Friday, April 30, 2010

NASD Superintendent Gets 4.2% Retroactive Pay Raise

The Morning Call reports that NASD Superintendent Vic Lesky was awarded a 4.2% retroactive pay raise, which will increase his annual salary to $149,708 (read the article here).

In the article it notes:

Lesky's salary ranks in the middle among the salaries paid to superintendents in the Lehigh Valley's 14 school districts, the board was told.

Bethlehem Area pays the highest ($172,744), and Bangor Area the lowest ($121,095), according to figures Lesky provided the board.

I’m not sure what constitutes the “Lehigh Valley”, because the Lehigh Valley Conference has 12 schools representing 8 school districts and the Diocese of Allentown and the Colonial League has  11 school districts, the Diocese, and one private school.

Bangor, the lowest according to the reported numbers, is close in size to Nazareth. In the LVC, of the 12 schools, only Central Catholic, Bethlehem Catholic, and Whitehall have a smaller student population than Nazareth.

The highest salary goes to Bethlehem, which has to manage two high schools, four middle schools, 17 elementary schools, and a pre-k (view a school directory here). By comparison Nazareth has one HS, one MS, and four elementary schools (3 k-3 and one 4-6).

The reason for Lesky’s raise was the addition of the intermediate school according to the article.

At a time when most people get no raise, unemployment hovers at 10%, and the school hasn’t balanced its budget, it seems a 4.2% raise retroactive to July is a bit much. And I don’t blame Lesky. As an individual I’d try to get the best pay I could without losing my job, but I do question our Board for making this decision and have to wonder what information they studied that made them believe this salary was warranted for management of this size district.

Posted via email from Ross Nunamaker

6 comments:

Scott Hartner said...

Do I really even need to comment on this?
I just tasted my breakfast again....
When is this going to stop? They've already admitted that our facilities are too big due to DECLINING student numbers. Yet we keep spending money on admin salaries and sports facilities. If this extra spending would prepare my kids better for college, I might be able to swallow it.

Clem said...

Simply a reward for spending and spending and spending. Certainly can't be for stellar CEO performance or fiscal management.

The problem is that, in the unaccountable public sector, activity is often substituted for accomplishment. People "deserve" raises, just because a date on the calendar passes.

Read the E-T article, especially Heller's justification. Not surprising that it's only money to the Board VP, since he benefits greatly from the teacher pension in his household. Nobody likes to spend public money more than someone who has always had the privilege of paying his taxes with it (See the deposed former president of the Board for another example).

School Board types don't even consider the ramifications of such a decision. For instance, do you think that they even debated that
this size of raise becomes, in effect, an accelerator for the related pension? A pension that is to be paid from a fund with massive problems that are growing worse by the day? Nah. It was "Hey, we built a school, he's our boy, he deserves it. Besides, it won't affect us, let someone else worry about it, just like the debt for all the projects which we can point to as justification for the raise in the first place. Besides, we are only raising taxes around 3%, the whiners should be THANKING US!"

And Scott, this type of thing will never stop. Never. Most people won't even know this happened. The Board gets that, and feeds on the apathy.

SueBDynamo said...

I saw this in the paper. i was going to mention this on your last post, so i'm glad you got to it.

Not only no annual raise (3%), but my Co.'s union narrowly avoided a raise in health insurance costs. Where are we going to get the money to pay this guy, when most can't get a damn cost of living increase?

I can't imagine a salary that large in NEED of any raise, but my knowledge of the trials and tribulations in that tax bracket is limited. It seems worse than failed banks giving bonuses because it's so close!

Arthur said...

School Board to taxpayers, "Let them eat cake.!"

Anonymous said...

All I can say is WOW!

It is amazing how this board and Dr. Vic just really don't give a rat's behind about the people that elect and pay them. Oh yes, that applies to the teachers as well.

We have 10% unemployment. Most people outside the public sector have either taken pay cuts or have not seen an increase in years. Oh yes, out benefits out of pocket costs keep going up, so you can count that as a pay cut.

Don't give me the argument that more pay equals better education, it has been proven to be complete BS. It is just a really good tactic to get more money. BTW, out test scores haven't really improved, so you have failed to live up to your end of the bargain.

From Dr. Vic down the ranks to the folks that maintain the buildings, you work for the TAXPAYERS, we don't work for YOU. WE are not an endless stream of money that you can tap into whenever you want.

It is time the district faced the reality of a declining economy, and start making cuts, not find ways to increase spending.

Scott said...

UNBELIEVEABLE!! This coupled with the report that they are building a new fieldhouse and weightroom at the intermediate school. UNBELIEVEABLE!!