As I read the article, several questions arose. Then, I actually read a copy of Mr. Stafford’s contract and some insight into the machinations of the contract were clear.

First question: If the salary increase was only 1 percent (not the 8 percent reported through the grapevine), why even bother, given the negative publicity that would surely ensue? Especially when there are teacher reductions, layoff of classified employees, and furlough days (i.e. loss of income) for administrators, classified employees, and teachers. That makes no sense. Michael Hanson of Fresno Unified was offered and refused a salary increase this year, and FUSD’s employees did not have a reduction of salary. Why even bother with a mere 1 percent increase?

Second question: Why increase his retirement benefits package by 8 percent? Well, in actuality, what the superintendent’s contract says is that the district will pay Mr. Stafford’s share of his retirement contribution. The District will not only pay its 8 percent but will pay Mr. Stafford’s 8 percent. That will save Mr. Stafford approximately $13,600 that he would normally pay into the State Teachers’ Retirement System. That means, in effect, that Mr. Stafford will receive approximately $13,600 more in his paycheck. Even though he is not officially getting a nine percent increase (remember the 1 percent salary increase), he really is since he is having 8 percent less deducted.

Third question: Why should the superintendent get a full year’s salary (paid out over 5 years)? True, last year some retiring teachers received an earl-retirement incentive of a one-year salary over a period of 5 years, but the rationale for doing so is far different than that of giving one to the superintendent. If the district encourages a teacher to retire early, the district will save money over a period of a few years. A veteran teacher costs tens of thousands of dollars more for a period of three to five years than hiring a younger, less senior teacher. Plus, reducing the number of teachers through early retirement saved many younger teachers their jobs.

Giving a retiring superintendent a “bonus” of a one-year salary saves no money. The next superintendent will cost as much if not more than the retiring superintendent. In effect, the district will not save any money giving the superintendent a retirement “bonus” while it saves a lot of money over a three- to five-year period to encourage senior teachers to retire. By promising a retirement “bonus,” aren’t you encouraging someone to retire earlier than normal rather than staying in the job for a longer period of time? Aren’t you setting a precedent for future superintendents to expect a retirement bonus?

Plus, the superintendent will receive a large retirement from the State Teachers’ Retirement (probably anywhere from 65% to 70%+ of his yearly salary).

Fourth question, what about his retirement medical benefits? Mr. Stafford will not only receive medical coverage until he is eligible for Medicare but his spouse will, too. As far as I know, no other retired school district employee receives free medical insurance for a spouse. Any other retired employee must pay the spouse’s part, which is approximately $550 a month. So, in retirement, Mr. Stafford will be receiving additional medical insurance coverage in the approximate amount of $6,600.

Another observation gleaned from Mr. Stafford’s contract is that the district will pay for his membership to the Association of California School Administrators and two other organizations. Why? I have no idea what the membership fees are, but I would think that those were the responsibility of the administrator, not of the District. If other employees want to join an association, they must pay for the membership out of their own pockets.

The district’s last three superintendents have been in-house administrators. The district did not need to go outside to hire a superintendent. There are other administrators within the district who would do at least as good a job as the last two superintendents.

The question for the community and the school board is whether a nearly $16,000 yearly increase in salary and benefits for one person seems appropriate given the economic conditions. The question for the community and the school board is whether a nearly $200,000 retirement package (bonus plus spouse’s medical insurance) for one person seems appropriate given the economic conditions.

Jeanne Martin,
Madera

The Secretary of Education, the Board of Trustees and Mr. Stafford do not instruct My Child in math, history, English, Science, and other basic critical thinking. It is the TEACHER in the classroom all day.

The Secretary, Board, and Mr. Stafford do not influence My Child’s sense of accomplishment, desire to learn, and aspirations to succeed. It is the TEACHER in the classroom all day.

The Secretary, Board, and Mr. Stafford do not provide My Child with guidance, encouragement, praise, and reproach. It is the TEACHER in the classroom all day.

The Secretary, Board and Mr. Stafford will never receive a letter from My Child thanking him for all he has done for him/her — because it is the TEACHER in the classroom all day.

I am not sure about other parents but I truly do not care if Mr. Stafford is happy.

I want My Child’s TEACHER to be happy!

Do we really want disgruntled, overworked, underpaid teachers in the classrooms with our children all day? Teacher’s have what I consider THEE most stressful job on Earth. How well could any of us handle being in a room for five hours with thirty-nine 10 year olds? I am not sure I could get them all to sit down and be quiet — let alone teach them long division.

It is time for ALL of us to wake up and give the credit where credit is due.

Mr. Stafford and the Board are absolutely worthless without our Teachers. Come election time we need to let the Board know that we are not happy if this is the best they can do — then it is time to change the guard!

Don’t dig too deep, you might be surprised what you find. Lots of teachers had to give up time and money so he could have that raise, yet the school wants to cut the no. of teachers and impose cuts that cause problems for the “everyday” guy. It’s not what you know, but who.

I agree with the most of the remarks made. However, what bothers me is the constant bellowing and whining from people who work for the government.

One of the reasons — and I emphasize, one — that our school system and government is in such dire strait is because their unions and associations have so burdened the taxpayers with their constant demand for pay increases and benefits that their level of compensation is not sustainable.

While regular people are trying to make ends meet in these economic times, we keep hearing about how mistreated teachers are and how mistreated government employees are.

At last count there were about 30 million people unemployed or underemployed in this country. Personally I think that number is a lot higher.

Our nation, state, county, and city are in the midst of the deepest and most severe recession/depression since The Great Depression, and it will take extraordinary steps to pull out of it.

The leaders of this country from top to bottom are not in touch with reality, and I believe that most of the people working for the government are out of touch also. They seem to be oblivious to what is happening to our country.

There are a lot of people in this country who are going without — going without food, health insurance, electricity, gas to heat their homes and clothes for their children, and going without hope. I am appalled at the lack of appreciation from those in government, the lack of compassion from the fortunate and the absence of action from our elected officials to reverse this situation.

I could think of 10 things right now to help turn this train wreck around, but that would take change and no one wants to change as long as their gravy train is still chugging along. Well, folks, we can change things now or we can sweep up the pieces later. Someone is going to have to pay for the tab we are running up and the sooner we realize that the better.

Will someone come forward and lead us out of this mess; are we going to wait for a catastrophic failure of our system before we take the steps necessary to right the ship?

Our country is in financial ruin and printing money is not the answer. We must all tighten our belts and make some tough choices, if not we will have nothing to leave our children but regret.

We are in a war that will not be won by appeasing our enemies; we must crush them without mercy or hesitation just as they would crush us if they had the means.

We must free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil and establish our country as a leader in energy technologies and innovation.

We must redesign and rethink our entitlement programs: Social Security, welfare, Medicare, etc. They are not sustainable in their current forms.

Why can’t we all give a little instead of take? Let’s all pull together, put our selfishness aside. Let’s demand that our politicians stop plundering our future, and restore America to the noble, proud and dominant powerhouse that it once was, instead of the teetering, hapless thing it is now.

My intentions when I began this letter were not to insult or demean anyone, and I am sorry if I have done that. This letter is a reflection of my frustration and my disappointments with people I feel have the responsibility to look after this country, its people and the tax dollars that they so carelessly redistribute.

Mike Sparks,
Madera