This is crazy, these guys are not worth $200K a year sorry. No wonder we are broke.

UNNECESSARY!!!! Just because those other administrators are getting those salaries doesn't mean they're worth them. Now is the perfect time to scale BACK inour district, rather than to pay more to the new 308 administrators that are being hired. We can't afford these ridiculous salaries!

Come on now Kim. What do you think they are worth? How many staff members do they lead? What kind of budget are they responsible for? How many facilities do they have to manage? Get some perspective. The issue is not the pay. It's the micro managing school board that is the most troubling thing in the district right now.

Seeing the current state of our administrative staff, and the portent of working with a difficult board, I don't think there is enough money that a serious and reputable candidate would accept to work in Oswego right now.

Well, lookee there, the very board that promises to pinch pennies til they bleed copper has had to face the economic realities of superintendent's pay. Whether or not anyone else thinks they're not worth it, the plain fact of the matter is that this kind of money is what the market demands. Pay much less and you get stuck with someone who's going to be learning how to be superintendent on the backs of our kids.

Besides, you don't know if someone is worth that kind of money until you see what they can do.

Maybe with luck, we'll get someone here collecting a pension from another state, and the Colonel will come out of hiding.

This is way to much. There is no reason this should pay more than police or fire positions. That is more than double what a police chief gets paid! The state needs to stop going after police and fire pensions to help fund the under funded teachers pension and go after positions like this that are grossly over paid!

TOO MUCH!! Also should be paying their own health insurance premiums like the rest of the dist. employees.

Perhaps the board should be exploring why the administrative leadership in the district is jumping ship.
How can a district that is cramming kids into two already full high schools raise the pay of one individual so much? Guess it shows what the board values and its not our kids!

$235,000 for a superintendent is crazy !!!! In a year where the board is considering taking away my kids busing service because of budget issues, how can they justify giving that money to a new superintendent? Once again goes to show that our school board has their priorities all screwed up. How about bringing in a new superintendent at the current pay that O'Donnell is making and then having the person actually work and prove that he/she is worth that amount?

Yes, this makes perfect sense. The school district has a budget problem, so a good solution is to raise the Superintendent's pay. After all, they can just bleed the residents dry in demanding more tax money.

As always the Board looks to the east and not to the west. In this day of tight budgets it is a slap in the faCE OF THE TEACHERS TO GIVE any RAISE.
cHECK WITH rOCKFORD, aURORA, yORKVILLE, oTTAWA, ETC. I think there are many qualified candidates out there. As far as the word "visionary" that is HOG WASH. They had a visionary as wellas a practical superintendent and they gave him enough greef to have him want to retire than put up with narrow vision.

Shame on those of you who are penny pinching the Superintendents proposed salary. This is a professional position and organization, charged with the running of several departments, over 17,000 students, a number of employees, several facilities, a large budget, but most importantly, the education of our children. Do you scoff at paying for professional baseball tickets so that an uneducated athlete can make over $1 million a year? Do you scoff at paying $10 a person so that an uneducated actor can entertain you at the movies? Get some perspective and start recognizing that quality education and leadership are worth the money we need to spend. Shame on you for wanting to be so cheap with our children's education!

Are you kidding me? Maybe Bill Walsh should look around at surrounding communities for what they are paying TEACHERS! Is it any wonder that we are losing wonderful teachers to these "surrounding communities?" Get your priorities straight Oswego School Board.

It doesn't seem right to pay someone that much money when we are making cuts in other areas.

As my grandfather used to say
"Everyone else is paid to much and you are paid to little"

I suspect with this role, to some degree you get what you pay for.

Like so many elected officials - recently elected board members got away with saying what a small group wanted to hear and got elected - only to find out that running a school district this big is a LOT more complicated than just promising to save tax payers money ! Trouble is - my big worry is NOT what they plan to pay the next superintendent - but rather WHOM they plan to pay it to! If a highly qualified and especially talented superintendent is hired who can both DEAL with the present board as well as successfully navigate these economic times - then it will be money well spent considering the size of this organization and especially its MISSION (our children). But - if they are simply pumping up the wages to ensure that they find someone they will be able to ride herd over - and help them achieve their own (not the tax payers) personal agenda's as board members - well then that is a much bigger worry for all of us than how much they are going to pay this person. Let's wait and see !

Really crazy - why isn't the current $200k sufficient, meanwhile 308 is looking to cut transportation and other programs.

I'm not in favor of starting out with a high salary, I would be in favor of a "pay for performance" type arrangement. Our past Superintendents have done nothing to improve test scores or improve education by any objective standard, so lets try something different to incentivize performance. Anyone who doesn't think they can improve shouldn't get the job anyway.

