D161 Member Fleshes Out Reasons for Opposing Contract Renewals for Some
D161 Member Sean Doyle was the sole vote in favor of approving Supt. Barb Rains' contract at the March 13 school board meeting. He wanted her contract approved along with all other administrator contracts.
After a closed-door executive session March 13, the Summit Hill District 161 Board of Education voted 6-1 to renew for one year the contracts for all administrators with the exception of Supt. Barb Rains, who is completing her first full school year in the position. Administrators did not receive a salary increase in their contract for the second year in a row.
Rains' contract is scheduled for discussion at the March 27 Board of Education meeting.
Doyle's verbatim comments at the meeting:
The board’s motion to renew our administrators for next year (by State law, the administrators have to be notified by April 1) included every administrator except Barb, specified each administrator’s exact title and location (i.e. school building), and the specific terms of their salary and benefits. I made a motion to amend their motion in the following ways:
1. Adding Barb Rains to the list of administrators to be renewed on the grounds that her evaluation was formally completed and signed that night. Past practice has always been to include the superintendent’s name along with all of the other administrators to be renewed.
2. Removing the specific titles and locations for each administrator on the grounds that our legal counsel advised the Board that putting the specific titles and locations in their contracts could hamper the Board’s ability to reassign administrators in the event of an emergency (i.e. promotion of an administrator, death of an administrator, departure of an administrator during the school year, etc.).
Even though our principals are assigned to specific schools and our central office administrators have specific titles, all of administrative contracts, except for the superintendent’s, have always had the title as “administrator of the school district” to allow us flexibility.
Readers might like:
D161 Renews Admin. Contracts with Zero Salary Increase
3. Removing the specific terms of their salary and benefits on the grounds that past practice has been for the Board to approve a motion, by April 1, to notify the administrators that they will be renewed for next year, with the specific salary and benefit terms to be determined later. This is especially true in years where the teachers’ contract is being negotiated as it is imperative to have the teachers’ contract settled first before setting the financial compensation for our administrators and non-certified staff.
4. Additionally, last year our administrators did not receive a salary increase and they picked up 5% of the cost for family group health insurance coverage. In the Board’s original motion this past Wednesday, next year our administrators will not receive a salary increase and they will pick up 5% of the cost for family dental coverage (this 5% pick up will save the District $269.28).
Thus, our administrators will be effectively seeing a cut in their total compensation for two consecutive years. While no salary increase can be justified on the current state of the economy, I did question the fairness of singling out only one category of employees for having their total compensation cut.
Unfortunately, my motion to amend did not receive a second and, therefore, was not voted on. Their original motion then passed by a 6-1 vote (I was the only dissenting vote).
Two ways to stay connected:
- Sign up for breaking news on Frankfort, Mokena and Tinley Park Patch
- Like Frankfort, Mokena and Tinley Park Patch on Facebook
Rose C
8:32 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
This is a little one sided, don't you think?
jd
11:59 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
I'm glad they approved those administrators with what schools they are going to be at, this district has had enough upheaval. I wonder what that Sean has up his sleeve, it seems he wants to continue the upheaval in this district, how interesting
Square Dad
2:37 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
jd:
I think you need to re-read the article. You seem to have missed the part about their legal counsel advising them not to include that information in the contracts.
jd
4:06 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I did not miss what "maybe" legal counsel said, unless you are "Doyle" you have no idea what "legal counsel maybe" said. Unlike you, I don't believe everything I read.
Square Dad
8:51 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
jd, so why don't you contact the superintendent to see whether nor not it's true? Or better yet, go to the next board meeting and ask the board directly.
You shouldn't believe everything you read, but you should also do your own research.
Rose C
4:33 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I find Doyle's point #4 to be a little weak when you consider administrators' salaries. I think making in the high 5 or low 6 figure range, a small contribution to their health insurance should not leave anyone destitute.
Citizen
8:58 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Point # 4 does appear to be very minor, but point 2 certainly appears to be valid.
Stability is great, but the District needs to the flexibility to move Principals and Assistant Principals around the District as needed.
Rose C
11:13 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Why Citizen? It's a one year contract. Even if something catastrophic happened, don't you think that the administrators are team players? That if something needed to be done they would step up to the plate for the good of the kids? If not, then are they really the type of people that you would want to be offering a contract to at all?
Citizen
9:05 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I would hope that all of our current administrators are "team players", and would step up and move to a new school if they were asked. But I would also feel better knowing that 161 has the authority to mandate it. Several of the current administrators may choose to seek employment elsewhere next year (we seem to have a very high turnover rate). Why do we pay for legal advice if we don't use it?
taxpayer
11:18 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Our teachers make a LOT LESS then the administrators AND pay for their family medical. I think its about time we get rid of the perk the administrators get of the district paying 100% for family medical. OK, so now we pay 95% of their family medical? I'm sorry, but in this day and age where everyone is struggling, that is where our district needs to make a cut. When we are seeing healthcare insurance rising rapidly, that is a pretty nice perk we tax payers pay.
paul
6:47 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
"...will save the District $269.28""
Well Done. Toothpicks for everyone.
nick
7:45 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Teacher and administrator salary can be found here:
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/ftf/ftf_salaries.php
Donny
9:54 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Nick-I've seen you post this same response and link and multiple stories...what is your point? Are you suggesting that it is unfair how much some teachers and admins make? Jealous? If you want that kind of pay, get into education.