Dirty laundry....or?

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
1

Recent budgets discussions at SD52 Board Meetings had me wondering. So I decided to do a bit of research. Research led me to ask: “Is this dirty laundry….or, is there a reasonable explanation” a number of times. So I ask your assistance in understanding a number of issues.

My first question is based on the Superintendent’s remuneration:

In the School Year ending June 2010: the Superintendent is reported to have received 119 995.67 and claimed expenses of 7 385.97.

In the School Year ending June 2012: the Superintendent is reported to have received 139 602.24 and claimed expenses 9 183.39.

My question: why in the space of two years (during which fiscal resources in the School District have become increasingly stretched) has the value of the Superintendent’s position increased by approximately 8.5 percent with a similar increase in expenses?

Now maybe I got the math wrong – but in these days that is a hefty increase. Maybe I got the information incorrect – but I did find it in the Statement of Financial Information filed by SD52 and available on the Ministry of Education website.

Or maybe I’m missing a very obvious reason. Any help to understand the issue would be appreciated. Please remember I am talking about a ‘job’ in the school district and not the person holding the position. This is strictly about fiscal decisions made by the Board of Trustees.

By the way: there is a rumor circulating that the Board has increased the salary even further since June 2012. Any truth?

2

Did the Superintendent work for the full duration of 2010? The Statement of Financial Information reports what was actually paid during the year, not the annual salary. That may account for some or all of the difference.

3

BTravenn – thanks for the clarification. You are correct that the Superintendent did not work the full year. I assume the contract would have been effective August 1, 2009 and not July1.

If I roughly assume that the payments reflect 11 months of a 12 month contract extending from August 1 of the following year – would I also be correct in assuming each individual month would cost the SD about 10 998.69.
Would it potentially be fair to add the 10 998.69 to the 119 995.67 paid? The total: 130 994.36 (if my assumptions are correct) would be closer to the actual full year payment.

Although, not as big a percentage increase as the original figures indicated an approximate 9 000 pay raise in this day and age is not bad…particularly in an education system that seems to be stretched for money.

If rumors are correct this pay raise appears to be the first of two that were given since 2009.

Again, thanks for the clarification.

4
5

[quote=“chien22”]BTravenn – thanks for the clarification. You are correct that the Superintendent did not work the full year. I assume the contract would have been effective August 1, 2009 and not July1.

If I roughly assume that the payments reflect 11 months of a 12 month contract extending from August 1 of the following year – would I also be correct in assuming each individual month would cost the SD about 10 998.69.
Would it potentially be fair to add the 10 998.69 to the 119 995.67 paid? The total: 130 994.36 (if my assumptions are correct) would be closer to the actual full year payment…
[/quote]

You would be better off making an FOI to the School Board to ask what the Superintendent’s monthly salary was during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 (the salary for the year ending June 2012 can be determined from the SFI).

Tell them that you are making an ‘access request’ under the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act and describe what you what.

“5 (1) To obtain access to a record, the applicant must make a written request that
(a) provides sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort, to identify the records sought,
…
© is submitted to the public body that the applicant believes has custody or control of the record.
(2) The applicant may ask for a copy of the record or ask to examine the record.”

In this case they would prepare a ‘record’, ie a written response by letter.

They cannot withhold information about salaries or other remuneration:

“22(4) A disclosure of personal information is not an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
…
(e) the information is about the third party’s position, functions or remuneration as an officer, employee or member of a public body …”

Under section 77 the Board should have designated someone or a group as the “head” for the purposes of FIPPA, who is legally required to deal with your request. I would address the letter to the Chair; she can pass it on to whoever deals with access requests.

The School District will have 30 days to respond. If they do not respond or refuse disclosure you have 30 days to request a review by the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for BC < oipc.bc.ca/ >. The staff there are very good about answering citizen questions about freedom of information rights.

Your access request is personal information about you and is protected from disclosure by FIPPA, ie they have to treat your request as private and confidential. That may or not be important to you.

I highly doubt that you will have any problem getting the information if you submit an access request.

As a by the way it’s good to see that the School District posted their annual Statement of Financial Information on their web site. The City council is also required to prepare and make public an annual SFI, but they put it in the agenda package of the meeting where the report is presented to the council and it quickly becomes lost under the overburden.

Another point, the SFI is required by the Financial Information Act. FIPPA casts a wider net in terms of what has to be disclosed about public employees.

6

An interesting group of motions come before the Board at the June meeting. Interesting because they appear to address the spending of the Trustees.
The motions include:

• That the Board send two representatives to Southern meetings for the BCSTA/BCSPEA.
• That the Board use an on-line hotel finder for cheaper accommodations.
• That Board members be limited to one Pro-D per year.
• That we send either the representative or the alternate to BCPSEA/BCSTA and not both.

These motions might simply address housekeeping issues – gaps in Board policy that are perceived as needing to be formalized.

Or, the motions might be an attempt for greater accountability and control of Trustee expenses. If the Trustees need policy-based constraints on their own expenditures, doesn’t that raise the question: How well have they provided oversight, transparency and accountability in terms of the overall district budget?

Considering the difficulty that the Board had in approving a budget this year, it is interesting that these motions have been put forward.

7

[quote=“chien22”]

These motions might simply address housekeeping issues – gaps in Board policy that are perceived as needing to be formalized.

Or, the motions might be an attempt for greater accountability and control of Trustee expenses. [/quote]

… or they have spent so much on management shuffles and consulting costs that they are over-budget in some areas and need to cut-back.

8

BTravenn:

Are you are hinting at the possibility that the District’s ‘succession plan’ square dance was not without cost….gasp!

Are you suggesting that over 230 000 dollars in consultant fees since 2009/10 (and still counting) might not have been money judiciously spent….gasp! gasp!

Looking at the expenses of the Trustees for the year ending June 2012 might raise some questions….but you may be correct: there might be more questions to ask about costs in general.

Year Ended June 2012 (SOFI):
Expenses:
Janet Beil 3 652.79
Martin Bowles 3 278.41
Barb Gruber 3 161.40
Terri Lyn Huddlestone 6 105.59
Bart Kuntz 3 026.32
Tina Last 4 173.57
Louisa Sanchez 5 747.84

Do some of those expenses seem high to anyone?

Interestingly, all elements of the Notice of Motion (mentioned earlier in this thread) were defeated last night: so much for Trustee accountability?

As for the cost of hiring new administrators (approx. 10 000)…that money is apparently not a ‘savings’ but a contingency fund – maybe for the contingency of hiring more administrators?

Sadly, a proposal that some District representatives be funded to attend the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission Committee" was not accepted: sad because it would have been an opportunity to recognize in a meaningful way both historical and current issues central to education both locally and provincially.

Oh well….