The school board can dress the contract negotiation up how ever they want, but let’s look at what they are giving the new Super;

• $200,000 a year in salary + medical and pension

• Four weeks of vacation and 15 days sick leave (Total 35 days off paid)

• $2,900 a month in ‘fringe benefits’ ($34,800 per year)

• $750 a month for transportation ($9,000 per year)

• $25,000 one time moving reimbursement

Let’s review;

• They are paying the new super who is currently in command of a student body of 5,300 (SF has 23,000) $25,000 more a year then the current Super makes after her 11 years of service (talk about a slap in the face to Homan and a bit of over confidence in Maher).

• He basically gets a month of vacation on day one.

• His ‘play money’ account is more then some teachers in the district make in a year.

• Even if he leased a really nice vehicle (which includes most maintenance) put gas in it, and insured it on his own, that would come to about $550 a month. He is pretty much getting paid $750 a month to drive to work. I would only give him $25 a month (that is the price of a monthly bus pass).

• Moving expenses are something the private sector does to lure good workers, it should NOT occur in the public sector.

When I hear the School Board talk about children’s education being their top priority, and I see them negotiate a contract like this, I want to ask them the question, “You do know the more money that goes towards teachers and classrooms the better the kid’s education?” It seems the school board’s concept of salaries in the education field is to be ‘top heavy’ and hope that trickles down to the students somehow. Okay Ronald Reagan.

So why do I think this contract was a total failure on their part and an insult to taxpayers? For the same reason the ‘Save our Summers’ group won in the last election; The lack of transparency, prudence, humility & compromise by our school board. But instead of applying these qualities to the Super search and employment, they once again slipped and instead of apologizing for their blatant ignorance, they defend it.

I told a teacher today who voted YES and wanted to keep the current school calendar, “You have no one to blame for the calendar change then the inept school board, this wasn’t the teacher’s fault.” He agreed they should have listened to a compromise.

Maybe the next time the board makes such a stupid financial decision (and it was really freaking stupid) we need to get the combat vets involved, they have at knack changing board members minds.

10 Thoughts on “The Sioux Falls School Board’s SUPER failure on the new SUPER hire

  1. scott on April 24, 2015 at 6:24 am said:

    there’s always plenty of money to pay administration, but never any money to pay the help.

  2. Dan Daily on April 24, 2015 at 9:53 am said:

    Shhh Scott! He’ll get a benny for servants.

    I wonder whose and how much he’ll donate toward a political campaign. It’s how you get a job like this.

    Isn’t it time for teachers to walk off the job and build a strong labor union? Then, he’ll have this job and must actually do something.

  3. hornguy on April 24, 2015 at 10:22 am said:

    ” Moving expenses are something the private sector does to lure good workers, it should NOT occur in the public sector.”

    Because the public sector doesn’t need good workers? Aren’t you the one constantly bemoaning the lack of quality in the public sector? But then the public sector acts like the private sector and then the argument is that everyone in the public sector should work for peanuts, no matter their skill set.

    You can object to the salary – though the district is basically paying him what the market would otherwise command. If you want to argue that market’s screwy, you’ll get no blowback from me. I’d agree.

    But the fringe benefits are part and parcel with a top-level executive position, regardless of the sector. The guy has a doctorate and 20+ years of professional experience. You’re expecting him to hit the reset button on vacation leave just because he’s starting a new job? Only suckers do that.

    If you think you can get a quality superintendent for $40k a year and two weeks of vacation, be my guest. But then you’re as guilty of being cheap as most of the Sioux Falls employers you rightly criticize.

  4. Compromise, collaboration, and communication. That should be the 3 C’s for this school board moving forward. It is amazing what would happen in this community if they worked towards those three concepts. Unfortunately, as long as they ride the “not my fault” train, things will remain the same and this community and education will continue to be a cluster.

  5. Be part of the solution on April 24, 2015 at 12:05 pm said:

    I had to laugh at Todd Thoelke’s response- “I think we got a good one.” Ha!, how about you make him prove it first. I agree that you should not pay the new person more than the old one was getting. In what other line of government employment does that work for? I cannot believe his “play money” is that high! I am outraged! Teachers you had to have felt the slap in the face on this one! How could people vote in the same members that have made mistake after mistake?

  6. l3wis on April 24, 2015 at 1:25 pm said:

    Not opposed to vacation on day one, just think that is too much, and I also may not be opposed to helping with moving expenses, but he is moving from Kearney, NE NOT Nome, AK. I think $5K would suffice.

  7. Why does a superintendent need money for transportation? Allow a certain amount to attend a couple of meetings a year. Everybody has transportation costs to get to and from work and they aren’t given transportation costs. That is the same, I don’t know why Homan needed a special car. When I was in school the superintendent would teach one or two classes a day. At least they worked for the money they earned.

  8. SouthernExposure on April 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm said:

    The SuperClub is a racket full on. The high priest of the ideology with a slush fund built in.

  9. hornguy on April 27, 2015 at 2:02 pm said:

    “I agree that you should not pay the new person more than the old one was getting. In what other line of government employment does that work for?”

    Professors
    Academic Staff
    Athletic coaches
    Any employee that brings measurably more experience to the table than their predecessor
    Those who are better negotiators than their predecessors

    “Don’t pay more than the last person got” is arbitrary and requires one to buy into the fallacy that all people are equally qualified for the job they do.

    But I’ll gladly agree that when it comes to superintendents and non-classroom administrative staff (e.g. curriculum directors, etc.), this whole thing is a racket.

  10. Titleist on April 27, 2015 at 10:28 pm said:

    Word on the street is that he supports the August start date.

    Education matters.

Post Navigation