Severance
An SFUSD parent named Rick Reynolds is trying to get parents to sign a petition demanding that Superintendent Ackerman forego the $375,000 severance payment which is part of her contract.
While I don’t doubt that Reynolds sincerely believes that his ploy would help the children of the school district, the reality is that his portrayal of the Superintendent as “chased out with our children’s money clutched in your hands” will only make it harder for the Board of Education to hire a replacement for Ackerman. Who would be willing to sign a contract with this school district knowing that parents will characterize any severance clause as “taking…away from our children?”
Whenever a school board wishes to end its relationship with a Superintendent before the end of the contract, the board must “buy out” the contract or face a possibly even more costly lawsuit from the Superintendent. Nationwide, the average “buy out” for a Superintendent’s contract is 18 months, which is how the $375,000 figure was derived – it represents 18 months’ salary for Ackerman. In the absence of the severance agreement, and with a contract running through 2008, Ackerman would be entitled to more than $375,000 should the board dismiss her by her stated departure date of June 30, 2006. If a bitter legal wrangle ensued, the cost to the district could go much higher. The severance package was designed to avoid exactly that kind of situation.
It is also worth noting that when former Oakland schools chief Dennis Chaconas drove his district into a $100 million bankruptcy, he resigned and his contract was “bought out” for nearly $400,000 amidst no controversy whatsoever.
Regardless of how Reynolds or other parents feel about severance pay, the fact is that when an SFUSD employee has a contract running through a certain date, and the Board of Education chooses to end the employment prior to that date, the employee is entitled to be paid through the end of the contract. The situation sometimes arises that a teacher or bureaucrat is found to be incompetent to do the job for which he or she was hired, and must be removed and placed on “administrative leave.” This amounts to paying the individual to stay home until the end of the contract, and every year, the school district hands over hundreds of thousands of dollars to such individuals. Does Reynolds expect to visit each of their homes and deliver signed petitions demanding that those individuals return their salaries because it is “our children’s money?” I’m pretty sure that both SEIU Local 790 and the UESF (teachers union) would have something to say about that.
While I don’t doubt that Reynolds sincerely believes that his ploy would help the children of the school district, the reality is that his portrayal of the Superintendent as “chased out with our children’s money clutched in your hands” will only make it harder for the Board of Education to hire a replacement for Ackerman. Who would be willing to sign a contract with this school district knowing that parents will characterize any severance clause as “taking…away from our children?”
Whenever a school board wishes to end its relationship with a Superintendent before the end of the contract, the board must “buy out” the contract or face a possibly even more costly lawsuit from the Superintendent. Nationwide, the average “buy out” for a Superintendent’s contract is 18 months, which is how the $375,000 figure was derived – it represents 18 months’ salary for Ackerman. In the absence of the severance agreement, and with a contract running through 2008, Ackerman would be entitled to more than $375,000 should the board dismiss her by her stated departure date of June 30, 2006. If a bitter legal wrangle ensued, the cost to the district could go much higher. The severance package was designed to avoid exactly that kind of situation.
It is also worth noting that when former Oakland schools chief Dennis Chaconas drove his district into a $100 million bankruptcy, he resigned and his contract was “bought out” for nearly $400,000 amidst no controversy whatsoever.
Regardless of how Reynolds or other parents feel about severance pay, the fact is that when an SFUSD employee has a contract running through a certain date, and the Board of Education chooses to end the employment prior to that date, the employee is entitled to be paid through the end of the contract. The situation sometimes arises that a teacher or bureaucrat is found to be incompetent to do the job for which he or she was hired, and must be removed and placed on “administrative leave.” This amounts to paying the individual to stay home until the end of the contract, and every year, the school district hands over hundreds of thousands of dollars to such individuals. Does Reynolds expect to visit each of their homes and deliver signed petitions demanding that those individuals return their salaries because it is “our children’s money?” I’m pretty sure that both SEIU Local 790 and the UESF (teachers union) would have something to say about that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home