For some, its a holiday. For others its a work day. For the latest in commentary its a slow news day. But that’s not to say that it’s an absent of news day. Dredging, the economy, and crime are the subjects in the local papers. But the tetth gnashing news was in today’s Washington Post, where the subject of superintendent pay packages was the topic of the A section. Naturally I had to read what they are saying about school systems in Maryland. First the graphic, then the article.
It would seem that the competition for quality superintendents is causing the fulcrum of supply and demand to tip in favor of those that seek the job rather than those that offer the job. That is an unhealthy situation. And the rationale embedded in the article is attributed to higher pay in the private sector.
The perks, far more extensive than they were a decade or two ago, reflect a dilemma faced by school boards competing for superintendents, said John DeFlaminis, executive director of the Center for Educational Leadership at the University of Pennsylvania. School systems are wanting “to get the best person they can get, but not necessarily wanting to pay that in a publishable salary,” he said. “So they’ll try to hide a portion of it.”
Pay and perks for superintendents have increased dramatically across the nation in recent years, driven by simple supply and demand. Experts say there is a dwindling pool of well-qualified superintendent candidates willing to endure the position’s hours and pressure.
The article goes on to say;
Almost no one in education believes that superintendents are overpaid. They receive less than many private-school headmasters in the region, less than most local university presidents, far less than managers in the private sector with similar budgets and staffs. They tend to be the highest-paid public officials in their cities and counties, but they also command the largest operations.
Which brings me to reflect on something that is underlying an assumption that makes little sense. Large budget amounts, or large employee bases, is hardly a determinant factor for assessing the value of a chief executive. I’d argue that post world war II executives had (adjusted for inflation) much larger budgets and and bigger employee bases and were compensated far less than the current crop of executives. It seems that there’s a societal acceptance on size rather than output. ANd the output of a public high-school in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, event he 70’s and 80″s greatly exceeds the output of the a public high-school in the 90’s and 00’s. Yet the chief executives make more.
It’s not just education where this anomaly exists, the private sector is rife with executive level management that deliver nothing compared to their historical precedent occupiers of the executive management team. Here’s a prime example; Dow Jones released in June of 2007 the pay package its paying CEO Rich Zannino, $883,846 in salary and about $1.6 million in stock-related awards– along with $895,000 in annual incentive payments. But that’s just the beginning of the money train.
Dow Jones also spent $173,441 for Zannino’s commuting costs (Company provided car and full-time driver — apparently Rich can’t take the train in from Connecticut.) And Dow Jones contributed $208,177 to Rich’s deferred-comp accounts, an 800% match for Rich’s contribution of $26,037.
The Dow Jones golden parachute, if they lay off Zannino he gets $3.42 million cash (that’s equivalent to nearly FOUR YEARS of salary,) $713,888 to continue his benefits, $895,000 in bonus payments, $180,000 for “financial counseling/outplacement” and $5.2 million in long-term incentives. That’s a severance package worth almost $10 and a quarter million dollars.
And this is the same guy who says to the union that he’ll triple your health care premiums and prescription co-pays, eliminate cost of living protection and force them to accept a 2% a year pay increase.
The story doesn’t stop there, because with the Rupert Murdoch acquisition of of Dow Jones preparing to be competed, Zannino quit on December 6th, 2007. Good thing he negotiated that golden parachute. Everyone else at Dow Jones was perhaps not as lucky. TO see a chart of how the top fares, check this out.
Boxing day, btw, is a holiday that dates back to the feudal era. Traditionally its celebrated in the UK, Canada, and other commonwealth countries. From the wiki;
Boxing Day is a traditional celebration, dating back to the Middle Ages, and consists of the practice of giving out gifts to employees, the poor, or to people in a lower social class. The name has numerous folk etymologies[3]; the Oxford English Dictionary attributes it to the Christmas box; the verb box meaning: “To give a Christmas-box (colloq.); whence boxing-day.” Outside the Commonwealth, the day is celebrated with a different name.
