Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Busy Board Meeting Tonight

The agenda for tonight's Board meeting is pretty full (although there is room on the speakers list). One item of interest is Report on the Superintendent's Contract as put forth by President Cheryl Chow. Here's part of what it says:

"I move that the Board of Directors accept the Executive Committee’s recommendations to amend the Superintendent’s employment agreement to:
1. Extend the existing employment agreement between the School District and Dr. Goodloe-Johnson to June 30, 2011;
2. Increase her salary 10% (4.4% COLA and 5.6% increase);
3. Provide for the possibility of receiving additional compensation in future years in the amount of up to10% based upon attainment of incentive goals established jointly with the Board; and
4. Provide for a mutually agreeable annual performance evaluation cycle.
I further move that the Board provide President Chow with the authority necessary to implement this action.
The School Board’s Executive Committee has been developing the Superintendent’s annual evaluation, and believes that changes to the terms of the Superintendent’s existing employment agreement are warranted.
It is in the best interest of Seattle Public Schools to have an employment agreement with the Superintendent that is commensurate with that of her peers, and reflects the joint desires of the Board and the Superintendent to establish incentive goals and evaluation cycles."

Wow, that's some vote of confidence for Dr. G-J. A 10% raise in her first year and the possibility of attaining more (up to 10%) based on incentive goals (created jointly) AND a "mutually agreeable annual performance evaluation cycle"? I guess I haven't been working in awhile but this is quite the nice deal. Most people don't get to have any part in determine how or when they are assessed for performance.

It's funny because allegedly the Board is the Superintendent's boss but it doesn't quite look like it from this agreement.

Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the link to the Evaluation Summary doesn't work.


Charlie Mas said...

Why is this action item up for both introduction and a vote in the same meeting? What's the urgency that requires the short-circuiting of the usual process and timeline for action items? Where is the opportunity for public input? Where, in the Board Action Report, is the section on community engagement?


Charlie, the urgency was poor planning on the part of the Board in recognizing a year had expired and they weren't going to have another meeting until August. Of course, then again, maybe it was planned to look that way by the board.

I want to know if it is normal in the workforce to be present when the "boss" decides on your wages and evaluation needs?

I mean after all, the Superintendent was sitting right there, which board member was going to vote against her raise? They may be a "slow" group but they are not stupid, they know where they get the "bread and butter".

dan dempsey said...

Watch the meeting. This is incredible. Listen to Chris Jackins and Charlie both address this introduction/action slam dunk.

Be sure and catch Mike DeBell's lame comment on why it was necessary to do this in one move.

Then listen to Cheryl Chow mention data driven decision making and the need for improved community input, while allowing no input. What data prompts this raise in pay?? RBIs and HR production .. I must have missed it.

Did MG-Js agent ask for her contact to be renegotiated?

Was she threatening to sit out Spring Training? Where is the emergency I just do not get it.

May be time for circulating another recall.

What a farce... talk about the need for improved community input while extended the Super's contract a year and raising her salary $25,000 per annum. No community input allowed.

In the search for role models we have the SPS School Board, a group that obeys rules only when it is convenient for them.

This was totally fraudulent again.
Suck it up tax payers as the Board throws $25,000 away for no apparent reason.

Gee Seattle Math skills are really bad at all levels.

dan dempsey said...

Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the link to the Evaluation Summary doesn't work.

If it worked maybe the pay raise would have been $30,000 instead of $25,000

Denise Gonzalez-Walker said...

When I saw this news post-meeting, I felt blindsided. What the heck's going on? Did Gates offer G-J a job at his foundation? Was she threatening to run for state superintendent? (I say this partly in jest--and also based on her responses reported in Wednesday's PI article on her:

Unfortunately, I don't believe surprises like these do much to build trust, confidence in the district.

Why not tie G-J's raises to those ambitious academic targets in her Strategic Plan?

dan dempsey said...


I believe the future raises are tied to the ambitious academic plan.

I have no idea what this raise was tied to other than public ignorance and no math plan worth the infamous plugged nickel.

You hit the nail on the head as it is another giant step down in public confidence.