Some “facts” about the Superintendents “concessions” 5

1) The money does not come out of the budget

2) It is still counted as her salary, and goes towards building her retirement package

3) Was it one or two years of a  her raise

4) If the administration has formed a union, why does not the Assistant do the same thing

5) If we can talk about the Superintendents salary when she is involved in a law suit, why can’t we talk about

the Assistants salary while she is involved in a law suit?

6) It is pretty obvious that the Superintendent has lost control, and we now have a “rouge” Assistant

7) It was not so much a “concession”, but more of a “bribe”, or “inducement”, or “payback” to voters to approve the budget

lets let the state elections commission figure this out

Sec. 9-364a. (Formerly Sec. 9-344). Acts prohibited in elections, primaries, referenda, caucuses and conventions. Penalties.

Any person who influences or attempts to influence by force or threat the vote, or by force, threat, bribery or corrupt means, the speech, of any person in a primary, caucus, referendum convention or election; or wilfully and fraudulently suppresses or destroys any vote or ballot properly given or cast or, in counting such votes or ballots, wilfully miscounts or misrepresents the number thereof; and any presiding or other officer of a primary, caucus or convention who wilfully announces the result of a ballot or vote of such primary, caucus or convention, untruly and wrongfully, shall be guilty of a class C felony.


  1. Marshall makes some interesting and excellent points. The offer the superintendent made does NOT CHANGE the amount of money budgeted for her salary. Therefore, it preserves the 2% increase in the line, which then can be accurately reported to the Teacher Retirement Board. Since the teacher retirement formula, in part, is based on the average of the three highest paid years it is to the superintendent’s advantage for the Business Office to be able to report the higher number. Instead of her salary remaining level for 2013-2014, which would delay for a year the increase she wants when calculating the average of her three highest paid years, it increases. In addition, any contribution she makes “to the students” from the 2% increase will be done personally from her own funds which now allows her to take the contribution as a tax deduction. Will she offer to provide, for the record, documentation that the amount of her increase was donated? What happens during fiscal year 2014-2015 in terms of her salary? If there is an increase, as there has been in the past, from what number will it be determined? Will it be from the budgeted figure for 2013-2014 or 2% less than that?

    As a side note, the superintendent’s salary line item saw a significant raise for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. That was not a mistake. Why, you ask? For years her annuity was rightly not included in her salary as it was paid directly from the public coffers to her financial institution, instead of out of her salary. It appears that the superintendent wasn’t anxious to point out that in addition to her very generous salary, she was getting 6% of that salary in an annuity. That annuity now totals nearly $10,000 annually. That annuity did not appear as an individual line, but was included without notation in the RSSC secretary’s pension line for years. It was pointed out a number of times that this was less than transparent. It appears that this move was made closer to the superintendent’s anticipated retirement date to get the higher monetary benefit to be reported to the Teacher Retirement Board for the average amount of her three highest earning years. In addition to her salary, the superintendent’s contract includes a section that provides that the taxpayers are responsible for payment of unlimited graduate courses with unlimited reimbursement of tuition with no accountability. From the 2009-2010 fiscal year to March of 2013 the taxpayers have doled out $36,400 for these courses, not knowing the course of study, the degree sought and how it might assist in her current position. How much longer will it take the superintendent to finish whatever program she is taking and at what cost to the taxpayer? It certainly seems that if it’s too much longer, she’ll finish about the time of her contract end date and who knows what her plans might be at that time – retirement followed by an attempt at educational consulting? No one should be under the allusion that the superintendent and for that fact the assistant superintendent’s contract don’t give them the advantage and the region the disadvantage in almost every detail of each document. That the Board and ABC Committee seem unfamiliar with the entirety of the documents is discouraging.

    It is a wonder that the Board can speak to the superintendent about her contract and not the assistant superintendent about hers. As Marshall rightly points out both are involved in suits. If this was on the advise of the attorney than let Chairman Moore provide a written document so stating it.

    Let’s hope that the Commission on election law can interpret the statute reported here so that it can be determined if a complaint should be filed. The way the superintendent couched her “offer” certainly appeared to be promising something if the taxpayers voted yes to this latest referendum.

  2. Our self-serving Superintendent’s concessions have the implication of an attempt to influence the fifth Budget Vote on August 20, 2013. The donation to the region’s endowment fund has the smell of a “payback” for acceding to her wishes. Her arrogant statement that it would not go back to the taxpayers is a slap in our face, the taxpayers! To be saddled with this Superintendent for even two years would be an injustice foisted on our students and our community.

  3. Will someone let us know who to contact about this to actually verify that what she said is illegal so that we can then report it?

Leave a Reply