A standing-room-only District Office board room Monday night
heard Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers President Donna Foster and
Live Oak High teacher and head football coach Glen Webb present
scathing cost comparisons conducted with Superintendent Carolyn
McKennan’s contract. Amid gasps, applause and whispers from the
crowd of district teachers, administrators, parents and Live Oak
students there for civics class credit, Foster detailed the add-ons
that bring McKennan’s salary to $192,000 for this year.
A standing-room-only District Office board room Monday night heard Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers President Donna Foster and Live Oak High teacher and head football coach Glen Webb present scathing cost comparisons conducted with Superintendent Carolyn McKennan’s contract.
Amid gasps, applause and whispers from the crowd of district teachers, administrators, parents and Live Oak students there for civics class credit, Foster detailed the add-ons that bring McKennan’s salary to $192,000 for this year.
“While teachers have faced layoffs, reductions in staff and program, three years with only a 1.64 percent raise including no raise this year, and no increase in to health and welfare benefits, the superintendent was given a contract guaranteeing a salary increase of at least 3.8 percent each year,” Foster said. “This raise comes in the form of $5,000 per year cumulatively for each year served in the district. This year, that is a $35,000 bonus above her base pay.”
In addition to the longevity bonus, Foster said, McKennan’s contract also includes an annual doctoral stipend of $1,500, lifetime health benefits of $5,500 per year, an annual car allotment of $4,800, a guaranteed expense reimbursement of $3,600, a $6,000 annual allowance for memberships in professional organizations and an annual professional development allowance of $3,000.
Foster said the information provided by the County Office of Education showed McKennan’s gross earnings to be only $40,000 less than County Superintendent Colleen Wilcox. and fractionally less than other larger districts.
“The most appalling fact from my research is the discovery that our superintendent is the highest paid superintendent of the unified districts, at a yearly salary of $160,240,” Foster said. “When base salaries are compared with Gilroy, which is most often cited as a similar comparison district, Carolyn McKennan is compensated 16 percent higher than Edwin Diaz. His base salary is $138,500. Gilroy has a larger student base and has a higher revenue limit.”
“Even when compared with a basic aid district such as Santa Clara, whose revenue limit per ADA (average daily attendance) is approximately 8 percent higher than ours, Dr. McKennan is paid only $16,426, or approximately 10 percent, less than their superintendent, while our teachers’ salaries lag by over 20 percent.
McKennan on Thursday fired back with a three-page rebuttal, calling the comparision unfair and wrong becasue her overall compensation package was compared with the base pay of other superintendents in the county.
McKennan said the reason the other superintendents add-ons were lower is that they are reimbursed rather than listed as allowances. She also said that the data was not complete.
“(Foster is) creating a division among us based on incomplete data,” she said. “No matter how well-intentioned, it does a disservice to us all.”
Webb, who said he helped research the comparison, came to the podium and described the data as “very comprehensive.” He said union members assisting Foster in the research looked at all the superintendents in the county.
“The data is not incomplete,” he said. “Shame on you.”
The union started the comparison research in order to look at teachers’ salaries. They found more than they bargained for.
“During the same time Dr. McKennan was feathering her nest with the help of the school board, the district was facing mid-year budget cuts and teachers were being given a pay increase for only four months at 2 percent,” Foster told trustees. “COLA (cost of living increase) was 3 percent. One year ago this contract with the superintendent was ratified by the previous board. Four of ;you signed that contract. Your obligation as a new board is to understand the fiscal ramifications and the negative message these salary disparities communicate.”
Foster’s remarks to the board were distributed to all the district teachers after the meeting, McKennan said Thursday, as her rebuttal would be.
In her remarks, McKennan said Foster’s remarks were “unfounded and inflammatory.”
“The compensation comparison chart that she used did not include all provisions of the other superintendents’ contracts, yet she compared the Morgan Hill Unified superintendent’s entire contract with other districts’ basic compensation figures,” McKennan wrote. “That is not an equal comparison. In order to make a true comparison of superintendent compensations, Ms. Foster would need to call each superintendent and request a copy of his/her actual contract.”
Diaz’s contract shows he has “fringe benefits” of 3 percent of his base salary plus $2,500 annually, plus a $450 per month automobile expense allowance.
McKennan wrote in her rebuttal that the board had in December 2000, after giving teachers a “10-17 percent” raise, gave her the $5,000 bonus, which she said was a “3.9 percent increase,” while teachers automatically receive 4 percent step and column increases.
She also wrote that teachers can receive units of up to $1,260 for additional responsibilities, and athletic coaches can receive stipends. She said Webb’s stipend was more than $10,000 for the 2002-2003 school year to bring his salary to $75,810 “for 184 days of work.” She added that teachers work 184 days a year, this year reduced to 183, and superintendents work 260 and are expected to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
McKennan also said “reimbursables” should not have been included in the compensation comparison.
“The fact that Ms. Foster included reimbursable expenses in the superintendent’s salary total is curious,” wrote McKennan. “The superintendent’s contract requires that she belong to professional organizations and attend conferences and professional development opportunities. The Board sets aside two funds of money each year to be used to reimburse the expenses for those requirements. If the money is not used, it returns to the general fund. This is not part of the superintendent’s salary, and is a very common provision for superintendent contracts. Every employee in the district who attends an approved conference or workshop for their job is reimbursed for their expenses.”
Diaz’s contract also states: “Further District shall pay Superintendent’s professional dues for the Association of California School Administrators and other professional and local organizations.” And the district will reimburse the superintendent for “reasonable business expenses.”
McKennan closes her remarks by stating that she, as a former teacher, has a very high regard for teachers, and that the board does not value one employee over another.
“Our salaries will differ depending on our scope of responsibility and level of accountability in the district,” she wrote. Every employee in the district has been impacted by recent reductions in staff, programs and services. The district office has been hit particularly hard. There will be more cuts to come. Ms. Foster is asking for me, as superintendent, to offer part of my salary to help balance the budget. Is she suggesting that we ask for a personal contribution from each employee on top of what we are already asking of them?”
Trustees are in the midst of reviewing McKennan’s performance for the past year.
