I haven't raised this idea but others have.
My analysis of the situation is below but here's what made me a "vote of no-confidence" believer; it's a quote from a story that KIRO radio did about the State of the District speech.
He also defended his salary.
"My raise is not going to solve anywhere near any of the issues that we
have on the table," he said. "I have done better than anybody else. I'm
gonna take the smallest raise in the district, as far as I know."
Sadly, he didn't explain why he deserves a raise.
The raise is about $13K+. He is offering to donate half of it back to the General Fund for this year.
I can only gently say that $13,000 won't solve big issues but let's start a list of how it could help (because for some groups/schools, that money is a big deal.)
- fund more ORCA cards at RBHS - I am still waiting on the data from SPS about how many students it would involve and the costs. Frankly, I'm a little tired of waiting to find these answers. And, given Director Patu is working with the City to figure this out, that $13K might actually go a long way.
- help fund a new playground for one of our elementaries
- help fund ASB at one of the high schools that has the least revenue from vending machines
- help fund clothing, supplies, etc. for the homeless students of our district
I'm sure all of you could think of something equally as important.
I'm just saying that, for this time and place, and given his performance, a raise for Superintendent Nyland is neither deserved nor advisable.
It's a sad thing because, initially, I was pretty happy about Superintendent Nyland as a great pick for interim. The Board didn't go to senior management (whew) and Nyland was a seasoned administrator. I remember telling Sharon Peaslee, who was Board president at the time, that they had done a great job.
He's a nice guy, very cheerful.
He was semi-retired at the time (he is involved in a consulting business, Learning Unlimited.) He said (it was either when he came on as interim or came on as permanent - I'd have to check my notes) that he did NOT want to stay permanently. That he had mostly retired and his wife wanted it that way. Someone apparently changed their mind.
But then, the Board decided to install him permanently, right before Thanksgiving. No real notice, just "the new guy is staying." On the campaign trail, I recall Director McLaren saying , when asked about this issue, that he had been working with the Board for a couple of months and they were all impressed. A couple of months. What she seems to have missed is that one element of whether a superintendent is working out is his relationship with parents, teachers and the public. A couple of months didn't cut it for that group.
At least Susan Enfield was a known entity before she left after not being installed as permanent superintendent.
At his first Board meeting as permanent superintendent, I welcomed the Superintendent. I told him that there were a lot of people - not just the Alliance or others up the food chain - but parents and community who wanted to roll up their sleeves and help. I told him he could be a figurehead, a follower or a leader and I hoped he would be a leader.
As someone who had been in the trenches in running a district, I thought he might come in and look around and ask, "Wait, what?" about how SPS runs. I thought he might take senior management aside and tell them that their initiatives were good but that, basically, the trains aren't running on time and if the district doesn't run well, nothing else will follow.
That hasn't happened. I was hoping at his second State of the District speech that we would hear more from HIM, what he was going to want to see in the district. Instead, it sounded a lot like parroting what other people wrote. His own most significant accomplishment in almost 18 months of employment is that he has visited every school in the district. That's great but that's not bringing vision to the district.
He managed to negotiate himself quite a nice contract and that includes a yearly review. Which is where we are at today.
Our district - which patiently waits for McCleary money, which underfunds maintenance, which has growing capacity issues, which has staffing issues - is able to offer him a 5% raise. This, in addition, to a year's extension on his contract.
There has not been one document or explanation to the public why he should get this raise. I guess the Board is waiting until the vote which is heck of a late time to be giving an explanation.
The Board should say no to this and if they don't, I would support a push for a vote of no confidence on behalf of parents. If the teachers wanted to join in, great, but that's their separate call.