EDITOR: In her role as Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers
President, Donna Foster made statements to the Board at its Oct. 6
meeting that were unfounded and inflammatory regarding the contract
of the superintendent. The following is presented to correct the
inaccuracies in the information that Ms. Foster presented to the
Board.
EDITOR:
In her role as Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers President, Donna Foster made statements to the Board at its Oct. 6 meeting that were unfounded and inflammatory regarding the contract of the superintendent. The following is presented to correct the inaccuracies in the information that Ms. Foster presented to the Board.
The Federation president has compared the superintendent’s contract to compensation figures for other superintendents in Santa Clara County and asserted that, “Carolyn McKennan is the highest paid superintendent of the non-basic aid unified school districts in the county.” This statement is categorically false. The compensation comparison chart that she used did not include all provisions of the other superintendents’ contracts. It was 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. To go public with such inflammatory accusations without having equal information from comparison districts is unfair to the superintendent, to the Board and to the community.
The fact that Ms. Foster included reimbursable expenses in the superintendent’s salary total is curious. 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.
In response to Ms. Fosters accusations of “perks” and “bonuses” paid to the superintendent:
In December 2000, after all employee contracts had been settled and employees had received a 10-17 percent raise, the Board amended the superintendent’s contract to include a stipend of $5,000 per year, a 3.9 percent increase. This is comparable to the 4 percent step increases (one per year) that teachers automatically receive for each year of service, and the 4 percent column increases that they may receive for additional units of professional development.
A teacher receiving both a step and column increase in one year would receive an automatic 8 percent increase. This would be on top of any negotiated salary increase for that year. (Each year, the step and column increases for our teachers amount to $468,000 distgrictwide. This amount is calculated automatically into the budget before any reductions are made and before any salary schedule increases are negotiated.)
•The salary increases approved in 2000 translated into a $10,000 increase in salary for the most experienced teachers in the district.
• In addition, teachers may earn extra duty units of $1260 per unit for additional responsibilities that they are willing to accept (student council, GATE coordinator, lead teacher, technology coordinator, etc.)
• Athletic coaches receive extra duty units for their coaching as well. In fact, our head football coach received $10,457 in extra duty stipends for the 2002-03 school year on top of his base salary of $65,353 for a total compensation of $75,810.60 for 184 days of work (an annualized salary of over $100,000)
• A teacher’s work year was 184 days. (For the current year, the teachers’ work year has been reduced to 183 days.)
• The superintendent’s work year is 260 days, and she is expected to be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• In 2002, all employee groups (classified, teachers & administrators) received a 2 percent increase on the salary schedule, effective March 2002.
• When the superintendent was hired in July 1996, the Board offered her a car/mileage allowance of $4800 per year, the same amount that she had received in her previous district as superintendent since 1990.
• The Board also offered health benefits in the amount of $5,500, an amount approximately $2,000 less than she was receiving at her previous district.
The Federation president has had a copy of the superintendent’s contract since assuming her post as president and the former president also had a copy of the contract. The provisions of the contract are 3 to 7 years old, thus the terms of the contract cannot be labeled “new.”
These are difficult times and we all must work together to achieve our common goal of providing the best possible teaching and learning for our students. Public comment is a regular part of our board meeting agendas and this district continues to welcome healthy meeting participation as part of our democratic process.
However, creating division among us based on incomplete, inaccurate and inflammatory data does us all a disservice. It would not be my choice to go public with such a dispute, but having a situation where the teacher’s union president rallies teachers to attend a board meeting to cheer her on as she lashes out at the board and superintendent for their alleged lack of oversight and fairness to teachers, demands a response. I cannot be publicly accused of wrongdoing based on false information without disputing the inaccuracies.
I have high regard for the teachers of our district. I know that they have a direct impact on the education of our children. As a former classroom teacher myself, I understand the commitment of time and self that is required to be in front of a classroom full of children every day of the school year.
Each one of us in this district has a job to do. No one of us is valued more than the other. Our salaries will differ depending on our scope of responsibility and level of accountability in the district. 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? That is certainly a question that we may want to consider as we begin the process of balancing another difficult budget for the upcoming year. I hope that Ms. Foster will be willing to contribute as well.
Carolyn McKennan, Superintendent,
Morgan Hill
See related letter on page A6
