Updated: 4/27/2008
District's secret deal not the only injustice
By Jerry Poling
Leader-Telegram staff
It's been a week since one of my co-workers, Julian Emerson, wrote a story about upsetting things going on in the Eau Claire school district.
First, I'd like to thank Julian for spending months on that story. He logged many extra hours because he knew something wasn't right and wouldn't let it go.
By exposing a former school board member and a former superintendent who tried to pull a fast one on taxpayers so that the superintendent could start getting retirement benefits before he retired, he made me proud to be a journalist.
However, I'd like to thank him not as a colleague but as a district taxpayer. His story revealed how these officials potentially cost us $90,000 at a time when the district can use every penny.
No one knows that better than the former superintendent, Bill Klaus, and the former school board member, Carol Olson. This is at least similar to white-collar crime, which occurs when people in power get a little full of themselves and abuse that power. City police are investigating.
The scheme has raised serious questions about how the district operates and damaged the trust that taxpayers have in our school stewards. Equally upsetting is that officials tried to hide this shameful episode from their bosses - us - by refusing Julian's requests for public records.
Questionable stipends
A week later, part of the reason I'm still upset goes beyond the attempted backdoor deal. Julian's story brought to light another subject that should have taxpayers seeing red every time they pay their property tax bills, a good chunk of which goes to schools.
Why, oh why, is Klaus getting money to retire early in the first place?
When Klaus, 53, does retire at 55, he will get very generous retirement benefits. Apparently that isn't enough for someone who was making nearly $142,000 a year (before he took a cut in pay to become a principal). He also will get $45,000 a year extra for five years - the stipend - for hanging it up early. That's $225,000 for not working. Unbelievable.
I know the theory behind the stipend. If a worker at the high end of the pay scale has incentive to retire early - the stipend - he or she can be replaced by a worker at the low end of the pay scale, thereby saving the district money in the long run.
I have two problems with the early-retirement stipend. First, it's just plain absurd to pay people not to work. The real world doesn't operate this way. Most people couldn't dream of having a deal so sweet.
Teachers and other district officials also get the early-out bonuses.
Second, in this case, the early-retirement save-some-money stipend theory has failed miserably. Klaus isn't being replaced by someone at a lower pay scale. Just the opposite. The district has given his replacement, Ron Heilmann, an increase of more than $20,000 for the coming school year. The following school year, Heilmann gets an additional $6,000.
That amounts to a $47,000 increase from Heilmann's previous superintendent job in Oshkosh, more than an entire salary for most people.
So Heilmann's salary jump means that Klaus' early-retirement stipend helps only Klaus. A total waste of $225,000 of taxpayer money. And to think he even wanted it early.
Waste at the top
Heilmann also will be up for that early-retirement bonus in 10 years equal to 25 percent of his salary. Not a bad gig.
As a taxpayer, I have other issues with the contract Heilmann received. For example, does he really need a $400 a month allowance for in-district travel? Even if we hit $4 a gallon gas, to use up all his travel money he would have to drive roughly 500 miles a week around the city. He'd be driving three or four hours a day.
On a lesser scale, this is a waste of more money and lining the pockets of someone who simply doesn't need it.
As a taxpayer, I can't help but wonder if district officials are focused on children getting the best education for the dollar or just making sure that people at the top are fat and happy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
As a taxpayer and a teacher this overstuffing of the fat cuts is doubly frustrating. Myself and my colleagues have to write grants to get basic equipment for our classrooms. If we want to attend staff development oustide the district, as I do each year, the district covers nothing - not the cost of the sub, not for gas, not for meals, nada. When I ask for an aide to help in a class of 28 with three of whom are cognitively disabled I'm told "no can do." Why did this currrent board approve the new sups' contract? Did they read it? $400 a month for in-district travel expenses. Give me a break. This district remains strong and many good things happen in our schools each day and I am happy to teach in it as well as have my child in it. I hope the new sup will restore some dignity and honor to the leadership at the top.
For anyone that remembers the first reference to this steaming pile, about halfway down:
'NOTE: The ongoing closed session Agenda item labelled "Compensation Issue Involving District Employee" has been the source of much outrageous speculation. Immediately prior to attending the Work Session detailed above I received an amazing phone call from our former Superintendent, Dr. Klaus, who attempted to explain the situation to me. The only comment from my husband (who heard the phone conversation as well) is straight from the movie "The Big Lebowski": "Dude, new s*#t has come to light." Much more on this to come.'
This is the referenced clip from The Big Lebowski.
So in this article we have this one line:
Teachers and other district officials also get the early-out bonuses.
