{"id":73239,"date":"2023-06-20T08:52:07","date_gmt":"2023-06-20T13:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/?p=73239"},"modified":"2023-06-20T08:52:10","modified_gmt":"2023-06-20T13:52:10","slug":"board-of-education-discusses-employee-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/?p=73239","title":{"rendered":"Board of Education discusses employee compensation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

BY ALICIA FEYERHERM<\/p>\n\n\n\n

USD 489 Board of Education met Monday and reviewed the collective bargaining agreement for the upcoming school year. For certified employees, $1825 was added to the base pay as well as longevity bonuses for individuals serving the district for 25 years or more. Individuals were moved incrementally based on the salary schedule. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Classified employees received an increase of seven percent of base pay, which in most cases equates to about a $1 an hour increase. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Curt Vajnar emphasized the importance of rewarding classified employees because the district is competing with other businesses in town to keep employees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat group and that salary level can get a job wherever they want,\u201d Vajnar said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board President Craig Pallister agreed, saying that retaining paras, custodians and other classified staff members has been a challenge, and he hopes the raise in pay helps. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion then moved to the approval of a 4.35% raise for Directors, Administrators and Other Licensed Personnel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vajnar brought up that, unlike teachers, administrators are not on a pay schedule or scale. This means a percentage increase impacts all individuals differently and leads to somewhat significant differences in the amount of the raises, as opposed to a flat rate raise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Meagan Zampieri-Lillpopp agreed and said this discrepancy could be discussed at the board\u2019s retreat on August 7, but since there is no other structure currently in place, she recommended moving forward with the raises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Alan Park then brought up the budget. In 2021, the Administrative Support budget was $4.6 million.  In 2022, it was $5.7 million. Park questioned why there was such an increase in Administrative Support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Chris Hipps clarified that \u201cAdministrative Support\u201d goes far beyond administrative salaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat\u2019s transportation, that\u2019s heating and cooling, that’s building maintenance,\u201d Hipp said. \u201cWhen you say \u2018administration,\u2019 it\u2019s everything above a classroom expenditure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even so, Park said he would vote against the motion because he believed the board had not done its due diligence to dive into those expenses and reviewing administrator contracts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe spend a lot of time with our teachers,\u201d Park said. \u201cWe spend months and weeks talking with them and negotiating. This is the most we\u2019ve ever talked about it is this meeting here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Tammy Wellbrock pushed back on Park\u2019s statement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think we keep great administrators when we have conversations that imply they don’t do their jobs, which you (Park) have done often, and I don\u2019t think we keep great administrators if we don\u2019t pay them accordingly,\u201d  Wellbrock said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the issue of the administration budget, board member Ken Brooks pointed out that the board reviews the budget annually and that  \u201cthis is brought to our attention already.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zampieri-Lillpopp agreed, saying this motion looks specifically at the salaries of administrators and directors and does not address any of the other items in the administration budget. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTo vote against it for other reasons other than that these personnel deserve what they are being paid for is not the duty of the board,\u201d  Zampieri-Lillpopp said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pallister, a former Hays Middle School principal, recognized the role of administrators has become increasingly more difficult since his retirement six years ago. Administrators have faced the pandemic as well as other challenges and should be rewarded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt isn\u2019t an easy job,\u201d Pallister said.  \u201cWe need to be able to respond and give an appropriate raise when we can.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pallister further elaborated that limits in the state\u2019s budget impact the amount salaries can be raised and there is no way to predict what the next year could bring. The board may not have the opportunity to approve a wage increase of this magnitude next year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019re trying to hold onto these people,\u201d Pallister said. \u201cWe should be saying, \u2018We\u2019re glad you\u2019re here; we\u2019re going to represent by a pay raise that represents all of our administrators.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pallister called for a vote. The motion was approved 6-1, with Allen Park voting against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other items discussed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n