An Administration Mess

This is just down the road from us. Let's hope our BOE is smarter than what you will read below.

Comment to D181 Board by Board Member-Elect Yvonne Mayer

From Hinsdale Talks Admin, Resident, on 04/22/09 at 09:49 pm

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR APRIL 22, 2009 BOE MEETING
Good evening. I would first state that I am in agreement with all the comments that have been made. Second, I would like to commend each administrator for having provided excellent service to this district – in some cases for one year, and in others for many. Each one has weathered the storm that has been swirling for far too long now. Everyone should recognize these administrators for what they have accomplished and for the potential they have to continue to work to improve this district. Having said that, I am hopeful that before you vote on the three year contracts, you will address everyone’s concerns and explain why they are fiscally responsible. Then I’d ask you to explain why if you believe that all constituency groups will agree with your rationale, why not allow the new board to reach consensus on this issue and vote on it?

Next week, the incoming board will be the governing body that will work with the administration, teachers and community for the next four years. This is the group that the community elected to undertake this task. Decisions that impact three of those four years should not be decided by the outgoing board 6 days before the end of its term. Since administrative contracts have not typically been renewed by the board until late May or June, the question is why the board feels the urgency to approve them now, having had no public discussion earlier this year on the reasons or need to change the historical practice of giving one year contracts to non-superintendent administrators?

These contracts commit the district to paying a minimum of $1.8 million per year to 14 administrators for three years, and $1 million for 10 single year administrative contracts.

They cannot be terminated without cause unless huge buyouts are paid. No matter how bad the financial situation in this district gets in the next three years, the board will not be able to reduce the administrators. It will only be able to cut teachers, academic and extracurricular programs. Dr. Sabatino has been very honest that despite cutting $2.2 million from next year’s budget, more large cuts will be needed. No one wants to eliminate employees for financial reasons, but this vote will prevent the board from doing so should the financial situation warrant it? Many of the individual administrator salaries would support two, and in some cases three, full time teacher salaries or many more part time teacher positions. I am concerned that your action tonight will prevent the board from even considering cuts in the future that have the least impact on our students and be left with no choice but to cut teachers.

Decisions on next year’s contracts should be made after the new board first takes a hard look at the expenses to try and put off insolvency in 3 years. It is only logical that administrative contracts be part of this review. It is more prudent to review first and sign second. By approving tonight, you force the incoming board to review all three year contracts and decide whether to take steps to void them, if determines that it is fiscally irresponsible to have them stand. And while I can’t speak for the other incoming board members, I can say that I will call for this review, knowing that the community will hold the new board accountable for the long term impact of this vote.

The actions you take tonight will set the stage for the way this board, administration and the incoming board are received, respected or mistrusted by the community. Enough mistrust and damage to the district has been done over the last four years. It is time to move forward constructively and the first step in doing that is to allow the new board to make this critical financial decision.

Thank you.
Yvonne Mayer

Thank you!
Geralynn Walsh on Mon, 04/27/09 at 05:10 pm

Ms. Mayer -
We should all be thankful for watchful eyes!

Absolutely! Administrative contracts should be part of your review process. Granted, three years ago nobody knew what was headed our direction in terms of the economy but now we should be all the wiser. Moving forward under new contracts, it is our hope that teachers, academic and extracurricular programs remain untouched and instead the administrative fat be trimmed. The children should always ultimately benefit from these decisions.

Outgoing Board: Yes to 3-year Administrator Contracts
Molly Hughes,

Hinsdale Resident, on Tue, 04/28/09 at 03:31 pm

One might expect that after campaign season and then the election for village board and D181's board, Hinsdale's residents could take a breather. After all, how much can really happen in the few meetings scheduled after the election, before the new team takes office? A lot can happen, evidently, based on recent reports of BOE activities. Last Wednesday there was a special meeting of the BOE, intended particularly for the discussion and approval of controversial administrator contracts. If there were a headline for what occurred on April 22, it would be ”D181 Board Approves Costly, Binding Administrator Contracts, and Grows Administration.”

What happened at the meeting?I’ve heard from a few people who attended the meeting, which was scheduled at a tough time of day for any parent to attend: 5pm on a Wednesday afternoon. At that April 22 meeting, D181 Board of Education took the unprecedented act of voting to approve 3 year employment contracts for 7 administrators and making permanent (along with a 3 year contract) the position of Associate Superintendent (a temporary position created last year to help the interim superintendent). These 7 contracts, which cannot be terminated except for cause, will cost the district a minimum of $2.8 million over the next three years.

The Associate Superintendent position alone is costing the district $189,569 for one year, or $568,000 for three years. If terminated without cause, one administrator gets a 12-month buyout and the rest get six months. In addition, the Board approved 16 single year administrative contracts that will cost over $1.7 million next year. And they gave the Interim Superintendent a 25% raise. His salary for next year will be $1000/day for up to 120 days. The other administrators received raises for next year of as much as 4%.

Over 30 people attended the meeting. Nine community members and the President of the Teachers' Union spoke in opposition to the 3 year contracts and large raises. Five of the seven board members were present. Notably absent was Board member Andrew Schmidt., who indicated at the April 13 meeting that he supports these contracts.

Public comments essentially argued and raised the following points and questions:

1. In this economy, it is irresponsible to commit to paying so much in administrative salaries and commit to doing so for 3 years.

