Pat Crowley wrote about this a while ago and it’s worth revisiting. The rate of increase for school administrator salaries has gone up at a rate faster than the increase for teachers.
Now here in Cranston, our top five administrators in the school department are asking for a 3% increase. School Committee members Andrea Iannazzi and Steve Stycos have both publicly opposed the raises. As Andrea puts it, the raises would send a message that “we value our administrators more than our support staff.” Steve Stycos put it this way:
We are increasing class size, cutting back on programs and threatening to sue the city for more money. This is not the time to give a group of high income people a raise. I will oppose this proposal.
Cranston should pay a market price for its administrators, so we can keep the good ones. But what do you do when an entire sector of a market may have wages that increased faster than they should have?
Let’s look at the numbers:
Executive directors of education programs & services.This number consists of the salaries for two people — Judy Lundsten & Norm Laliberte — $213,542
Assistant Superintendent Peter Nero – $111,216
Executive Director of Business – Joe Balducci $110,323
Executive director of Human Resources Ray Votto – $105,360
So in total, we’re not talking about a lot of money if everyone gets a 3% bump. Maybe about $18,000 total. But it’s not the money. Well, actually, it is the money. It’s always the money. But moreso in this case than in some others, it’s more than just the money. It’s the principle of the thing.
The principle in question to me is a the principle of sound business practices. Schools need to be run as businesses in some respects, particularly when it comes to keeping expenses in line with income. In the business world, raises are frequently tied to the increasing profits for the business. Raises are also tied to performance goals, but even if people achieve their performance goals, they may not get a raise because the company did not have a profitable year. That’s just the way it goes.
We need to run our schools in a similar manner. When we don’t have the income we were hoping to have, people should not get raises. Sometimes they do — some American CEO salaries have continued to rise despite failing companies. But that doesn’t make it right.
And the justification provided by the Superintendent — “You treat people fairly” — actually supports the idea that the top five administrators should not get a raise. A lot of other people are losing their jobs. They need to suffer, too.
Finally, here’s a business proposition — perhaps the top five administrators could get a 3% incentive increase if, within the next year, they can successfully merge with the city-side finance and human resource departments. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
Kmareka.com 
However, in one very significant respect, this is running the city like a business.
In business these days, you cut the jobs of people at the bottom to “reduce expenses” and then give nice raises to those at the top.
So this is a very business-like proposition.
Right, which is why I say in the post: ” …Sometimes they do — some American CEO salaries have continued to rise despite failing companies. But that doesn’t make it right.”
We can do better.
Kudos to Steve and Andrea !!
Given that the School Department is on financial life-support, with class sizes increasing and programs being slashed, it strikes me as cruel, that 5 of the highest paid administrators would “want” another bump in salary.
When I think back on my school years, I remember at least a dozen teachers that truly impacted my life. Kind, gifted educators that I will admire for the rest of my days. I cannot think of or even remember the name of one highly paid school administrator that impacted my life in any way.
Administrative salaries should be based on school performance. Give them credit now for a 92% average. If city school performance is at 92%- no change in salary. If it is less than that- pay cut, if higher than that- pay increase.
I recently saw on the today show that a home in CA added solar panels at a cost of $50,000. The electricl bill for the month of May/June went from $750 down to $15. On some days the meter went backwards, earning them a credit. Take the astroturf expense of 800,000 and equip 16 of the schools with Solar panel. They could be making money as they sit idle during the summer. We need administrators that not only educate, but are creative in maintaining a budget.
Excellent points Ed. But why stop at 16 schools? Solar panels on City Hall…Solar panels on all city buildings.
I understand that Cranston isn’t exactly “Sunny California”, but, if similar savings could be realized, our current fiscal woes (whether real or imagined) could be erased. Then instead of entertaining the idea of ill-conceived large scale retail developments infusing our coffers with additional/imaginary tax revenue, our city’s leaders could make money, by saving money. Dollars, open space, neighborhoods, and quality of life could be saved… the power of the sun could be utilized…our children could inherit a better/greener city than the one we currently live in. The technology is available and ready to be installed. The question is, are our city’s leaders capable of taking the next step? I’m sure that some are… and I’m sure that some will never be.
There are many creative ways to create electricity. Hydro electric power. Do not put the hydro plant next to one of the beautiful rivers, put it on the input side of the sewage plant. Still is moving with water, can power up turbines just as well. Pssobly saving us from paying that sewer charge every year.
Time for creative thinking in City government.
Ed/Richard:
The lack of progress on solar panels can be put right at the feet of the General Assembly and the Governor who slashed the incentives in the state budget for solar.
Check out this story from RI Monthly:
http://www.rimonthly.com/Rhode-Island-Monthly/April-2007/The-Sun-King/
I absolutely agree that schools should be among the first recipients of solar; unfortunately, without state/federal funds to at least match private money, it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
Still doesn’t tell me why the City can’t do it on their own. We do have a $2,000,000 surplus that Mayor Nappy didn’t know was coming. Pick one building and go for it.
We now have an auto shop at Cranston West not being utilized- auction the equipment off to buy solar system fro CHSW.