Rubbing salt in the wounds

Last night, in an utterly unsurprising move, the Milwaukee Board of School Directors renewed the contract of our superintendent:

Approval of a new contract came after a closed session of almost four hours, the board's fifth closed session in three months to discuss [the superintendent's] job performance and contract. In total, the board spent almost 15 hours on the subject. [. . .]

The new agreement also removes language in the current contract that would allow the board to fire [the superintendent] without giving any cause. The new contract will give him a stronger position by permitting him to be terminated only "for cause."

Board member Peter Blewett urged the board to keep the provision for firing without cause in the contract, saying the change might tie the hands of future boards. But his motion to that effect was defeated 7-1, with one member voting "present."

Jennifer Morales, the "peacemaker" on our side of the board (there's no sense in pretending there aren't sides anymore), voted with the reformer majority to renew. That's not what bugs me. I have fully expected this move since the board elections last April; I'm a little surpised it took this long.

Here's what chaps my overworked behind:

[The superintendent] was given a 5% raise, increasing his salary from $160,000 to $168,000 a year, plus improvements in some of his fringe benefits, including a $3,000-a-year increase in payments for an annuity beyond the standard Milwaukee schools retirement benefits. That would increase the annuity benefits from $16,000 to $19,000 a year.

Anyone else want to take this one? I mean, you could start with, Where are all the anti-pension anti-tax folk on this one? Oh, I know: They're all busy trying recall defeat Jim Doyle.

Beyond that, there are really only two reasons to give someone a raise--to keep them from quitting and to reward them for performance. We know that the superintendent wants to stay at MPS, so there is no need to juice his contract to keep him around. What about his performance? Let's just say that if were an MPS student, he'd be held back a year. Perhaps the Board is thinking that his railroading through untested and unproven "reform" is sign enough of success, but if I were a board member--and I'm not (yet)--I would want to wait until I saw the results of the "reform" before I reward its implementation. And don't get me started on "improvements in fringe benefits"! Every other time he opens his hypocritical mouth, he's yammering on about the need to cut teachers' benefits! (The board majority, also known for their itchy benefit-cutting fingers, deserves blame here, too).

But I can't just keep ranting forever here, as I have work to do (I don't think he works four times as hard as I do), more than usual since I'll be in Ottawa starting tomorrow. At least now I have something to brood over on the plane.