How much is it worth it for the new Wake County school board majority to get rid of Superintendent Del Burns before June 30?
As noted in today's article, the board majority says it wants to work with him through the end of June 30. But there's another option available.
In Burns' contract, there's a provision that says that once he submits written notice of resignation the board can unilaterally choose to terminate him immediately. (The contract I've posted is the original from 2006 but school board attorney Ann Majestic said the language is still there.)
By terminating him now, the board would owe Burns his salary through June 30 and pay for any unused state accrued annual leave. I don't know how much leave Burns has got, but we're looking at around $68,000 in salary.
Normally, the board would have to pay Burns 18 months worth of salary if they wanted to buy his contract out early. That's worth $409,500.
But the buyout option was waived once Burns submitted his notice on Tuesday.
The board could also try to fire him for cause but it would be expensive and messy.
The board could also waive the requirement that Burns has to give 90 days notice to avoid a $30,000 penalty. But Burns said he wants to stay through June 30. Plus, would he want to leave early and not take the four months salary and pay from annual leave he could get in return?
Another option proposed Thursday by the Wake Schools Community Alliance was to reassign Burns and hire an active superintendent.
Now, the board could continue to work with Burns through June 30.
But Burns made it very clear in several media interviews on Thursday that he's opposed to the policies of the board majority.
The criticism caused school board member John Tedesco, who was designated the main spokesman Thursday by Ron Margiotta, to warn that Burns could face insubordination charges if he can't work effectively with the majority.
“If he basically can’t perform the duties of his job, it either becomes inadequate job performance or insubordination or something that needs to be dealt with at another level,” said Tedesco in the article. “We hope that doesn’t happen. I have great respect for him as a person.”
Now school board member Keith Sutton warned that the board minority would try to block any personnel action against Burns.
"That’s not going to happen,” Sutton said of the prospect of personnel action. “Del Burns has served this system with distinction and honor and integrity. To think that that we would treat him with any less than that in terms of respect is ridiculous and preposterous.”
Comments
Coaches at public universities?
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 23:24 — festusStockbrokers?
Investment bankers?
Professional golfers?
Really, I am with woodstock here--I would much rather pay my superintendent $237k per year after 33 years of service than pay her/him far less and get less.
Let's see
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 23:38 — Voice_of_Reason_Coaches - If they are good bring millions of dollars in revenue to a school
Stockbrokers? - If you are willing to pay , why not.
Investment Bankers? That is for their Boards of Directors to decide based on what they bring in return to their company.
Golfers? Not all are weathy, they make their money because they make money for others through endorsements, etc.
If you really feel that way, pay him out of your pocket, not mine...I'm sure he'll take it. He still has the ability to make a lot in the private sector.
30 + years in state
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 19:28 — shank5630 + years in state government? Now he can "double dip" like a lot ot teachers do .
BOE members get a stipend - plus stuff like phone, fax and computer service paid for at home, I think. WCPSS employees deliver all materials to their homes several days prior to meetings- which must be several times a week, in additiion to e-mail.
Violations of NC law regarding class size.
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 12:16 — jackjones209Keung,
Thanks for posting the Employment Contract so quickly.
I have not heard a lot of additional reporting on the class size violations that WCPSS was recently ordered to correct. Given the decision to "dis-place" ~1,400 teachers last year and then the subsequent request for 300+ class size waivers, it seems pretty obvious that the class size limits were intentionally violated. From your previous reporting, it seems that was one of the reasons why the Board of Education denied the requests.
There are two reasons why I bring this up:
1) The shuffling of teachers and classes last year and then the recent scramble to hire additional teachers to start new classrooms illustrates pretty well the chaos that WCPSS has been causing.
2) The superintendents contract requires him to "perform all duties incident to the office of the Superintendent and such other duties as may be prescribed by law or by the Board from time to time" (page 2, Paragraph 2B), which seems obvious. Considering the harm this has caused a lot of children in the affected schools, I think it is reasonable to ask who decided to violate the statutes and why they thought it was an acceptable solution.
