Read the Landmark story on Supe Lamberson's new contract. What in the hell is going on? Fifteen hundred a day? For what? I mean really, suppose you didn't have any Superintendent, wouldn't it all still work. Please, read the Landmark article - and look at the escalator clause and percentage increase - The taxpayer's ought to get a rope fand hunt down the people that approved this kind of deal. I mean, what impact does the Supe have directly on any kid in school? Cut up the dough and give it to the teachers on Merit, and that's fine with me. But this? Think back to when you were in school, did you even know the Supe's name? Saw him once or twice, maybe. I'm not complaining about the person here, just the absolutely ridiculous, profligate spending on Admin salaries. This has really got to stop. The resident/taxpayers have had it.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
D 96 - Dollars and Sense...
(48 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Jul 1, 2009 09:35 #
-
Maybe we can convince Dr. Lamberson to make a trip to Home Depot for some weed spray for the front of Ames with his new found bounty. This was done to help him max out his pension at retirement - another hidden expense that we will share in. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted Wednesday Jul 1, 2009 09:42 # -
Absolutely shocking. Teachers salaries also seem out of whack. Some RB teachers make a fortune, while other teachers at the elementary level seem underpaid. I understand that teachers with masters degrees and and seniority should get a bump, but to pay a High School teacher $120+ is excessive.
Posted Wednesday Jul 1, 2009 09:57 # -
What's even more frustrating is that the state legislature, for once, actually did the right thing and enacted a law that imposes penalties on districts that raise administrators' salaries more than 6 percent in the four years preceding retirement. So, D96 and Lamberson did a workaround and gave him a new contract that provides for the 20 percent bump five years prior to the end of the new contract. Since he's 54 now, it seems likely that he will be retiring after the contract expires. And, to make it even more galling, both the district and Lamberson stated that the bump was done to avoid the penalties imposed by the law:
"I think the conversations that have been going on for some time were that if this is an end-of-career cycle, what would be appropriate comparable to what's happening in other districts," Lamberson said.
If Lamberson, 54, decides to retire in 2013, he can do so only after Oct. 31, which is the end date of the contract. The date was chosen, according to James Schraidt, the chairman of the school board's finance committee, because that was the date at which the district would not be penalized by Lamberson taking early retirement.
Posted Wednesday Jul 1, 2009 10:01 # -
Commonsense -
Why should teachers with masters degrees and seniority get pay increases? Are they better teachers? If so, what proof do you have?
Posted Wednesday Jul 1, 2009 12:28 # -
As a firm believer in the wisdom of doing things together, I have always considered governments the best alternative in forming orderly systems of cohabitation, a smart invention in our ongoing experiment called civilization. I think taxes are necessary and good, and have, in the past, not minded paying them.
Enter District 96 School Board. Who thought the Village government had a spending problem?
With the benefit of doubt, the pay raise granted to the D96 superintendant needs a lot of explanation. Without such explanation, that new contract is inconceivable.
1. Consider the current economic crises we are in, and the amount of job losses, home foreclosures, furlough days, and salary cuts that are occurring daily. Not acknowledging this situation by granting pay increases is insensitive at best, imprudent for sure, and hurtful to the school’s mission at worst. Is this a different group of people than the one I saw during the election campaign? The people that ran promised leadership, the Board that voted for the new contract demonstrated, baring information to the contrary certainly not evident in today’s Landmark, utter incapacity and lack of control.
2. Consider the statement in the Landmark article “…it was the right decision for continuity of leadership in the district”. However, the board bumped the superintendent’s salary 20 percent 5 years prior to the end of the new contract, in anticipation that he will retire in 2013 and would thus be bound by legislative limits of annual pay increases. If they so badly want to keep him, why did they just incentivize him to retire early?
3. Consider the Board’s assertion that they “felt that this is what we needed to do to come to a contract” in light of the fact that the superintendant accepted a job in 2005 for a fraction of what he is now going to receive. It appears fair to assume that he did not have many better offers back in 2005 when he left Lake Forest High School, given that he accepted a pay cut of almost $100,000. Did he become the equivalent of a superintendent prom king during his 4 years in Riverside? Does every other school district desperately want to have him now?
