The Supt gave up her raise in FY '10 and probably in FY '11 (that was added onto the now-disputed contract extension). There was also no raise specified for FY '12 or FY '13 in the contract extension -- that was left to the new committee to decide.
The original contract did allow for an unspecified incentive bonus at the discretion of the School Committee -- but given the state of the school budget, no bonus was ever approved.
The contract also allowed the Committee to buy-back unused vacation time -- which it did at a cost of approximately $10,000. This expense related to FY '09 but apparently was not encumbered at that time so it was recognized as an FY '10 expense. The vacation buy-back was also widely discussed in the local press and should not come as a surprise to anyone.
The contract has always been a public document and was also thoroughly dissected by the local "media" when it was signed.
What the poster may have been referring to is funds that Sherry Marshall, the current SC Chair agreed to encumber, presumably for the Supt's Grant Administration work (which is not mentioned in any contract) during FY '10. I assume this will be discussed and voted at the next SC meeting on September 1.
This discussion, however, has nothing to do with prior committees or re-writing contracts. This is up to the current committee.
5 comments:
well said Bob!!!!
I received a particularly stupid post this evening about the terms of the Superintendent's contract. I'm not sure if this dope realized I was on the committee that negotiated the contract --- and would be fairly familiar with what is in it ... and what wasn't!
I would suggest this person stagger over to the Administration office and get a copy (it's a public document) or read an old newspaper. The local "media" certainly reported on the terms when it was signed!
This email was typical of the tactics we have seen all year --- make up crap,or completely misinterpret data they don't understand and see how many people believe it -- heck, it even got someone elected!
Oy vey!
Two more posts came in that I'm not bothering with -- one was a reprint of a Dec 2008 news article saying the Supt earned $152K/yr which is more than Town Managers make. Nothing new there. I guess I could run that along with a newer article saying she gave back her scheduled FY '10 raise, and I could probably say again that she was giving back her FY '11 raise also. But why bother.
Maybe now that this Anon has learned to use Google, she could check out the current Supt salaries in similar size districts and get back to us with a summary?
For the Anon who asked again about the a $25K bonus clause in the contract. Feel free to go get a copy of the contract. Ain't no $25K bonus specified. There is a clause for an unspecified incentive bonus at the discretion of the School Committee -- but no bonus was ever considered during the past two fiscal years.
Any bonus discussion now is at the discretion of the current school committee -- talk to them (I'm not on their mailing list).
Thanks again for setting the record straigh. Too bad you are writing for the Enterprise or the Cape Cod Times!!!
Since there continues to be much speculation about Dr. Johnson's salary, I am copying some information I've posted on another blog recently. My original concern was about the pool of talent available to Sandwich should we begin a new superintendent search. What I found was that there absolutely is a shortage of qualified superintendent candidates. Don't take my word for it. Simply google those key words and take a look at the articles that appear.
In one article called "Seller's market for superintendents complicates search for school leaders", the executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents explains that searches yield about 20 candidates, but only a small number come with strong credentials. About 60 of the commonwealth's 277 (about 22%) superintendents turn over each year. The job has become increasingly complex and demanding in a state with a highly regulated education system.
What's more, in light of this shortage, districts who have the ability to pay are offering attractive compensation packages with added perks to lure the best candidates. I don't think Sandwich falls in this category. Add to the mix the acrimonious atmosphere in Sandwich right now, plus Dr. Johnson's contract in legal limbo, and I don't like our chances.
By the way, news to Marie Kangas who continually harps on Dr. Johnson's salary: The AVERAGE pay for MA superintendents was in the $140,000 range last year, but is now hovering around $150.000. Superintendents in the Boston suburbs are much higher. (Arlington $175,00; Andover $200,00). I'm sure a statewide comparison of salaries is available somewhere.
But my point was simply to show that qualified superintendent candidates are in short supply, and for districts to hire and retain them, they must be willing to offer a competetive compensation package. In Hadley, a district I don't much about except it's fairly rural and fairly small, the superintendent was just offered a contract with annual 5% increases that peaks at $147,735 in 2012 and also includes $6000 in longevity payments, a $2000 tax-deferred annuity, and a full payout of unused vacation time. This is the reality. This is what a new hire is going to expect.
In the rush to replace Dr. Johnson, her salary has been bandied about by her critics. I merely want to suggest that Dr. Johnson's compensation does not seem to be out of line. Moreover, if her critics think we can easily replace her, and possibly even save money by doing so, they're in for a big surprise.
That is why I wish the entire School Committee could have embraced Mr. Hunt's original idea: recognize the many accomplishments of Dr. Johnson and work on the deficits. A new superintendent search, regardless of who conducts it, frightens me very much.
Post a Comment