I think there is a lot more to this issue than has been reported.
pfff
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 11:33 — gregishereLook, it's the Culture War now playing at a school board near you. Whatever. Everyone put your big boy/girl pants on and realize it's a fight. Quite whining about Del Burns this or Tedesco that. Fire this person or sneak a motion in on that person. It's a battle and whoever wins, wins. My guess is diversity/magnets/non-homogenous wins, given that most people aren't hard-right zealots like most of the people on this blog. But everyone needs to quit couching their thoughts in high-minded rhetoric. It's some version of Palin v. Biden. My money's on the smart people, but hey, no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the public. (See A. Idol; R. Reagan; Pet Rocks)
Hi Greggy, aren't you a
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 12:32 — CaryCurmudgeonHi Greggy, aren't you a little off course from your BlueNC fiefdom? There's another election in 2011, why don't you start gearing up for that instead of calling people stupid?
Wrong answer
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:09 — gregishereMr. Cumudgeon, I am not this "greggy" you speak of from the fiefdom; so, if you see this "greggy" don't accost him for my comment. Here's another: Can't wait for the Art Pope v. Chamber Smackdown. Pope's got a lot of cash invested in squirting his conservatism willy-nilly about the county, hoping to smile at the burning embers of the school system. But Progress Energy/WRAL/N&O/giantcompaniesinchamber have much much more. The biz/realtors need their good schools and they just might fight hard to keep them out of the hands of the Neanderthals. But like I said, there's always the stupid.
You got to love it
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 15:19 — Voice_of_Reason_Joe (Mudge) isn't it funny how these academic/progressive elitists seem to know all the answers? They say they are for the little guys, but only use them to get their power, the "useful idiots" they call them; everyone else is a useless idiot. You gotta feel the love when someone calls you a sub-human (a Neanderthal) for not looking at something the way you do. Funny thing is they don't realize we are for the exact same goals, only we have a different view about how to get there.
Oh yeah, and the first to scream partisanship. Give me a break gregishere. Look in the mirror before you comment again, who do you really want to help?
Academics?
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 22:21 — festusWhere did that come from?
There was a forward slash
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:52 — Voice_of_Reason_i.e. / = OR or BOTH. Frankly I am tired of all the "you are stupid" if you don't agree with me talk. I may say or think you are wrong , but at least I will listen. I keep seeing words like stupid, Neaderthal, and idiot thrown at people and frankly in my mind I see it as someone whose words bounce off the mirror they are in front of. State your case, debate, advocate, but don't denagrate when you lose your argument or cannot get the other side to agree with you.
"But like I said, there's
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:28 — woodstock"But like I said, there's always the stupid."
I agree...and you personify it. Thanks for the illustration.
Okay
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:46 — gregishereI wish everyone well.
"Reassign him to the worst
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 09:32 — user12345"Reassign him to the worst job in the school district."
And that is not his present job? High needs parents and fickle politicians and heaps of Federal and State mandate with no incremental funding ...
Melissa Hussain would
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 09:51 — red_balloonMelissa Hussain would disagree. My guess is she isn't alone. When I volunteer in the classroom, I admire what the teachers try to accomplish (and accomplish) but there is no way I am stepping foot into a classroom as part of my job. And then you have the principals, central staff, etc. I doubt they all have a cushy job. WCPSS isn't vacation central.
Thanks for saying this
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 22:24 — festusI agree 100 percent. Lost in the Board circus right now is the extraordinary hard work of staff, administrators, teachers, volunteers like you (thank you) and all the PTA folks...
My biggest concern is that the bashing of WCPSS will increase. The Boards come and go, even the superintendents can be replaced. But I hate to see morale being undermined among teachers.
Really??
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 09:24 — choice4allIn an interview with News 14, he said he was not going to be a "pawn in partisan political gamesmanship."
Then what is he doing now? You can't tell me that all of this Drama has not been orchestrated from behind the scenes. To publicly bash your employer and expect to stay on for 3 months afterwards? Its one of two things. Either he is really really stupid, which in that case he does not belong as super, or all this Drama is an attempt to rally the forces which has already been suggested on another blog somewhere. ie still a political pawn. Either way the damage is done and he needs to go ASAP. I am wondering if this "shock value" media attempt is going to seriously backfire on Burns and the orchestrator of this media event. Seriously.
How did Burns "bash" anyone?
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 13:39 — carson79How did Burns "bash" anyone?
Yeah, I find it amusing that
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 09:34 — jenmanYeah, I find it amusing that he complains about partisan politics yet that's what been going on for years. Its just that his 'side' didn't win this time.
yeah, I'll take the bait -
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 13:01 — carson79yeah, I'll take the bait - what are you talking about "partisan politics" is what has been going on for years???
Please back that up.
