I'm a bit late in responding to this. Pat Harvey's contract has three annual bonus provisions plus increases in base salary all tied to performance. I believe the bonus portion this year was to be $20,000. They gave her $15,000. That was the only concession to budget woes, I believe, but contracts are contracts and, unless there's a budgetary/funds availability clause also inserted, the board generally has to pony up. Obviously the bonus reduction was negotiated in a climate of budget cuts and dropping enrollment. Board members still insist that her performance warrants all of this. I believe it probably does.
Why do we not seem to flinch at the outrageous CEO pay in corporate circles, even when thousands, nay, tens of thousands in those same corporations' employ are pushed out the door? We're speaking millions here. This insistence citizens have for low salaries for public servants while tolerating the inflationary spiral executive pay in the private sector generates is beyond me. I guess people don't feel privileged to bitch about, say, the 3M Chairman's pay at $10 mil (whatever) while screaming bloody murder over the $190,000 salaries paid CEOs of major urban school districts. But guess what: the cost of your Scotch tape and all of 3M's products just jumped 3%-5%, maybe more, because of it. We just want to complain about taxes, not the prices we pay in the marketplace for far more egregious financial assault on the consumer's pocketbook. What twisted nonsense. Let's get off the public officials' cases and recognize that the same dynamic that justifies wildly disproportionate pay in the private sector - talent and incentive - needs to work in the public sector to assure us the kind of competence and performance Wall Street demands of corporations. Scrimp on that talent, and you get what you deserve: lousy governance and lousy management, after which you'll want to throw the rascals out. This is the epitome of a "no-win" circumstance. Why anyone gets into public service when the public treats them this way is beyond me as well. The absolute dedication should be applauded � and compensated. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul ------ "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral" --Dante > From: Gary Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 19 Dec 2001 07:50:11 -0800 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Mpls] Superintendent pay in tight budget times > > Today's Strib (paper version, I couldn't find the article on the Strib > website) talks about Mpls. schools Superintendent Carol Johnson's pay (it > also discussed St. Paul Superintendent Patricia Harvey's pay, but this is a > Minneapolis Issues post). > > Quotes from Board members and others go to great lengths to defend the > position that $190,000 in pay is justified at the same time there's huge > shortfalls that will likely result in cuts in the schools. The article > discusses that the Board felt it was cheaper to give a pay raise than put > out the expense of finding a new Sup. It also talks about the value of a > good Sup. > > With the above background, let me now offer my humble thoughts. > > I realize the value of spending a little now if it saves more later and the > value of quality products (in this case, a quality leader for Minneapolis > Public Schools). However, even with that consideration, I must confess that > I am immensely hard-pressed to justify a $30,000 raise to $190,000 in my > mind. Let's keep in mind of an expected, what is the amount, $30 million > shortfall? How do we say to parents that their children will have to settle > for less when a person who was already making more than likely 95% of these > parents is now getting a $30,000 raise? > > Furthermore, when Minneapolis taxpayers voted YES FOR SCHOOLS, I really > don't think it was the intent of the taxpayers to pay for administrative pay > raises (the article also mentions another $125,000/year for a COO, adding > insult to injury) > > In conclusion, it's these antics that leave many people with the belief that > money is being misappropiated and tax increases are unjustified. I would > openly challenge Carol Johnson to return her pay raise to either the > district or some school related charity (PTA?) and, of course, remain > Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools. Would this return of $30,000 > to an immense budget be largely symbolic vs. of practical use? Yes, but it > would demonstrate Carol Johnson's desire to run a good school system not > only in letter but in spirit also. > > Gary Bowman Ward 1, Precinct 1 Questioning whether we voted YES for schools > or YES for pay raises > > --------------------------------------------------- Get your free web based > email from Crosswalk.com: http://mail.crosswalk.com > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil > City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
