, those who are at risk, and those who are unengaged by online learning. All students from 4K through high school will be provided a Chromebook. Families without Internet would be provided a hotspot. Meals will also be provided for those students needing them on days when they are not present in school. Each Friday the district would report on data such as positive COVID-19 cases in the counties. On September 28 the Board would make a decision about whether to proceed to a second step in the plan for the month of October.

The board listened to approximately fifteen citizen comments, with opinions on the proposed plan being very mixed. A number of parents spoke of their strong desire for their children to return to fulltime in-person instruction on September 1.

The board on a 5-2 vote accepted an amended motion which accepted the administration’s recommended model for two weeks instead of four weeks. It was indicated that by the end of that period the board would decide whether conditions were right to proceed towards full face-to-face instruction. Although it was stated that the board would need to meet frequently in the coming weeks, there was no decision on when a plan for the second portion of September would be approved.

Wed., July 29 Special School Board Meeting: This meeting was scheduled primarily to address items that had been on the agenda for July 27 but had been postponed. However, it had been indicated that the board would also revisit their decision on reopening. The item did not get added to the publicly noticed agenda, and consequently the board was unable to discuss the fall instructional model.

July 31 Memo to parents: Parents were notified by the District Administrator of the fall instructional model that would be in place for September 1-11.

Mon., August 3 Special School Board Meeting: This meeting’s agenda included an informational presentation regarding the fall instructional plan, but it was indicated that no board action would be taken. District Administrator Dr. Caroline Pate-Hefty stated that she recognized that everyone involved is feeling frustration, urgency, and respectful anger, but it was her belief that “we’re all in this together,” and “it’s not us vs. them.” She reported that a staff survey conducted after the July 27 board meeting found that of the 199 staff responding, 93% said that they would return to school for in-person instruction for the first two weeks based on the adopted plan. 89% said they would return if a “hybrid AB model” was selected thereafter, with 78% saying they would return if a fulltime in-person model was adopted. Thus far 200 online registrations had been received for the fall, with 72% of parents indicating that they planned for their children to participate in the model.

Dr. Pate-Hefty indicated that Jefferson County has hired an epidemiologist who has provided guidance for school reopening. Neither Rock or Walworth County has provided any such guidance. Jefferson County recommends that school not reopen on an in-person basis if the county COVID test positivity level for the past two weeks exceeds 8%. Some counties and/or school districts are using a 5% threshhold. Once the level drops below 8%, it is recommended not to return to school unless the level continues to decline and remains under 8% for 14 days. Walworth County’s positivity level was reported as 8.6% for the period of 7/12-25. Dr. Pate-Hefty indicated that if a teacher or student in a classroom receives a positive test result, that person will have to quarantine for a minimum of 14 days, and the class will be shut down for three days, regardless of the use of facial coverings. If there are three cases in a building, the entire building will have to go to virtual learning for three days, and contact tracing would take place. It is also possible that the county could order the entire district to close down in certain circumstances.

Well over an hour of citizen comments were heard, including from many teachers and other staff members. A number of teachers expressed a desire to return to fulltime instruction as soon as it is safe to do so, but most did not feel that that time has yet arrived. A number of the comments expressed the opinion that parents need to know the instructional plan for more than two weeks at a time, and must have advance notice when a change is being made. There were also comments to the effect that two weeks’ experience of an instructional model would not be sufficient time inform a new decision. It was after these comments were received that the board appeared to be uncertain as to exactly what had been decided on July 27. Member Thayer Coburn’s understanding was that the board planned to give a month’s notice for any change, and he thought that the board would meet in mid-August to decide on the plan for the second half of September. Although the agenda did not allow for any decisions to be made, there appeared to be support for revisiting the board’s direction at its special meeting on Monday August 10, at which time an epidemiologist update, consideration of the Jefferson Country matrix, and timeline clarification are on the agenda.

Thursday, August 6: The school district, the city, and the university took part in an online Town Hall. In her comments, Dr. Pate-Hefty stated that the district would be using a virtual hybrid model from September 1-30, and the board would be making a decision at its September 14 meeting regarding the plan beginning on October 1. A Banner staff member submitted a request for clarification on that statement, which was conveyed to Dr. Pate-Hefty but not addressed in the town hall. After the meeting the Banner received an email from her indicating, “There was confusion on the motion. We had to clarify last week and will also be clarifying at this week’s meeting. The intention was to pass the plan for one month, however, they will review that every two weeks. Sorry for the confusion.” However, on Friday, in response to a request for further comment, Dr. Pate-Hefty told the Banner that after listening to the video of the July 27 board meeting, it was confirmed that the board had only authorized the virtual hybrid plan for two weeks. She indicated that the board would be clarifying their plan at the August 10 meeting. Added at 8:45 a.m. on 8/9: Also on Friday, in an email to the Banner, Casey Judd, School Board President, stated, “Upon rewatching the July 27th meeting, the motion was to approve a two week plan with a review at that time….Clearly the Administration needs to have a plan beyond the first two weeks. The biggest issue here is that the board only approved a two week plan and we can make that clear on Monday when we approve the timeline. The board will review the two week plan that we approved, along with any other recommendations that administration wishes us to consider at the August 10th meeting.”

