School Board Moves Away from Survey, Explores Marketing
At their May 5 meeting, Whitefish Bay School Board members signaled they are unlikely to move forward with a post-referendum survey, instead leaning toward a facilitated community engagement process and possible PR or marketing help. The discussion marked a subtle shift from the board's April 26 working session, where members had emphasized the need to gather more input before returning to the ballot.
The discussion followed the defeat of the district's previous $135.6 million referendum proposal, which included a new middle school at Armory Park along with other safety, security and infrastructure projects. Board members broadly agreed that the middle school remains a major priority, but they wrestled with whether the next step should be a survey, town halls, focus groups, a communications consultant, or some combination of those tools.
The conversation marked a subtle shift from the board's April 26 working session, where members repeatedly emphasized the need to gather more input before returning to the ballot. At that meeting, board members discussed surveys, focus groups and listening sessions as complementary tools, and several members warned against rushing into another referendum without better understanding why voters rejected the April proposal.
At the April meeting, Pamela Woodard said the board needed to take the result seriously, noting that some residents questioned whether the ask was "too high" or "too much." Sandy Saltzstein raised concerns that previous focus groups had occurred too early to inform decisions about specific projects, locations or siting.
Dan Tyk was especially direct at the April meeting about the risk of ignoring survey results. He noted that the board had gone above the $125 million level where the prior survey had shown majority support, saying, "if we're going to do a survey we cannot sway from what the community tells us in that survey this time, because we will erode trust." He also cautioned that the board had "stretched beyond" what the community had indicated it might support and said, "we have to be very cautious about doing that again this time."
By contrast, the latest Committee of the Whole discussion showed the board moving away from an immediate formal survey and toward a facilitated listening process and potential help with PR, marketing or "crisis communication." Board members still talked about the need to hear from residents, but the conversation increasingly focused on whether a survey could be done well on the timeline, whether a facilitator or communications consultant was needed, and how quickly the district could organize community sessions before a possible November referendum.
Survey support fades amid timeline concerns
Board members were divided over whether a survey would help clarify the path forward. Nathan Christenson said he was skeptical of the draft survey, calling it "a bit unfocused" and questioning what the board would do with the results. W. Brett Christiansen said a survey could theoretically help the board understand why residents voted no or what they might support, but he questioned whether the board had enough time to design a survey that could answer either question well.
"I don't think a survey is a good idea," Christiansen said, because the board could not do either of those two purposes well under the current constraints.
Sandy Saltzstein, who said she had initially been leaning toward supporting a survey, also expressed concern about the timeline. She pointed to the lengthy process used to create the previous survey and questioned whether the board could produce something equally thoughtful under the current time pressure.
"I am feeling challenged on the timetable that we have to be able to provide that kind of thought to it," Saltzstein said. She suggested the board might instead build on what it had already learned and focus on "the community questions that have been raised by the question not passing."
Tyk said he had also moved away from supporting an immediate survey after reading messages from residents, including one from someone with survey experience. He floated the possibility of using the survey money — cited as costing $9,600 through School Perceptions — toward someone who could help guide or facilitate community conversations.
One board member noted that "a PR person is going to be more than that," and Tyk agreed. "That would be fair," he said, "but if that's the route we're looking anyways, we could put it towards that."
Woodard cautioned against framing the choice as survey versus public relations.
"I don't want the impression be that we'd rather do better PR than hear from people. Survey, no survey, we need to engage the community and give them an opportunity to share with us: I voted no because…" — Pamela Woodard, Whitefish Bay School Board
Lynn Raines continued to press the question of how the board would hear from residents who are unlikely to attend a town hall or board meeting. "I just continue to go back to the importance of really trying to reach every household in Whitefish Bay," Raines said. "And if we don't do a survey, how do we propose that we do that?"
Listening and marketing discussed
The discussion eventually turned toward a more structured listening process. Board members voiced concerns about holding open-ended town halls without a clear format. Board President Kristin Bencik-Boudreau said she did not want an unstructured format for town halls.
"I'm worried about town halls. I don't want to say an open, blank town hall. We need a lot more structure," she said. "We need to get our message out and say, What will you vote for now? Not necessarily, why did you vote for no before? It really doesn't matter at this point. Because we're moving forward with the new referendum, if we go to referendum."
"We need to get our message out and say, What will you vote for now? Not necessarily, why did you vote for no before? It really doesn't matter at this point." — Kristin Bencik-Boudreau, Whitefish Bay School Board President
"I do think we need to talk about what we want to do as far as a marketing person," Bencik-Boudreau said, "because I don't think just sitting down with community members is going to get us where we would need to be, either."