Payment in accordance with your peers is why Citigrope, Foldman Suchs, Bearass Stearns, etc etc etc. justify the huge salaries they pay to their executives...you know, the guys that brought our economy to the brink of disaster. It just keeps ratcheting up. If that sort of money is justified, then a 5 year contract with no annual raise is justified. The average tenure of a Supt in Illinois is only 3 years and then they're off to another district. I would also be interested in knowing whether Ray's fees are tied to compensation...the higher the compensation, the bigger the fee.
Or...bite the bullet and DROP the compensation down to $175 grand and see if the candidates are that much less competent than the current package would actually garner. This economy is shrinking, so lower wages are to be expected. A difference of 50 grand would pay for some needed items, like maybe a part time teacher or two?

If present district employees have already applied for the job, then they were willing to accept the job at a lower rate. Hiring from within may be an advantage as they already have familiarity with the issues with staff, parents, growth, transportation, etc. The district would save the search firm fees. The district would not have to house the superintendent since the candidate would already live local. Offer a kicker if they can improve test scores.

Ridiculous. This idea that that the higher you pay (over a certain reasonable limit), the better the person you get, has shown to be a fallcy in so many industries. Just look at the salaries of so many people, both private sector and gov't, who were involved in the recent financial scandals. They were some of the highest paid people, yet were some of the worst peformers.

How about making the new Super actually sign an employment contract where he or she is committed to so many years on the job? There are many people who take a $200K job under those conditions. There just aren't that many school districts in our area in need of a Super. It's a seller's market right now.

They do need to find an acutal professional who realizes that they serve at the desire of the taxpayers. That means that the direction they need to pursue might change based upon elections. The previous hacks haven't realized that and though they were hired to be the Kings of the District.

Is there anything worse than a bunch of people complaining about everything and anything. For crying out loud....

I vote in every election Gus and I do pay attention. But it is sad that nothing can get done anymore of any significance as people want to live like it's 1776 and bring - excuse me, "God" into the conversation now. No matter what happens here, no one will be happy, it wont be good enough and people will complain, just to complain. But you are entitled Gus, I can respect that at least. I always find it interesting for those who publish such remarks and dont publish their full or actual name.....

I feel like I need more information before jumping to conclusions on this. The article states that the position will have a salary range. Is the $235k at the high end or in the middle? What is the actual range? Was the decision to set this particular salary range based on recommendations from Ray and Associates as a result of their experience and/or interviews being conducted?

It sounds like the Board and the recruiters are looking at ways to make sure we get the cream of the crop for Superintendent. They need to, given the mass exodus that just happened and the fact that we are now competing with Naperville #204 for candidates.

I'm just looking for the Board to show its math work on this particular decision.

This is what I think of this BS pay for admin ...do ur job regardless of what u r paid and do it for all the right reasons. Cops don't get to ignore calls because they just lost their overtime or took a pay cute, firemen don't get to not show up to a fire because they think they should get paid more! They do their job for the right reasons, put their life on the line everyday regardless of what happens to their pay. Seriously if its about what we pay this person, where do we as a district draw the line and get the right person in here for our kids and familys??? Our dist is hurting and the priorities r mismanaged for sure.

Holy Geez. Really 235k? So when this person quits in about 2-3 years, do we raise the bar on the credentials for the next person, and the pay as well?Yes- yes we will. So the company you hired to find the next top dog, do they get a finders fee based on the salary of the candidate. Do they really think that if you raise the pay you will get the best candidate for the job? I think your being fleece by the people you hired to find you the best candidate, to do the job you have an opening for.
So as a person who pays taxes to this district I think if the pay is 175k or even 200k then it is what it is and there should be no increase, no matter what the credentials say this person will bring to the table. If this person knows their value of their worth, they will come here for your pay and then show you their worth in actions, and then will get duly compensated for they value in actions. But most likely will leave the district in a few years.

In the private sector, you know. the one's who pay for all this, you have to produce something of value to get top pay. In the public sector all you need are some credentials and out comes the red carpet. Below and O'Donnell produced NO tangible improvement in education. Set the pay low and let the new person work for incentives. Set benchmarks as to what you are going to measure as a success and give bonuses based on achievement. In my view NO public employee should earn more than the top state official, which is the governor at around 150 to 160 K.

While I don't agree with raising the salary at this time, the pay rate is actually much lower than the typical ceo of a corporation of similar size would receive. The district is comprised of 21 schools, 1,700 staff and a budget of over $200,000,000. http://www.therecruiterslounge.com/2010/11/15/executive-pay-increases-in-2010/
@Greg, the private sector doesn't "actually pay for all this" we the tax payers pay for all this and when I pay for this I am buying a service, that service being an education for my children and the children in my community. You would be hard pressed to find a private school that would educate your children with as many services for less.
I personally am more concerned that our elected Board of Education has become so difficult to work with that all of our top administrators have resigned. The "fiscally conservative board" has now spent $200,000 on industrial arts, 50 million on building additions that they have admitted will not meet the needs of the district in 5-7 years (meaning we will have to spend the money to build a third high school at that time) and has now added $65,000 to our budget in search fees and a proposed raise for the incoming Superintendent. I'm not sure I want this group of leaders being the ones to set benchmarks and evaluate performance.