4. The assertion that “[the pay raise]…would be appropriate comparing to what’s happening in other districts”, as stated by the superintendant in the Landmark article, demonstrates an astounding unwillingness to act responsibly. Just because the other guys are getting it, I should get it too, is a scenario I am well familiar with. My kids try it out with me all the time, something I don’t really blame them for, since they are kids. However, I have a good answer: no.
Why does the Board not negotiate with the superintendent, or does it? Does the Board or administration negotiate with its vendors, or is it D96 policy to offer 20% pay increases to anyone rendering services, like its principals, teachers, and custodial staff?5. As a body of elected officials that report to the taxpayers, the Board has an obligation, at a minimum a moral one, to explain and properly document the exact increase in the superintendants productivity and leadership that warrants the pay raise. Has anybody heard or seen such an explanation?
Again, I am willing to give the Board the benefit of the doubt. However, if there are no convincing answers, I hope school district parents will band together to make their dissatisfaction know in the clearest and strongest terms possible. Sustainability is not only an environmental concept, it applies to finances just as much.
Posted Wednesday Jul 1, 2009 23:48 # -
Maybe District 96 should change it's policy from "No child left behind" to "No dollar left behind". I must be getting old because I thought I remembered that a cornerstone of the recent Board election was FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Posted Friday Jul 3, 2009 08:11 # -
No dollar left behind, good one! I was watching a piece last night about the education of Rwandan children with the One Laptop per Child initiative. I wondered if our kids needed a program akin to one in a poor African country.
Public sector unions are in la-la land. Teachers unions are the prime offenders. Mayor Daley is taking on the police, but no one yet has the nerve for the teachers. In my opinion, they should be first. Chancellor Michelle Rhee of Washington DC is, I hope, the future.
Lamberson, don't come looking for any more money.
Posted Friday Jul 3, 2009 09:18 # -
I went to the Champions website to look at other super salaries in IL.
In 2008 the highest paid is Niles Twp super, with 4,671 kids, he is paid $411,000Other notable numbers for elementary school districts
Palatine 12,400 kids $327,000
Schaumburg 12,800 kids $276,000
Cicero 12,200 kids $284,000
Hinsdale 4,000 kids $187,000Riverside 1,378 kids, $194,000
Posted Friday Jul 3, 2009 14:41 # -
This is irresponsible government by any measure. There is absolutely no justification for this type of pay package given the size of District 96 by students, number of employees or improvements in test scores. He inherited a well oiled machine. District 96 was in excellent financial condition and produced top educational outcomes in 2004.
Did anyone on the school board or its consultants or anyone connected with this deal stop to figure out how this will be paid for once tax assessments show the 20-30% decline in assessed value at the end of this year and kicking in next year when the 2009 taxes are paid?
What type of precedent doe this set for negotiations on the next teachers union contract, the next janitor’s contract? He got his so how do you say you can’t have yours? Once his contract ends how do you hire a new superintendent for less money?
It was Superintendent Lamberson’s idea to saddle the district with the One to One computer spending program that commits District 96 to spending $150,000 per year on computers and upwards of $200,000 - $300,000 per year for maintaining and administering that program. All that in addition to a giant pay increase for the Central school principal last year.
How will all these fixed costs be paid for?
Let's not forget the biggest issue facing the State of Illinois. The Teachers Retirement System like all investors the past few years has lost large portions of its capital. Those losses will have to be made up through ever increasing taxes and squeeze out funds for people in real need.
Lastly, what does it say about the entire school board that they would willingly circumvent a State of Illinois law so that they could bless the rest of Illinois taxpayers with their profligacy. Is cheating now condoned at District 96? The structure of the contract may be legal but that does not make it right.
Posted Tuesday Jul 7, 2009 08:03 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.