After taking on the teacher’s unions, Gov. Christopher Christie has decided that superintendents of schools in New Jersey make too much money – and he wants the state to cap how much superintendents can earn in future contracts, based on enrollment rather than on negotiations.
Christie, of course, is trying desperately to roll back governmental reforms instituted early in the 20th Century that protected governmental workers from political influence.
Laws that established concepts such as civil service were designed to assure key workers that they would not fall victim to the whim of each new administration.
The problem for Christie is that he wants to make these workers subject to various policy changes he has in mind, and like many administrations on a local, state, and federal level, Christie is struggling to overcome the power of bureaucracy.
Ironically, Christie – who has numerous ties to Former President George W. Bush – seems to mirror some of the problems faced by Democratic President Barack Obama, who is trying to curb the salaries of corporate chief executive officers.
In his belief that cities are unable to curb their own spending habits and that local voters are unable to vote out overspending politicians, Christie has decided to impose his own fiscal diet on county, municipal, and school leaders.
Teachers, municipal workers, and now superintendents have become vilified because they negotiated contracts in good faith that taxpayers are unwilling to pay for after the fact. This is not a new concept. Republican Gov. Christie Whitman refused to fully fund retirement accounts and raided dedicated accounts such as unemployment insurance to lessen the tax impact on the state’s wealthiest taxpayers. Some of these accounts, such as state lottery profits and profits from Atlantic City casinos, were supposed to fund programs for senior citizens and schools.
These actions came as a result of the misconceived notion that government workers had it “too good” or got “sweetheart deals.” and this makes it okay to violate contract law.
Gov. Christie appears to want to return to the good old days when public workers had to fear for their jobs each time an administration changes or public whim changes. Christie acts as if local voters have no control over their own legislators and need state intervention. School budgets are out of control because too few local people actually vote on them. Municipal officials spend freely because too few people show up at meetings to complain.
But the problem isn’t as simple as Christie claims. Local taxes began their hefty rise, not so much because local spending is out of control, but because the state changed the tax formula in the late 1980s, shifting the burden of property taxes from corporations and businesses and onto the backs of homeowners in what was called “The Business Retention Act of 1987.”
When Gov. Jim Florio attempted to correct this inequity by raising sales and other taxes, he – along with a majority of Democratic legislators – got booted out of office, leaving Whitman to continue the financial shell game. Three governors later, the state still hasn’t come to terms with the taxes – although Republicans did manage under Whitman to pass a tax cut that made the problem even worse.
Gov. Christie’s solution is to blame public workers and to void reforms designed to protect them from political pressure.
Christie’s proposal for capping superintendents’ salaries does make sense in the same way capping corporate CEO’s benefits does. His formula would establish a $175,000 cap for superintendents in districts with 3,001 to 10,000 students. School districts with more than 10,000 students would not be capped.
The caps only apply to future contracts, not current contracts.
In Bayonne, which has a student population of about 9,200 students, Dr. Patricia McGeehan would lose about $55,000 a year if she renews her contract when it expires in two years. West New York Superintendent John Fauta, who makes $219,000, just started a five-year contract, so the cap would not take effect until it expires.
The problem is: Capping superintendents’ salaries risks having them earn less than subordinate officials such as principals of high schools.
Dr. McGeehan, who will most likely retire when this contract expires, said superintendents do not have some of the protections other school employees have.
“Before I became superintendent, the state did away with tenure for superintendents,” she said. “This is the reason why we have contracts.”
Under the law, a superintendent’s contract can be up to five years, which is the only job security they have.
“Every other position can attain tenure,” she said.
McGeehan agrees with some of the reforms Christie has proposed – such as not upgrading vacation and sick pay when a person is hired as a superintendent.
“When I negotiated my first contract in 2,000, I did not accept the increase in pay for my sick and vacation pay,” she said. “Some others did.”
But she feels as a superintendent, she earns her pay.
“I’m on call seven days a week, 24 hours a day,” she said. “If there is an emergency, I’m called. We have about 9,200 students. But there are a lot of other people involved. We have 1,100 employees in this school district, plus the students, plus their parents, and as superintendent, I have to deal with them all. We have 11 school buildings. We are the biggest employer in the city of Bayonne.”
Some school districts such a Guttenberg have already gotten the message from the state, and have made moves to either eliminate their full-time superintendent or create a part time position. There are school districts in New Jersey that actually have no schools or are part of a regional school system where they have one or two elementary schools, and they send their kids to a regional high school. In these cases, local school districts have a superintendent and staff, as do the regional school districts.
Part of the problem is that like corporate executives, quality superintendents are in short supply – many districts have vacancies or superintendents in acting capacities. Often a quality candidate can demand significant salaries. To attract these superintendents, better school districts often offer lucrative packages, a practice that would cease under Christie’s cap.
Correction
On July 11, this column erroneously stated John Aslanian won the Republican Primary when Aslanian merely won Hudson County portion of the 32nd District. The winner, Republican Michael Agosta, is facing incumbent Democratic Rep. Steve Rothman in November. The column mistakenly referred to him as John in a previous correction. The district includes a large portion of Bergen County, as well as of Secaucus and some of North Bergen.
Al Sullivan may be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com.