Maryz,

I appreciate your comments but wonder where you think money for government comes from if not the private sector, without the private sector there would be NO money and NO government anything. ALL money in a society arises from the private sector, every single dime of it. And for being hard pressed for finding a private school to provide a better value, well if your only accounting for the time a child is in school then maybe close, however, I paid into the public schools for 20 years before my kids ever stepped foot inside one, and I'll be paying for many more years after they're gone, I will pay more for public education than all my other assets combined, value my foot. Its the biggest resource vacuum ever devised. I could have put my both my Kids through Harvard Law School for less than I've paid in the public school system!!!

Greg - what are you so angry about?

I'm not angry at all, I see all the liberals ranting about the school board and how awful they are and then they don't even understand how basic economics works. Lesson #1, the private sector generates society's wealth, then they pay taxes to fund government programs, the government does NOT generate ANY resources for society, never has, never will. Thats not to say that SOME government does not add to the betterment of society, however, we who do the payin get to do the sayin, and we elected this school board to do exactly what they are donig.

The federal government budget includes 720 billion dollars in contracting with private corporations. That is an awful lot of revenue for the private sector. There are many services that the government provides that it is not feasible to have private corporations control, traffic safety, our roads etc. These resources ARE generated by the government and do lead to the betterment of society. Through public schools our doctors, lawyers, scientists, grocery store baggers and ditch diggers are created. We invest in our schools which invest in our students who grow up to create and better society.
As for the value let's say you pay 3,500 a year in taxes (your school portionof your tax bill) x 40 years of owning your home = 140,000 vs. 3 kids x 13 years = 39 years x 6,000 (tuition and fees per year for a private school) $234,000. Please find me one example of where government work was privatized and it saved money. While we may disagree on what economic policies are best for our government, in no way do I not understand basic economics. And in this instance this tax payer happens to disagree with you intends to do the "sayin'" at the next school board election.

Harvard Law will set you back about $70K/year once you factor in tuition & living expenses, so that would be about $420K to put 2 fine lawyers through 6 years of schooling. I kind of doubt that comparison is applicable. Not that many people have been paying almost $11K a year in taxes to Oswego 308 for 4 decades, to use Maryz's reference.

I'm a "lib" (I believe that is the term preferred by this forum. lol) who is not ranting about the school board. I'm also not screeching about the salary. It's a high profile position, with a lot of responsibility. Wishing and hoping aside, superintendents command healthy salaries. That's not new. You have to deal with the reality in front of you.

Most people receive their education in public schools. It's as societal responsibility and investment, no matter if you have children or not. No matter if your children sit in a public school classroom or if they walk the halls of a private school for all their years as a student.

Like anyone, I'd like to see the highest test scores possible. Unlike many, I'm open to discussing the fact that there is a limit to what even the most gifted teacher, the most technologically advanced district, and the highest paid superintendent can do about that. A whole heck of a lot of test scores rests upon characteristics of the kids doing the test taking. Head into a highly educated, economically advantaged community and look at their scores. There are common sense reasons why they are high.

So, our Board's infamous reputation is now forcing them to offer salaries at a premium, "combat pay" as it were, to attract talent? Maybe word is out that they are micro managing and this is what their expensive search firm advises. So with what we are are paying in fees to search firms and salary premiums we could have had a few more teachers or lost less in transportation. The damage that is being done could take years to fix and the Board appears to be teflon at this point. Is this really what Lee Hoffer wanted when he picked this team to run and got us to support them? I thought he was fiscally conservative?

Where did the Federal Govt. get the 720 Billion? If they printed it, and they might well have, it represents another tax as it dilutes the purchasing power of the money in circulation, which is the same effect as taxation. And no one said that the military or teachers didn't pay taxes, but they are using tax money generated by the private sector to pay them with, aren't they. It ALL originates in the private sector Government DOES NOT create wealth, they only take it and redistribute it. As for taxes, as a PRIVATE SECTOR employer, I pay 7,000 for the business and 7,000 more for the house (for the school portion), so by your math thats 560,000, what a great bargain. I'm far far from wealthy, but if your only paying 3,500 per year no wonder you think its a deal, folks like me are paying for your kid to get educated while we probably make no more money than you do.

