Severance

Severance

By nestwife

An SFUSD parent named Rick Reynolds is trying to get parents to sign a petition demanding that Superintendent Ackerman forego the $375,000 severance payment which is part of her contract.

While I don’t doubt that Reynolds sincerely believes that his ploy would help the children of the school district, the reality is that his portrayal of the Superintendent as “chased out with our children’s money clutched in your hands” will only make it harder for the Board of Education to hire a replacement for Ackerman. Who would be willing to sign a contract with this school district knowing that parents will characterize any severance clause as “taking…away from our children?”


Whenever a school board wishes to end its relationship with a Superintendent before the end of the contract, the board must “buy out” the contract or face a possibly even more costly lawsuit from the Superintendent. Nationwide, the average “buy out” for a Superintendent’s contract is 18 months, which is how the $375,000 figure was derived – it represents 18 months’ salary for Ackerman. In the absence of the severance agreement, and with a contract running through 2008, Ackerman would be entitled to more than $375,000 should the board dismiss her by her stated departure date of June 30, 2006. If a bitter legal wrangle ensued, the cost to the district could go much higher. The severance package was designed to avoid exactly that kind of situation.

It is also worth noting that when former Oakland schools chief Dennis Chaconas drove his district into a $100 million bankruptcy, he resigned and his contract was “bought out” for nearly $400,000 amidst no controversy whatsoever.

Regardless of how Reynolds or other parents feel about severance pay, the fact is that when an SFUSD employee has a contract running through a certain date, and the Board of Education chooses to end the employment prior to that date, the employee is entitled to be paid through the end of the contract. The situation sometimes arises that a teacher or bureaucrat is found to be incompetent to do the job for which he or she was hired, and must be removed and placed on “administrative leave.” This amounts to paying the individual to stay home until the end of the contract, and every year, the school district hands over hundreds of thousands of dollars to such individuals. Does Reynolds expect to visit each of their homes and deliver signed petitions demanding that those individuals return their salaries because it is “our children’s money?” I’m pretty sure that both SEIU Local 790 and the UESF (teachers union) would have something to say about that.

---------------------------------

ept. 6, 2005
Superintendent to Leave the District
By Nicole Freeling
GreatSchools.net Correspondent

After an embattled tenure as superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District, Arlene Ackerman tendered her resignation Tuesday a few hours before a closed session meeting with the Board of Education. At the meeting, Ackerman and the board declared themselves to be mutually incompatible by a unanimous vote, and the board accepted her resignation.

In her letter, Ackerman said she submitted her resignation "with regret" and "after heartfelt deliberation," but did not state what had led her to resign.

Even members who have supported the superintendent agreed that she and the board had become too mired in disagreement to work together effectively. Board member Dan Kelly, who has been a strong proponent of Ackerman’s, said, "She fell on her sword. ... She recognized how the divisiveness is hurting the district."

Board member, Mark Sanchez, who has clashed with Ackerman on a number of issues, called the resignation "a positive development."

"It’s a hard time for everybody and there are heavy feelings on all sides," Sanchez said. "But I think for the district to move forward it’s a positive step."

According to a contract extension granted to the superintendent last November, the declaration of incompatibility entitles her to a $375,000 severance package. The contract also requires her to stay on for six to twelve months while a search for a replacement is conducted. In her letter, Ackerman stated that she would stay until June 30, 2006, six years after starting the job.

The board, however, has yet to formulate a response to the letter and agree to the June 30 date. That could be an issue of contention for some members, who would like to see her exit more quickly.

There was no discussion in the meeting about transition and the naming of a replacement. However, board members said they expected the issue to be taken up soon, possibly as early as next Tuesday, when the board meets in closed session before its regularly scheduled meeting. Kelly said he expected the board could have a transition plan within a month.