Monday, August 10: The board will hold a special online meeting at 6:00 p.m. As is indicated above, the agenda includes an epidemiologist update, consideration of the Jefferson County matrix, and timeline clarification.

 

From the Whitewater Fire Department Facebook page

At 3:34 a.m. on Thursday, July 23, the Whitewater Fire Dept was dispatched to a report of a barn fire on Scharine Rd, later updated to be 2 sheds. Upon arrival, crews encountered heavy fire in both sheds with a grain dryer shed also catching fire. Numerous other structures were threatened and crews were initially hampered by down wires on 2 sides of the structure .Crews were on scene for about 2.5 hours and were able to save the grain dryer and most of the dryer shed. All other exposures were protected including a grain bin very close to the fire. 2 sheds and numerous pieces of farm apparatus were lost in the blaze. The cause of the fire is believed to be a skid steer in one the structures. Damage estimates are not available at this time. We would like to thank the following Fire Departments/Agencies for their assistance. Lauderdale LaGrange, Town of Delavan, City of Delavan, Darien, Troy Center, Elkhorn, Lake Geneva, Milton, Hellenville and WE-Energies.

MILWAUKEE, Wis. (July 23, 2020) – The following individuals from Whitewater have been named to the Dean’s List at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the Spring 2020 semester. UWM is the second largest university in the State of Wisconsin, with more than 24,000 associate, undergraduate and graduate students.

 Connor Dalzin, Peck School of the Arts
 Juan Garcia, Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
 Anthony Gatzow, College of General Studies

July 22, 2020

Dear WUSD Families and Community:

This evening’s scheduled Whitewater School District Board Meeting was taken over by individuals making racist, sexist, and harassing comments.  The meeting ended in order to protect our staff members, who were being directly harassed.

The presentation originally planned for this evening will be recorded and shared with families and the community.

The School Board will meet Monday evening, as originally planned, to discuss and approve the fall instructional model.

We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work through how to best share this information with the community.

Dr. Caroline Pate-Hefty
District Administrator

FAYETTE, IA (07/20/2020)– Upper Iowa University is pleased to announce Scott Cashion of Whitewater, WI, graduated Cum Laude in May with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Admin.

About Upper Iowa University Founded in 1857, Upper Iowa University is a private, nonprofit university providing undergraduate and graduate degree programs to about 5,200 students-nationally and internationally-at its Fayette, Iowa, Campus, 21 U.S. locations, as well as a location in Hong Kong. Upper Iowa University is a recognized innovator in offering accredited, quality programs through flexible, multiple delivery systems, including online and self-paced degree programs. With a focus on developing leaders and lifelong learners, UIU provides dual enrollment programs for high school students as well as continuing education and professional development opportunities for learners of any age. For more information, visit www.uiu.edu.

By Lisa Dawsey Smith
Whitewater Banner staff
whitewaterbanner@gmail.com

At a 4-hour long regular meeting held virtually on July 21 the Whitewater Common Council voted unanimously to require all persons age five and over to wear an intact facial covering (mask) beginning on August 1 in all buildings that are open to the public.

In introducing the proposed ordinance, Council President Lynn Binnie acknowledged that on July 10 City Manager had issued a request to city businesses to comply with recommendations for the prevention of COVID-19 transmission, including physical distancing in restaurants and the wearing of masks by all staff interacting with the public. He indicated that some citizens questioned why the city had not waited to see the results of that communication before considering the mask requirement. Binnie indicated that there had been a “sea change” in the brief time since that communication, including:

• Cases in the state, Jefferson, Rock, and Walworth counties, and locally have risen at an increased pace. The state reported a record 1117 new confirmed cases on the day of the meeting. The three counties have consistently ranked high on COVID activity level in recent days. The exact number of cases in Whitewater cannot be determined, but in the Walworth county portion of the city there had been approximately 70 confirmed cases as of July 5. On July 21 that number had climbed to 109.
• A large number of national retailers, including Walmart and Walgreens, have adopted mandatory mask policies for staff and customers.
• A significant number of local businesses have reached out to the Council, directly or indirectly, to request a mask ordinance.
• It had been hoped by many that the federal, state, or county government would institute a mask requirement, but that is looking increasingly unlikely.
• Not all businesses have responded positively to the City Manager’s requests for voluntary compliance.

