Superintendent salary caps can keep costs down but so would mergers
May 16, 2013
By Laura Waters, of New Jersey Left Behind
New Jersey Left Behind
This is part of a series from education blogger Laura Waters of NJ Left Behind.
Today at its annual Delegate Assembly, New Jersey School Boards Association will most likely adopt a resolution that attacks Gov. Christie’s mandated state superintendent salary caps as intrusive and untenable.
According to the draft resolution, proposed by the Ridgewood Board of Education (Bergen), local boards of education should have “the flexibility to adjust the CSA’s [Chief School Administrator or Superintendent’s] compensation commensurate with his or her experience knowing the current employment market conditions and other factors that may influence the ability to recruit, hire, and retain a competent and highly qualified CSA.”
Local control, right? Very Jersey. School board members resent state intrusion into the local business of setting superintendent salaries, especially in North Jersey, a stone’s throw away from New York State’s greener, uncapped pastures. And NJSBA data shows that superintendent turnover has spiked sharply since the salary cap was enacted: in 2011-2012, 31.4% of N.J. school districts lost their superintendents (a boon for the burgeoning interim superintendent industry).
Some board members see benefits in a superintendent salary cap, a fact duly noted in the Ridgewood Resolution. All eyes are trained on school budgets, especially with the legislatively-mandated 2% limit on school tax increases. But the impact of the superintendent salary cap goes way beyond the payout to chief school administrators. There’s a ripple effect, which will explicitly or implicitly inform the deliberations at the NJSBA Delegate Assembly.
In Ridgewood, Superintendent Daniel Fishbein will earn $232,872 this year. But when his contract expires on June 30, his salary will be ignobly bumped down to $167,500.
That’s because, according to new Accountability Regulations, salary caps are based on student enrollment:
_________________________
0 -250 $125,000
251– 750 $135,000
751 – 1,500 $145,000
1,501 – 3,000 $155,000
3,001 – 6,500 $165,000
6,501 – 10,000 $175,000
__________________________
https://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local//item/54790-superintendent-salary-caps-can-keep-costs-down-but-so-would-mergers/
ouch
If the village wants to pay the man over $175,000 then the governor should stay out of regulating a persons pay,maybe the fat man is not worth his paycheck.
If the Governor wants to reduce taxes through regulating/capping public sector employees he should do it across the board. Police, Fire, EMT’s, Principal’s, Teachers, DPW, etc….. We all get why he went after Superintendent’s (no union, 3 year contracts, highly paid,) but he should follow through and apply the same standard to other occupations as well. That being said, it isn’t a reach to think that should someone take it to court it would get thrown out.
Fishbein will also be able to get an additional 15% increase as a bonus if he meets very simple goals and objectives. His salary will be $165,000 plus and additional $2,500 for having a HS, plus $24,750 (15% bonus) the total equals $192,250. Not equal to what he has but he is still one of the highest paid in Bergen County. If the district really cared about what they were spendinging on administrators they wouldn’t have paid Gorman (HS principal) over $150,000 and the new Business Administrator $160,000. Both new salaries are substantially higher then what they were making in their previous districts. There was no explanation as to why they were given so much money. The attitude of “It’s Ridgewood” does not substantiate that type of spending. None of these people have done anything above and beyond the normal expectations for these positions.