NASD Offers Riker Package Worth $20K more than Avg Superintendent Pay

The Express-Times reports that the Nazareth Area School District has offered incoming Superintendent Dennis Riker a 4 year package worth $150,000 per year (read the article here) to start, which is $20,000 more than the state average.

Outgoing Superintendent Vic Lesky earned $122,400 for his 2006-2007 contract (available here). At the time his pay was $15,000 higher than Whitehall-Coplay's Superintendent, which had 400 fewer students than Nazareth at the time (our enrollment has declined over the past three years) and Northampton's Superintendent was at $125,000 despite having 1100 more students (4700 vs. 5800 reported at the time).

The article notes, "Bradley said Riker isn't entitled to personal days in his contract. His benefits package is “very similar to the old superintendent contract,” Bradley said."

I find it hard to believe someone would receive no personal days in a given year, but then I looked at Lesky's contract in detail.

Lesky was entitled to 25 vacation days, a minimum of 12 holiday days, 12 sick days, and 2 personal days. Further, he and his dependents receive fully paid medical, dental, vision, and prescription.

So five years ago the Superintendent was given 51 days off, but only two were "personal" days. Plus he received fully paid healthcare benefits less a deductible, though the amount was not mentioned for himself and all dependents. I'd venture to guess that a family plan covering all of those items would be worth roughly $1600 a month and I know my prescriptions are typically $10, $30 or $50 when covered. So we're looking at another $20,000 plus in healthcare on top of the salary that many non-government and education workers would have to pay at least a portion of, out of their salary.

Ironically, the article notes:

Bradley said the goal of the contract was to provide a fair package for Riker “as well as take into effect the current economic conditions as well as provide him with a prudent contract in the district to help us with current budget restraints.”

Considering the economic conditions, for a new person with limited experience I'd be paying less than the outgoing person with ten years experience in the same role. The goal of the contract ought to have been making it fair to the taxpayer, the people paying the bill. The recipient can always say no if they believe it is unfair. Unfortunately the taxpayer can not. Maybe this is why Bradley lost the primary election.

Posted via email from Ross Nunamaker