2. This action will prevent the Board from eliminating or negotiating administrative positions; so, teachers, academic or extracurricular programs will have to bear the cost of the administrative “lock-up” and thus be sacrificed to a degree that may not make the best sense for our kids. (It has already been projected that because the lower CPI index will reduce the revenue stream the district has relied on by millions over the next few years, the deficit will get bigger, and reserves will be spent down. In fact, the district projects that the reserves will be cut in half by 2012 -- to only $7.6 million -- and by 2014 the district will have spent all reserves and be forced to borrow money. Well before that, as the reserves are depleted, the bond and credit rating will be negatively impacted.)

3. Why would the board make the Associate Superintendent position permanent, when until last fall, this position had never existed?

4. Why are three year contracts necessary?

5. Why were the contracts being approved only 6 days before the new board was seated, when administrator contracts are not typically approved until late May or June? Why not let the new board, which will be leading the district over the next four years, reach consensus and vote on the contracts?

To the Board's credit, before voting unanimously to approve all of the contracts, each board member spoke and gave their rationales for approving them. The reasons included:

1. There has been large turnover in administrators over the last few years. Last summer, the board set a goal of addressing the turnover and finding a solution that would ensure stability with its administrative staff. Board member Mark Monyek referenced a discussion that the Board held last summer during a public weekend strategic planning session in which many administrators, board members and community members participated, as the meeting in which multi-year contracts had been discussed.

2. Last fall, the administration formed a committee of three administrators and one board member to address this issue and it made recommendations to implement three year contracts and pay competitive administrative salaries, after concluding that some administrators are underpaid and leave because multi-year contracts are not offered.

3. The current board is very pleased with the performance of its current administrators, wants them to stay and believes they deserve multi-year contracts.

4. The associate superintendent position is necessary to facilitate a smooth transition once the district hires a permanent superintendent.

5. Mr. Monyek stated that the salaries had already been incorporated into the forecasted budgets.

6. While some parents expressed concern that teachers or programs that directly impact children will be cut rather than administrators, Board Member Roseanne Rosenthal stated that she feels that the administrators do have a direct impact on our students due to their oversight responsibilities.

7. Board Member Linda Rio Reichmann stated that while she had previously abstained due to process issues, she felt they had been corrected and would now vote yes.

8. As to the size of Dr. Sabatino's raise, Ms. Armonda stated that the board cut a good deal ($800/day) when it first hired him, and he was not paid a competitive salary, since most candidates had asked for upwards of $1200/day. Now that the district is renewing his contract for a second year, it is only fair to pay him more and even the $1000/day is viewed by the Board as being below market.

9. As to why vote now and not wait for the new board, the sitting board members said that they were ready to vote on this in February, but one board member was absent, and the board did not vote in March because it felt it would be insensitive to vote on administrator multi-year contracts at the same meeting at which it was non-renewing many teachers.

Interestingly, aside from Mark Monyek's brief comments, the economic concerns raised by many parents were not directly addressed. The board did not address how it plans to cut millions from the budget starting in 2011, and did not economically justify its decisions to lock administrative positions for three years. Dr. Sabatino has stated at board meetings and PTO meetings that for the 2009-2010 budget, the administration is going to balance the budget and eliminate the $2.2 million dollar deficit. He has been heard to say that these cuts will be the "easy" ones to make -- since each department is currently analyzing their budgets and finding ways to tighten their belts. Fewer class room teachers are needed next year because of decreasing population and fewer special education teachers are needed because the program is being reconfigured. But because the forecasts indicate that CPI values will continue to be lower than in the past, the deficit will continue to grow and for the next several years, potentially millions more will have to be cut in order to balance the budget and prevent the district from spending down all of its reserves and going bankrupt by 2014.

So how can the district address the growing deficit issue? Since this vote last week, the stage is now set for the new board. Since the staff salaries and benefits make up more than 70% of the budget, there are not too many other areas that can see large cuts, without the obvious -- reduction in staff, teachers or programs. Even if the board were to decide to cut an administrative position, now that the contracts have been approved, it would have to pay at least a six month buyout. And as with all buyouts, the district spends money and gets nothing in return, just as it did when it paid Dr. Tenbush over $170,000 in severance payments, for his one year of service.

Looking carefully at the stability argument that the board members stated as a reason for offering multi-year contracts, that argument just doesn’t make sense. At the April 22 meeting, one community member pointed out that a careful look at what's happened in the last four years has led many in the community to believe that the loss of administrators was not due to the lack of competitive salaries or multi-year contracts. Many believe it was due to the current board pushing former Superintendent Curley into early retirement, its actions against other administrators and the way it treated them, and its actions and selection of administrators and actions of Dr. James Tenbusch. Perhaps there is more of a morale issue at work here. In fact, since 50% of the administrators who were offered 3 year contracts after the April 13 BOW meeting declined this offer one can conclude that contract term is not a central driver of their career decisions.

But even if one were to accept the board's stability argument, it flies in the face of the economic reality of our times. All around us people are losing their jobs, not finding new ones, going bankrupt or having their homes foreclosed. Most service industries are down sizing, imposing salary freezes or salary reductions. People in the service industry are grateful to keep their jobs and don't expect to be given huge raises. It makes no economic sense to give up to 25% raises and commit the district to three years of high salaries, when there is no end in sight to fiscal crisis in the district, local and federal governments and average taxpayer are facing.

Whether one buys the board’s rationale or not, the truth is simple: the vote to lock in administrator contracts and increase the size of our administration adds cost that we can scarcely afford and sets the new board up for a tougher job.