That left me puzzled.
State law allows retired school teachers to work for less than one year and at 45% of the rate of a non-retired teacher. However, Dr. Papallo's contract with Norwalk specifies that his salary is based on 100% of the compensation paid to Sal Corda. The salary is prorated and paid on the basis of a work year of 220 days.
In particular Connecticut General Statute 10-183v provides:
The presumed intent of the law is to allow former educators to participate in their profession after retirement, but in a reduced capacity -- both in time as well as in compensation. In essence it's a law that's supposed to limit double dipping -- collecting a pension and a full salary.a former teacher receiving retirement benefits from the system may not be employed in a teaching position receiving compensation paid out of public money appropriated for school purposes except that such former teacher may be employed temporarily in such a position and receive no more than forty-five per cent of the maximum salary level for the assigned position.
According to the rules of the State of Connecticut Teachers Retirement Board "temporary employment" means employment for less than a year. For superintendents the "maximum salary," is the highest salary that would be used to advertise the position.
"You hit it on the head," said Dr. Papallo, in an e-mail sent to me this afternoon. "The 45% compensation issue is the controlling factor in the state action that limits the time I can remain in the position. I am only making 45% of the salary for 45% of the school year."
Well not exactly. If Dr. Papallo worked 220 days, the time specified in his contract, that would essentially mean that he would be employed until next June -- the end of the 2009-2010 school year. This would mean however that he could only earn 45% of Dr. Corda's base compensation.
On the other hand if he works 45% of the calendar year, about 5.4 months, he can collect a full salary for that period.
According to Leanne Appleton, Assistant Administrator for the Teachers Retirement Board, this type of arrangement is allowed. It's not known how many teachers are working only part of the year but receiving full salaries. According to Ms. Appleton retired teachers and school districts are required to report post-retirement compensation, but these reports are not independently verified or audited.
Despite the TRB's acquiescence I think compensation packages such as this are an end run against a system that was meant to limit "double dipping". For good reasons, former state employees like teachers and administrators shouldn't be allowed to collect a pension and a full pay check. (The law is flexible enough to allow exceptions for teachers and administrators in areas such Math and Science where there are not enough qualified teachers, but the superintendent position is not one of them.)
Allowing full-time salaries in a compressed amount of time does a disservice to teachers and administrators as well as students.
School districts will always find it cheaper to hire temporary fill-ins without benefits rather than full time staff, thus new staff will find difficulty in getting hired. Students are getting shortchanged because teachers and administrators are only spending half the year instead of a full year.
More importantly regardless of how much Dr. Papallo is making, an important question is what happens after he leaves?
I can appreciate that he was hired by the BOE because of his deep experience and the sudden resignation of Dr. Corda. However the BOE has an obligation to clearly inform the community what happens if we don't find a permanent position by the end of the year?
Does the BOE have a Plan B? Or will we hire another 45% placeholder?
(I've e-mailed BOE Chair Rosa Murray and Vice-Chair Jody Bishop Pullan for their comments. I'm hoping to include their responses in an update).
Posts
By choosing an Interim Superintendent who can remain on the job for only 5 months, the Board of Education (BoE) search process for a replacement risks being rushed to judgment or, as you fear, risks a mid-year vacancy at the highest level in Norwalk Public Schools. These fears can be overcome but the choice made by the BoE made the task more difficult-they traded vision for comfort. The decision jeopardized the opportunity for a thoughtful, deliberate, extensive and well-researched search. It limited the opportunity for parent, teacher and community engagement and comment. The choice of the next Superintendent could be a game changer if done right. It is a most crucial decision for this district; it deserves the benefit of time. Either way, the final choice of the next Superintendent should be granted to those BoE members elected during the upcoming November elections; it is this BoE that will be working with the newly minted Superintendent for a full two years before another BoE election cycle and at a decisive juncture for our district.
ReplyDeleteSue Haynie, we don't know each other, but we share an interest in the Norwalk Public Schools. The timeline for the hiring of a superintendent is extremely tight because Dr. Papallo will have to leave so soon, but this is no excuse for hiring anything other than the best person the district can get. It will not be good to have two interim superintendents, but that is preferable to hiring the wrong permanent superintendent.
ReplyDeleteI do not have confidence that this board will do the right thing.
i feel like the BOE has misrepresented the fact that Papallo is in town for 5 months. This was not made explicitly clear. Thank you for digging into this.
ReplyDelete