Dr. Lesky is to be given a retroactive pay raise to July of 2006 on the same night the Board is to approve the teacher's contract (see below).
The cynic in me would say that there is something strange about this. Had the pay raise to Dr. Lesky been provided in the midst of the teacher's contract negotiations (on or about July 2006), it would have impacted the discussions, but by waiting until after the teachers' approved the contract and then granting it retroactively, it seems the Board and Admin have put one over on the teachers and the taxpayers.
Here is the proposed resolution:
- A. Approve an increase in the compensation for the Superintendent of Schools to One Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty One Dollars ($127,541.00), with the previous contributions of the 403b retirement plan in the amount of Three Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($3,800.00) included as part of the total salary, both items being retroactive to July 1, 2006.
- B. Based upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of School and Board Secretary/Business Administrator, the Board of Directors hereby approves a negotiated agreement with the Nazareth Area Education Association that establishes salaries and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the time period of September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2011.
14 comments:
kelley joseph-
I don't see a problem here but maybe I need more info-
Seems an act of good faith or prudence of sorts that Dr Lesky's raise, which was awarded him last summer, but put on hold until the teachers contract was solidified. The boss doesn't get his dollars until the staff is appeased?
As for his salary amount there was lots of conjecture this fall about it. When I researched the 2nd asst super. position with the other surrounding 16 districts in October I also looked at the salary amts of the other supers. Dr Leskys salary falls right into the middle- not frugal, not extravagant.
Allentown 145K
East Penn 125K
Parkland 135.5K
So Lehigh 117K
Bethlehem 142K
Easton 120K
Northampton 125K
Saucon Vly 125K
In fact these numbers came off a website for 06 and showed Dr Lesky at 118K so some of the cited salaries may actually be higher now.
Have to say I do not grasp the problem with this board action Ross.
And hallelujah to the teachers contract resolution!!!
The teachers have a contract. What are the odds that they will get a raise during the contract outside the terms laid out? Not very good.
Dr. Lesky has a contract. Maybe his contract says that his raises must be approved on an annual basis, if so, this should be referenced in the resolution (in accordance with the contract of xyz the board resolves to...) and it shouldn't have been done three months before the end of the fiscal year retroactive nine months, it should have been done at the start of it.
One of the arguments made by the NAEA was that admin received raises that far exceeded what teachers were being offered. Had this been approved then it would have been clear proof.
This is not the first raise he has received either as I recall.
You note his salary was listed at 118,000 in 2006, now it is going to be 127,000 for 2006-2007.
That is a significant increase - $9,000 in one year, or 7.6%.
It is also higher than Easton, Northampton, and East Penn, which as you note may have changed since last year, but as we all know, Nazareth does not have as many students, employees, or buildings to manage as these districts either.
Appease the staff and glorify the ruler does not seem to be a prudent way to run any organization, especially one with a staff that may feel they were not given fair treatment during the contract negotiations.
Finally, an increase that far exceeds what most taxpayers can expect in any given year would require near miraculous accomplishments in my book. What we've got is a building that is going to cost us millions and may eventually result in reduced funds for classroom education.
Maybe I'm way off base on this and I'm not saying some form of annual raise isn't merited. I for one would love to get a $9,000 jump so I'm not blaming Dr. Lesky at all, just as I didn't blame the teachers for trying to get what they could. The "blame" here is with the Board for both the action and timing of it.
kelley again-
Dr Lesky received his raise in July via contract negotiations of his own with the board (my understanding only) and there was a bruha in the fall about 8% raise during the teachers conflict
There was never any revelation that his raise had not actually been received--
prudent part in my thinking is that his raise was awarded on paper but not actualized until all contracts were solidified---
guess I'm trying to say is it is a moot point at this juncture as he negotiated his raise last 8-9 months ago and if there were public exception to his raise it should have been done then rather than now--
but just my opinion---
How can there be hiring freezes, lack of classroom supplies, and pay raises at the same time?
Dr. Lesky is mediocre at best. There is nothing in his background, experience (shop teacher) or his performance at Nazareth that indicates he should receive that kind of salary. As far as comparison with the other school districts, you must ask how much experience each super. has? He is unfortunately not a leader to this school district. The tax payers do not get their money's worth from him.
My question to the board would be "what is the justification for a pay raise at this time? Please let us here from the board their reasons why a pay raise should be given, when this money could be used to help with the new school or even better, school supplies that are needed. Please contact the board for their comments, we would all love to hear from them. PS.....you should let more people know about your website here, good info.
Did you here about Lower Nazareth approving 400 new homes? That could be 800 new kids in our schools. Where are they going to go? Is the board planning for this future growth? Does the board meet w/ these townships to discuss the impact on the schools, infrastructure? Does the board demand that these builders contribute to the building on new schools? Just some thoughts
11:06 - first off thanks for the comments in regard to the site. Mostly this has been a word of mouth effort and the response from the community has been great. Next week will be one year online and I get about as many visitors a day now as I did the entire first month.
