Pay hike decision process was not handled covertly by board

I wish to eliminate any implication on the part of the letters to the editor page of this newspaper ("Super’s Salary Hike Came From Left Field," Michael R. Danatos, Sentinel, July 25) that the process for determining Superintendent of Schools Dr. Jamie P. Savedoff’s merit increase was done inappropriately.

For the record, every year the superintendent of schools is given a performance evaluation by the Board of Education. His performance rating is tied to the accomplishments in the district. His contract stipulates a minimum increase based on the cost-of-living index, and the board may decide on an amount that is different if it feels the performance warrants it.

In evaluating district performance and accomplishments last year, the board authorized an increase of 4.2 percent, comparable to that which was previously negotiated for our principals and supervisors. This increase was approved by the board in early April and communicated to the superintendent at that time. The terms of the contract stipulated an effective date of July, and it was scheduled for motion at a board meeting. Whether or not the terms of his contract were extended, this increase was to have taken place and was communicated and scheduled per usual procedure.

Since that time, the board agreed to terminate his existing contract, which had two years remaining, and issue a new one with a four-year term beginning in July. The only other change was to stop paying a $7,000 annuity and instead to include this as a part of his base salary at no additional expense to the community. (Future increases will be based on his salary, less the $7,000.)

As in the past, all salaries whenever they change for any employee, appear as a motion on the board’s agenda and are available to the public. These resolutions must be approved by the board and always show the new salary but not a specific percent increase. This same procedure was followed for the superintendent, who is an employee of the district. His salary on the motion reflected an already approved and agreed on merit increase per usual procedure.

Fair and decent people can disagree about amounts of an increase or the appropriateness of an increase, but any implication that this process was hidden or different than past practice is unfortunate and not right. If we all want open communication from elected officials, an issue we all agree with, it is also the responsibility of our print media to be careful regarding the perceptions that they may create.

Thank you for listening, and feel free to contact your school board and/or the administration with any questions you may have.

Michael K. Baker

President

East Brunswick

Board of Education