Pay freezes and superintendents....

I have nothing personal against Brian Coleman, the Cary District 26 superintendent.  I know that may be hard to believe as I publicly called for him to be fired at the Community Engagement Committee meeting last week.  I was a little emotional, I admit.  In fact, I almost came to tears talking about my 2nd grade son who doesn't like school.  The fact that there is no longer art, music or gym in the grade schools doesn't help his situation.  When it comes to my kids, I get a little more emotional than someone perhaps watching this debacle from the sideline.

At the last board meeting, a Cary resident stood up to publicly defend Brian Coleman, saying that he was disgusted by the anger directed at the superintendent.  No doubt, he was referring to me, among others, who have taken public swipes at the superintendent.  He talked about how Brian Coleman was an outstanding teacher for his daughter.  That may be true; I personally have no knowledge of Brian Coleman outside of his superintendency.  He may have been a fabulous teacher.  I don't know.

This is really not about Brian Coleman, however.  It is about the Board of Education and what they say and do.  This is about the inconsistencies in actions.

But let's be clear:  in this time of financial trouble, the Board of Education has been very generous to Brian Coleman.

This year, Brian Coleman's contract was renewed with the school board.  He will continue to be our superintendent until June, 2016.

According to reports, Brian Coleman "voluntarily" took a pay freeze for 2011-12.  Therefore, his base salary continues to be a little over $147,000.  With the other benefits he receives, his salary is boosted to $181,000 or so.

But is this really a pay freeze?

For the next four years of his tenure in District 26 beyond this school year, Brian Coleman's salary will be tied to the consumer price index.  This means that he could receive a boost next year.  Who knows?  The CPI for 2010 was 1.6%.  Which means that Brian Coleman would have received a 1.6% raise.  If the CPI for 2011 is 3.6%, that means the superintendent gets a 3.6% raise (If the CPI declines, does his salary decline, too?  We don't know, as the contract specifics were not made public).

Plus, according to his contract, he can get 4% extra each year if he completes some performance-based goals.

That means that Brian Coleman in actuality is eligible for close to $6000 in raises each year outside of CPI "adjustments." Even though he "voluntarily" contributes 10% to his board-paid health insurance, the superintendent can actually get pay raises each year.

Ooops.  Not actually a "freeze" is it?

The kicker is this: the teachers have offered a pay freeze as well.  In fact, they have offered a "hard freeze," meaning there is no increase based on CPI.  There is no step increase either.  (This was the situation with the offer made on August 9.  This may have changed, as the CEA has since offered another proposal.  But the details are not yet public.)

When the teachers offered that pay freeze, the board responded that a pay "freeze" is not a "cut."  They need cuts, they keep telling the teachers and the public.  Brian Coleman himself stated at a Finance Committee meeting in February, "We have to live within our budget." 

So why was a pseudo-freeze acceptable for Brian Coleman's contract?  After all, a "freeze is not a cut" they keep saying.  And as we have seen, Brian Coleman really isn't experiencing a pay freeze, after all.

There is no consistency on the part of the Board of Education.  The words and explanations that are offered by the board are not backed up by facts.

Nor are they backed up by actions.

And that is the problem.