Not to belabor the point but the fed. Gov. actually by printing the money creates all wealth and everyone else redistributes the gov. printed money, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. gov. The gov. takes some of it back through taxes. It also borrows a lot, often from other countries and spends money it doesn't have on both the public and private sector.
As far as the sup. pay I would have been interested to see who would have applied for $200K. I think they are paying a premium for having to do the search this late in the school year. With so many admins. leaving they have a real mess on thier hands. This is what happens when you have to react versus executing a well crafted plan.

Russell, You better hang on to your day job my friend. I don't think there is a serious economist on earth that would agree with you. But hey, progressives have never dealt with silly things like facts before, why start now!

First, the government did get the money through taxes. We are taxed so that the government can provide needed services. You pay for services all the time, phone, internet, legal. Your roads, air traffic, food regulation is a service. Have you been secure in your home knowing that the Oswego police are patrolling the streets and that the fire department is ready with trucks if your house is on fire or your business?
I believe you are footing the bill for over half of the homeowners in the district as I live in a home that is at the median of the area. I do believe that you had the choice when starting your business and purchasing your home to move to an area where the school taxes would not be such a burden. There are many districts across the state that tax at a lower rate, I do believe you get what you pay for.

I agree with what Gus said above, "the recently elected board members got away with saying what a small group wanted to hear and got elected - only to find out that running a school district this big is a LOT more complicated than just promising to save tax payers money! Trouble is - my big worry is NOT what they plan to pay the next superintendent - but rather WHOM they plan to pay it to! If a highly qualified and especially talented superintendent is hired who can both DEAL with the present board as well as successfully navigate these economic times - then it will be money well spent considering the size of this organization and especially its MISSION (our children)." As a teacher in this district it's very frustrating that this board couldn't admit that they had made a mistake in campaigning for no third high school. Now the board that is in place in five years when the high schools are at capacity again (even after the current additions) will have to justify why this "one issue" board didn't just admit they were wrong and vote yes for the third high school. The administrators and the board in our district all seem to have the same mission, but it's not our children. It's themselves.

Well, whomever the board hires - it looks like they will have to work with the staff the board chooses for them. The board is continuing to interview candidates for the Asst. Superintendent positions behind closed doors, during their many special sessions.

Furthermore, as of the time that I'm writing this post - they have yet to update BoardDocs with audio, video, motions, votes or general notes for the following dates:

Sat. Apr. 14
Mon. Apr. 16 (Still listed as DRAFT Agenda)

Their next scheduled board meeting is:
Thurs. Apr. 19.

A comment was deleted from this article because it violates our terms of use. It's not OK to pose as a member of the School Board and leave comments. Thanks.

Maybe it's worth considering hiring some former deputy superintendent who has the certificates or degrees to get into the slot for $195K to learn the job.....it worked for Cass School district 63 and our own former Dr. Kerry Foderaro if I remember right....he was a deputy superintendent here first, before he moved up, maybe we can find someone else in a similar role elsewhere ?

Ridiculous! You cannot pay teachers a fair salary, you are cutting necessities that directly impact students, you are cutting busing which impacts students AND families, yet you want to give our new superintendent a pay raise. Logically I'd look more closely at the superintendent that is willing to come in here, to our Podunk little suburban of a town that is willing to take a salary that is in tune with our cost of living and needs than someone looking to make exponentially more than the average Oswego-an. Then let's take some of that surplus salary and start making positive changes back to our educational community.

We don't need a PhD in here. We just need someone who is compassionate and passionate about education and developing a stronger foothold in America's society by giving our youth what they need to make a difference.

And to the person that compared this position to that of a CEO. Personally, I think that is ill-compared. Most CEO are private organization with either private funding, a marketable commodity, or other forms of financial support such as stocks and trades. This is school. Under funded by our wonderful federal government, and over taxed by economic standards.

We should at least be getting what we pay for and I have yet to see that happen.

For the record, in a previous Patch blog, I dittoed Paul Lark’s opposition to use of Search Firms. In fact my comment followed Pseudonym Saunders comment agreeing with Paul. I further stated that Search Firm historically set a high salary to quickly attract applicants to fill the vacancy so that they can move on to the next placement contract for their next commission. This causes a continuing ratcheting up of salaries. I have commended the board on their saving in construction costs; however, I have given my disapproval of the excessive salary being offered for a Superintendent. A high salary does not guarantee you will get the best candidate. For those who toss out big numbers as justification for a large salary they might want to look at the 308 organizational chart which shows the superintendent only supervises four persons.
Regarding Pseudo Saunders disrespectful comment that maybe the Colonel will come out of hiding, it is he who cowardly hides in the closet using a Pseudonym instead of a real name. I do not hide and I use my name because I have nothing to hide but I will choose when and on what I will comment.

Wow Colonel, I had to go back almost a week to see what you were referring to. What I meant by coming out of hiding had nothing to do with revealing who you are, or who I am. I was talking about your propensity to point out the fact that some current or previous administrators are drawing salaries while also drawing pensions from other states.