I think the question for the board is a good one. In light of all the fiscal issues the amount of this raise is pretty significant. I'd guess 3% is the most you'd find in the private sector unless there was some real significant success being rewarded and that is often in a one time bonus rather than a pay raise.
The Board has been planning for future growth and their solution is the new MS building. As was argued on this site unsuccessfully a new elementary school would have provided more flexibility to address enrollment at a lower cost, but the Board determined the MS was the best option.
The problem is that the NASD will have very limited funds to build again until they clear debt. As I recall they will have 7-10M and another 7-10M that would be within the debt ceiling for "emergencies". That gives them 14-20M, not nearly enough to build a new building with.
The NASD by law, cannot require developers to pay money toward buildings. Rep. Grucela proposed a law that would have created an impact fee, but it died at the end of the last session.
Even if it were passed now, and I wouldn't give up the money if it were, so much development has already been missed out on, I wonder how much could be raised from this type of fee going forward. I don't remember exactly but I think the impact fee was about $1500 per home at 400 homes it would amount to $600,000. A school would cost about $40 million (very rough estimate).
Unquestionably a big problem. And in light of it makes the super salary seem like peanuts. The trick is with all these fixed costs (debt, buildings etc) we need to watch every other penny to ensure that the focus is on the classroom and student and not non-learning expenses.
I'm not sure how much the salary has gone up over the past several years (if this is a "catch-up"), but it would seem if he's got a contract you don't up it until the contract is renegotiated.
I also didn't think the timing was very good. If I was a teacher I would take offense at this raise coming after they approved a contract with an average raise at half his and the board said in effect they've given everything they could.
Anon 11:09-
Answers/comments to your questions:
1) We could have even more homes/kids if the development at the racetrack ever materializes. At present, there are some development hurdles there (sewer/water/sanitation, etc) but it's definitely on the radar screen.
2) Currently those kids would go to LNES. However, there would probably be some redistricting (which we are doing currently)
3) The board is (from what I have been able to determine) on top of the area development. They have projections of students (taking into account new developments, etc) at the schools going out until 2016.
4) I can't speak to whether the board members meet with the different townships/borough reps, but some will usually attend those meetings.
5) Currently, there is LEGAL means to "force" developers to pay what are called impact fees to the school districts in which they build. Rep. Richard Grucela has introduced legislature to try and get these developers to do this, but it's a longshot to pass.
Right now, the townships can make the developers pay for road improvements, sidewalks, etc. However, what I have seen (strictly my opinion) is that most developers pay a "modest" fee or set aside a "small" amount of land for a park in lieu of really big improvements ,especially sidewalks (Up here in Upp. Naz. Twsp, I know of few, if any developments with sidewalks, even though they are required by the Twnsp). Sigh....
Welcome aboard. If you have questions to the board, I really suggest you email them or better yet, attend a school board meeting. There's one on Monday (3/19) at 7:30 in the board room at the Admin offices (behind the HS).
Ross-
I see you beat me to it by about 3 minutes...
Was my first look today and I was going to write about the story in the MC on inflation eating away at pay when I saw the most recent posts myself.
Yesterday I shoveled and played with the kids in the snow. Am planning on exerting much less energy today;-)
You got your paper?!!!
I didn't get it (MC) yesterday, but I thought, "hey, it snowed, I'll cut the delivery person some slack".
Today, it wasn't there at 7:30. Waited until, 8AM, still not there, called MC. They assured me it would be out in 60 minutes or less.
At 10AM this morning, still no paper. Called again (got a different person), they assured me again, 60 minutes.
Well, now it's noon. And still no paper.... I'm not happy.
As for the shoveling, I had a very nice neighbor do my driveway with his snowblower while my son and I were out at a kid's b-day part ;)
Here in the borough they drive and throw for the door. Ours has a pretty accurate throw.
Maybe they tried it out your way so you didn't have to walk out to the mailbox? Yours probably got gobbled up by that snow blower. You'll find it come spring when this snow melts;-)
Last follow-up on my paper situation from this weekend.
Well, at noon on Sunday I called the MC. This time, there was nobody there to take my call. I went to Mcall.com to but the only thing I could do there (since it was after 10:30AM) was request a refund. I didn't really want a refund. I wanted my *@$#^!! paper. So I wrote a letter to the MC editor.
Went out for a late lunch/early dinner for my wife's Bday Sunday. Got back home about 4:30-5:00PM. No paper. When I went to close the garage doors at about 6PM, I notice a paper (in the plastic bag) laying in my driveway. So it must have been delivered between 5 and 6PM.
This morning (monday) my monday paper is in my box. Got home from work this evening and in the box was the saturday paper. Go figure.
Post a Comment