The ordinance included the following rationale in favor of mandatory masks:

• The virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets when people are in close proximity with each other.
• People can be infected and have no symptoms and still be able to transmit the virus.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that there is emerging evidence that face masks reduce the spray of respiratory droplets, and the effectiveness of masks in reducing the spread of the virus is highest when masks are widely used by people in public settings.

UW-W Chancellor Dwight C. Watson spoke in favor of the ordinance, confirming that upon return to the campus, students, faculty, and staff will be required to wear facial coverings in all public places. The students will be encouraged to comply with a “social covenant” in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus. Dr. Watson expressed the hope that the city’s expectations would be consistent with those of the university, as he indicated that he appreciates the importance of having students on campus for the health of the community.

A letter from local physician Roberta Wedl, M.D. included the statements, “Passing an ordinance requiring the use of an intact mask in public spaces in the community of Whitewater will very likely save lives and prevent morbidity in this community. As a medical provider in this community, I can assure you that the rate of infection here currently is not low and appears to be increasing. Acting now, without delay, is imperative. While I appreciate issues related to individual choice in many matters, we are in unprecedented times – experiencing a once in a century deadly global pandemic and should not pretend otherwise. I urge you to consider your responsibility as a public official to protect the public during this very challenging time. Masking is exceedingly simple, takes very little effort, is inexpensive, and will protect our neighbors, friends, family, and our community.”

Masks will be required in these settings:

• INDOORS IN CERTAIN AREAS – By persons age five and older in a building open to the public and in an area open to the public.
• VERY LIMITED AREAS OUTDOORS – At the Whitewater City Market and the Whitewater Farmers Market. Also if outside a building to pick up food, drink or goods or in a line waiting to enter a building.

Exceptions will include the following:

• Persons who fall into the Center for Disease Control’s guidance for those who should not wear face coverings due to a medical condition, mental health condition or developmental disability.
• Persons who have a written note from a healthcare provider excusing mask use.
• Persons who have upper-respiratory chronic conditions or other conditions or disabilities that make wearing a mask inappropriate.
• Persons in settings where it is not practical or feasible to wear face coverings when obtaining or rendering goods or services to the extent necessary to obtain or render such goods or services including, but not limited to, the receipt of dental services or medical treatments or consuming food or beverages.
• Private K-12 schools, childcare or youth facilities that have a comprehensive safety plan in place.
• In private residences and residential apartment buildings.

Owners/operators of public buildings will be required to ensure that all persons present in the building area open to the public comply with the mask requirement. They would have the right to refuse entry or service to any person for failure to comply.

The Police Department will be responsible for enforcing the requirement by issuing a warning for first offenses and would only issue a citation for first offenses if an individual refuses to comply with the ordinance after receiving a warning or for second and subsequent offenses. The penalty to a building owner/operator or to a person violating the ordinance, upon conviction, would be between $10- $40 for a first offense and $50- $150 for second and subsequent offenses. Certain standard court fees are in addition to those amounts. It was stressed that alleged violations of the ordinance should not be called into 911 unless there is an urgent situation. Instead a report should be called to the police non-emergency number, 262-473-0555, option 4.

Council members received approximately 100 emails, and some indicated they also received a few phone calls. Binnie reported that he counted approximately 47 emails that expressed support for the ordinance and about 39 that expressed opposition, although it appeared to him that more of the negative messages came from outside the city. Additionally, two petitions were created on change.org where people expressed their opinion on whether Whitewater should adopt a mask ordinance. There were nearly 1100 signatures on the petition in favor of the ordinance versus about 200 in opposition. At one point there were over 100 people participating in or viewing/listening to the meeting online or by phone. About ten citizens offered verbal comments about the proposed ordinance, a slight majority expressing overall support but a few objecting strongly to the city infringing on the public’s right to make decisions for themselves. Jan Bilgen recounted that in the 1918 flu pandemic the wearing of masks contributed greatly to the control of the virus until the citizenry became complacent and rates of infection shot up.

Council members debated whether to include more outdoor settings such as spectating at sporting events, but deferred that consideration until the August 4 meeting.

City Manager Clapper indicated that plans are being made to offer a limited quantity of masks to citizens who are in need of them, though it is hoped that businesses may also provide a supply for their customers. The Whitewater City Market continues to offer free masks to market patrons in need weekly at the market in addition to a hand sanitizing station.

Council member Jim Allen lamented that it was necessary for the Council to take this action rather than the federal or state government, but indicated that wearing a mask is “a small sacrifice to make” as opposed to what was asked of citizens during World War II.

Update: The Wisconsin State Journal article, 4 More Wisconsin Cities Enact mask mandates; Tony Evers resists statewide order, mentions Whitewater’s decision.