Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Pays to Be in Athletics at Steel Valley Schools
The newly installed athletic/activity director in the Steel Valley school district will earn $96,000 a year for nine months work. That’s well above what he would be making as a teacher or principal. Indeed, as a principal (assuming he had the qualifications—many have Ph.D.s) he would be working 12 months for substantially lower pay.
But the story doesn’t stop there. According to a newspaper report the new AD enjoys a close relationship with two of the Board members, one a brother another a cousin. Although the cousin abstained on the vote to make the AD position permanent and set the pay at $96,000, it is more than a little unseemly to have a personnel matter come before a board when the individual involved has two family members sitting on the board.
While this transaction could well be totally innocent and justified, the appearances are not flattering to the board or the school district. It is inescapable that there are many who will suspect the fix was in on this vote.
Beyond that, in times of budget tightness and taxpayer concerns about school taxes being so high, to pay an Athletic director nearly $100,000 for nine months work with $25,000 or $30,000 worth of benefits that go along, the Board’s action strains credulity.
The district could do well to establish a more suspicion free process for handling this type of issue. And it needs to at least give the appearance that it cares about restraining expenditures. Maybe the school district ought to solicit individual and corporate sponsorships and donations to fund coaches and athletic directors
But the story doesn’t stop there. According to a newspaper report the new AD enjoys a close relationship with two of the Board members, one a brother another a cousin. Although the cousin abstained on the vote to make the AD position permanent and set the pay at $96,000, it is more than a little unseemly to have a personnel matter come before a board when the individual involved has two family members sitting on the board.
While this transaction could well be totally innocent and justified, the appearances are not flattering to the board or the school district. It is inescapable that there are many who will suspect the fix was in on this vote.
Beyond that, in times of budget tightness and taxpayer concerns about school taxes being so high, to pay an Athletic director nearly $100,000 for nine months work with $25,000 or $30,000 worth of benefits that go along, the Board’s action strains credulity.
The district could do well to establish a more suspicion free process for handling this type of issue. And it needs to at least give the appearance that it cares about restraining expenditures. Maybe the school district ought to solicit individual and corporate sponsorships and donations to fund coaches and athletic directors