There is no discussion as to whether anyone thinks this is objectionable, only that it is wrong for those on the high end of the pay scale. This is not something that only the top people got, it is something everyone got before 2004. It feels to me like there is a lot of class warfare in this community discussion.
Was is right for teachers and wrong for administrators? And who will compare what it costs for teachers to get this on an annual basis compared to what it costs for administrators?
Obviously it is wrong, maybe illegal, to try to get it early. That goes without saying.
(And yes, $400/month for gas sounds like a ton. Is the guy commuting back to his old town?)
Don't be too sure that the new guy will do anything. He isn't too popular in his hometown. On the brighter side, that means he won't be driving back and forth burning up the allowance.
I heard that his contract was also under the table and he basically drafted it and the BOE rubber stamped it.
If the ECBOE is equal to the liberal OASD BOE, we are in trouble.
I don't know Mr. Klaus personally but am willing to assume that he is an honorable person at least until proven otherwise. With that assumption I have tired to put myself in his place and conjecture why he assumed that ECASD should
give him his early retirement stipend early- not only before age 55 but before retiring.
I think the key is the state retirement forumla that is based on salary at the time of retirement (actually an average of several last years).
Since he was going down from a Superintendent's pay to that of a principal he would be concerned that his state retirement benefits (not just the stipend) be based more on his pay as superintendent than that as principal and was looking for some way to compensate for that. One could argue that it was his choice to make that switch and should have considered the financial consequences as part of his decision. There may have been other personal reasons and mitigating circumstances as well.
At any rate it is clear that the process was wrong and certainly open to ethical questions at least, and the Lebowski ingredient hit the fan . Now the BOE is left to clean it up in some way, a job that would have been a lot easier had they been informed of the impending mess.
But let's not start the Lebowski treatment on the new guy until he has some time
to drive around the district and evirons making friends and getting acquainted with the larger community.
Jim, it's in the contract. His retirement benefits are based on the higher superintendent's salary.
I can think of several major decisions/events where Klaus and past boards were not up front about all the facts. It was really quite common, they did it a lot. So I have a different view of how honorable people like Klaus, Olson, and O'Brien are.
You want to know what I think happened?
I think there was an understanding between Klaus and some board members, not all, that he would claim to be retired and collect the stipend. What got in the way was what tripped up Butler when he was going for the interim superintendent's position. There is a legal definition of retirement, and it involves vacating your office and not showing up for work. That was a surprise to Butler and it cost him the job.
It probably was a surprise to Klaus too, and when he realized he couldn't claim to be retired he went to Plan B, the backdated document.
That's just a guess on my part. But I think it's more credible than the bold faced falsehood that it was about survivor's benefits.
Even in court it is acceptable, when presented with a dog turd, that looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and was discovered in an area frequented by dogs, to proceed as if it is in fact a dog turd.
And as for he BOE cleanup, if they had dealt with this properly in October then none of this would be happening. I know there are people that are skeptical of closed meeting leaks, but all I know is that there were at least four BOE members in support of sweeping this under the rug. I think voters deserve to know what happened in that meeting in October.
So did Butler never retire and then get rehired? Or did he only get rehired for the deputy job because he was somehow not eligible for the superintendent's? He was clear from the start about wanting to retire, but also wanting to work, so did he somehow think that he didn't need to be gone for the 30 days because of that?
And, aren't the stipends and retirement benefits based on the three highest earning years, not the most recent?
Bob,
I read the contract, but I believe those refer to the post retirement benefits ECASD controls. I don't think an employer can determine state ETF benefits.
Dr. Butler did retire but had to wait 30 days to apply for an ECASD job based on state retirement law. He was eligible and did apply for the interim Superindent position but was not selected. He later applied for the interim Deputy Supt position and was selected.
The average of last three years applies to the ETF retirement and has nothing to do with the ECASD stipends and post retirement benefits.
Butler 'retired' in April of last year, with the intention of collecting his stipend in addition to the as interim superintendent's salary. But, as Jim noted, in order to be legally retired he has to clear out for 30 days and stop doing his job. Which turned out to be a problem for him.
After he was not selected for the interim superintendent's position he did vacate and stop going to work. After the proper period of time had passed he was hired as interim deputy superintendent. Click on the Interim Deputy Superintendent tag and read between the lines a little.
You know Jim, I think you're right, it was about the ETF benefits. The plan was to 'retire' and lock in the higher ETF benefits, without actually leaving the job. Once that became an issue, as it unexpectedly did with Butler, Plan B was hatched.
Post a Comment