Somebody wrote a letter to the editor before this past election about reasons to vote against the school levy, and in it he asked why the schools currently have two superintendents. I also would like to know the answer to the question.
According to the papers, the new superintendent is making $144,000 a year, which breaks down to $12,000 a month, plus benefits.
The same articles mention that the old(?) superintendent is making $140,000 a year, which breaks down to $11,667 a month, plus benefits.
Is he still making his same salary?
Isn't the school district paying out millions in teacher and administrator benefits? Isn't it going up again next year?
If our school district is so cash-strapped, how can we afford to have two superintendents at the same time?
Or is the board wasting our money again?
By Perplexed
According to the papers, the new superintendent is making $144,000 a year, which breaks down to $12,000 a month, plus benefits.
The same articles mention that the old(?) superintendent is making $140,000 a year, which breaks down to $11,667 a month, plus benefits.
Is he still making his same salary?
Isn't the school district paying out millions in teacher and administrator benefits? Isn't it going up again next year?
If our school district is so cash-strapped, how can we afford to have two superintendents at the same time?
Or is the board wasting our money again?
By Perplexed