Keung has blogged extensively about how this year was different from past years so you I guess are refuting that, please fill us all in because I have not heard anyone agree with what you just said in any way.
This election was amplified
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 13:42 — jenmanThis election was amplified for sure, but partisan politics has been a part of school board elections for the 12 years I've lived here. Dare to say that the diversity policy needs some changing and you're a right-wing segregationist. I've been called that for several years now. Question the diversity policy and you're not looked upon favorably in Democratic party circles.
Recent efforts to move to some form of at-large school board elections fell along party lines. No discussion, no compromise, just NO from the Wake Dems. Of course, now that those same officials don't like how the elections turned out they are starting to look into at-large.
School bond issues always devolve into partisan politics.
Honestly, if you can't see that our school board and school system have always been partisan you have your head in the sand.
of course the elections have
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:43 — carson79of course the elections have been partisan - but that is not what Burns was referring to.
He didn't say the elections have not been partisan in the past - the push to eliminate government imposed diversity is most certainly coming from the right wing and it is partisan - I dont think you can compare the initial institution of the diversity policy or a healthy schools model because they had and have widespread support from many different groups that are NOT left wing - business groups, real estate folks, and then your democrats, minorities, etc.
I don't know of any non-right wing group that is urging the new board to end diversity in the policy. This is the difference to me.
To notice the distinct difference you just have to witness Deborah Prickett thanking the Republican party (she'd probably like to take that back!!) at her speech
"I don't know of any
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:51 — woodstock"I don't know of any non-right wing group that is urging the new board to end diversity in the policy. This is the difference to me. "
WSCA is advocating for the elimination of assignment for diversity. They are decidedly non-partisan. Although not part of any particular group, the people who voted so overwhelmingly for the new BoE members came from a diverse background.
WCSA is HIGHLY Partisan
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 20:32 — chaboardCare to try again?
I know of at least 2
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 22:29 — Eric_BI know of at least 2 registered Democrats that I worked with on the WSCA steering committee, so that is not true.
Do you care to comment on the PPP pre-election poll that showed even Democrats barely support the diversity policy?
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/10/school-board-polling.html
You're free to believe those you disagree with are all evil partisan Republicans, but the facts say you are wrong.
ARe the names of the
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 23:43 — carson79ARe the names of the steering committee public? I guess you probably can't tell us, right? I agree that their leaders are not all registered Republicans if that's what you want me to concede. I don't really know who their leadership is so I can't confirm or deny their "non-partisanship" or diversity.
I certainly do NOT believe that everyone that disagrees with me is a Republican and I hope I don't think all Republicans are evil!! I am in some trouble then!
WSCA is a parent group and
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 09:51 — Eric_BWSCA is a parent group and some parents are more comfortable than others giving out their contact information. I certainly don't want to give out names and contact information of the other steering committee members. I'll be at the Leesville CEM on Tuesday if you want to talk then. WSCA held a bunch of meetings all over the county last year where you could have met all of us also.
I did not see any response from you related to the PPP poll on the school board elections showing how unpopular the current diversity policy is.
I'm sorry, what response did
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:42 — carson79I'm sorry, what response did you want? I am aware of the poll, is that what you were asking?
Are you one of the authors of the open letter from February?
The letter does not mention magnets IIRC - do you know how the following:
Adopt assignment policies favoring neighborhood schools, i.e. children are assigned to the schools closest to their homes.
is to be reconciled with the magnet schools?
I was wondering if you had
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:59 — Eric_BI was wondering if you had any reaction to the poll. It shows the diversity policy is unpopular among almost all groups. It suggests that candidates supporting the diversity policy are unlikely to win elections anytime soon. Why do you think it is so unpopular?
Yes, I am one of the authors of the open letter from last year.
I think magnets can be reconciled with neighborhood schools. Let's look at the purpose of the magnet program:
I've seen some data from WCPSS on the effect at the middle school level of assigning students strictly to the closest school. The ITB middle schools (Ligon, Carnage, Moore Sq, Centennial, Martin and Daniels) have capacity for 5267 students and there are 3587 students with these schools as their closest school. This still leaves room for 1680 magnet students, a little over 700 spots short of the number of magnet students at these schools today.
If these schools were converted to YR as some have suggested, that would open up an additional 1738 seats. With YR conversions of these schools, we would be able to go to a neighborhood schools + magnet program where low income base students will be guaranteed seats at their neighborhood magnet school while still leaving room for over 2400 magnet students.