Christenson suggested the board may need a plan and someone who could help phase the process, while Christiansen emphasized the need to explain tradeoffs clearly — including whether residents would prefer a larger project now or a smaller referendum followed by additional needs later.
Woodard pushed back on the idea of presenting options too early, saying the board should listen before bringing specific packages to the community. "I don't want to have options going into, you know, like a town hall," Woodard said. "Because then we have not listened first."
The Armory Park location remained one of the unresolved tensions in the conversation. The district's earlier facilities planning process had considered multiple middle school options, including rebuilding or renovating the existing middle school in place, attaching a new middle school to the high school, building on a closed Henry Clay Street and tennis courts, and building on the tennis courts, Armory Park and Armory Memorial site.
In the August 2025 options development presentation, the Armory Memorial/Tennis Courts option was listed at $67.7 million, while other middle school options ranged from $66.9 million to $68.2 million, with infrastructure-only work at the existing middle school listed at $21.7 million. Other possibilities were also considered, including a new middle school at the Lydell site, a new middle school on the Armory lacrosse field, and a new middle school bridging over Henry Clay.
That earlier process ultimately led to the broader $135.6 million referendum package centered on the Armory Park/Tennis Courts middle school plan, which voters rejected.
The April 26 board discussion had a more cautionary tone, with members acknowledging the need to better understand whether voters objected primarily to cost, scope, timing, location, process or some combination of those factors. Tyk said at that earlier meeting that the board had gone beyond the prior survey's support level and warned that if the board surveyed residents again, it could not "sway from what the community tells us" without further eroding trust.
Tyk said he did not expect most residents would identify Armory Park as the main reason for voting no, but he acknowledged the risk if location concerns were larger than expected. Woodard said if the board learned that Armory Park was an overwhelming barrier, it might need to rethink the plan, revisit other options, or take more time. "If the reason was Armory Park and it was really overwhelming, then we have to think, are we still going to ask people to do that?" she said.
The board also discussed whether a future referendum should be smaller or phased. Woodard said the community had rejected "a pretty aggressive plan" and that, without a survey, the board would be left with anecdotal information about how much opposition was driven by Armory Park. She said the board may need to "peel it back" and focus especially on the middle school if that remains the key priority.
"The community said no to all of the things that we thought were in our 10 to 20 year long range maintenance plan," Woodard said. "So we are, I believe, going to have to peel it back." She added that "coming back with the exact same thing and marketing it better" would not be sufficient.
Raines, meanwhile, continued to support some kind of short survey before moving into focus groups. She said she wanted to know why people voted no and what their appetite was for doing the work all at once, in a condensed version, or in phases over time. "What I was saying was to find out… why people voted no," Raines said, and to understand "the appetite for spending it all now… or layering it out over the years."
What happens next
By the end of the meeting, the board appeared to settle on exploring a facilitator or consultant to help guide the next phase of public engagement. Bencik-Boudreau summarized the emerging direction by asking whether members agreed to "look into a facilitator," and several board members indicated support.
The board also discussed identifying potential dates in June and July, developing questions for community conversations, and improving public-facing information about why renovation of the existing middle school has been viewed as unworkable.
District administrators laid out a possible timeline for hiring outside help. Under one scenario, an RFP could be brought to the board in mid-May, posted soon after, applications could be gathered later in May, interviews could be conducted, and a facilitator could be brought back to the board for approval before a public engagement plan is developed for June.
Board members also discussed ways to make feedback easier to submit, including a Google Form or dedicated email address. Christiansen called for specific outreach to teachers and staff as part of the re-engagement process.
The likely next step is for the administration to determine whether to prepare an RFP for a facilitator or engagement consultant. If the board proceeds on the timeline discussed, it could consider that RFP at an upcoming meeting and potentially approve a facilitator by late May.
The Facilities Committee is also expected to continue working through possible project "buckets," priorities, and information that could be used for a public mailer, website updates, and future community conversations.
The central unresolved question remains whether the board's next referendum proposal will be a revised version of the previous Armory Park plan, a pared-down or phased version, or a broader reconsideration shaped by additional community feedback. The April 26 meeting suggested a board that wanted to listen before deciding. The latest meeting suggested a board still exploring listening, but increasingly focused on how to move quickly, whether to skip a formal survey, and whether PR and marketing needs to be a more central focus.