Goal #1 of the magnet program will be achieved. Goal #2 will be achieved in an even better fashion than today through a YR calendar. Goal #3 will continue to be achieved through the special offerings of magnet programs.
Of course, there may be other adjustments needed. I haven't seen the data on elementary school magnets, but I suspect something similar could work.
There is also decently
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:13 — JSBinNCThere is also decently strong opinion that has been expressed here and elsewhere that the YR calendar offers benefit in terms of retention... in particular if there is remediation involved. The board should really be looking YR as an option for both getting more children into fantastic magnet programs, as well as capacity. (IMO!!)
Great numbers crunching! thanks!!
I have long thought that YR
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:53 — jenmanI have long thought that YR could be helpful for at-risk children, but ONLY if there are the remediation programs available and if the kids are going to school closer to home.
I have no research to back this up, so its just an idea of what may work at this point, but. . . . Being connected with the school family during the entire year, or at least not having a 2.5 month long break might be helpful for kids who struggle academically. Or even just low income kids in general, even if they aren't behind academically. Its just another form of support for them and their families. I've known plenty of lower income families who care and who push their children to do their best. They see the school and its staff as partners in this goal. The staff knows the needs that each family has and can keep those connections throughout the year. If we're talking about the low income kids whose families are messed up then this around the year contact and support could be crucial.
There is a real chance that YR could be very beneficial to our lower income population, but WCPSS was so intent on raising the F&R of far flung YR schools that they completely ignored the negative effects of those assignments. It was never about what was good for those kids, just their 'healthy schools' policy.
I think these are good ideas
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:10 — carson79I think these are good ideas - Ron has to give up the "closest school" thing though, that to me sounds like Zero Choice and I don't think people will like it. Maybe just fight to limit involuntary (non choice school transportation) to XX minutes or something. I don't recall any details but a bunch of people on the blog explained why magnets don't work with year round - but given some additional funding, they would have to work to my mind.
Did yall write an answer to Kevin Hill's response to the open letter?
Thanks. I don't think any
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:41 — Eric_BThanks. I don't think any of the board members have said we would ever go to a strictly closest school model. It's pretty obvious that something like that would never work.
Changing policy 6200 to elevate proximity to school as a primary goal and eliminating the 40% F&R cut line are reasonable changes in my mind, especially since 1/3 of our schools exceed 40% F&R right now anyway.
We did not write a response to Kevin Hill's letter, although I sent him a private email response pointing out where I felt his arguments were weak.
I think that anything can
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:16 — JSBinNCI think that anything can work with any school - magnet or not - it's just the desire to make it work / can do attitude that is the difference... :)
Cliche - but together - we can do anything. We just have to get everyone "together".
I was VERY glad when my very
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 22:41 — loriacI was VERY glad when my very smart liberal friend met w/ the WSCA folks and signed on. I felt if they couldn't convince her, then the purpose was wrong and the WSCA candidates would not be successful. I am as conservative as they come (and yes, I get taken to task regularly by my liberal friends) - but this wasn't about politics, it was about bringing back education to Wake County students.
(not healthy schools, whatever that means)
No need for that. But I am
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 20:36 — woodstockNo need for that. But I am confused as to why you would continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Have you ever attended a WSCA meeting? It is one of the most politically diverse organizations there is.
Because he believes any
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 20:48 — CaryCurmudgeonBecause he believes any individual or organization who does not agree with him is partisan. Don't waste your time.
Thanks woodstock
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 15:43 — SDR256We've been careful to phrase this as to what we are for. We are FOR programs that put academic achievement first. The diversity policy, in our view, is not a program that puts academic achievement first and so is not one that we would back. The diversity policy has, in fact, seemingly hurt ED children by hiding their struggles from view. In that regard we have a problem with it. I think if more people knew how they are not achieving academically under this program, they might be more vocal about finding something better.
But yes, we are non-partisan and our membership did have a lot to do with the election of the current board.
"Recent efforts to move to
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:00 — user12345"Recent efforts to move to some form of at-large school board elections fell along party lines. "
why at large .... It only takes five members to run the entire system ... the other four districts are not really part of the process ...
At Large
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:33 — Duhhuh666When the old board voted on at large seats (5 district seats 4 at large) only on person voted in favor of having at large seats Yep Ron Margiotta. McLaurin and Hill voted against at large. The old board thought they could hold onto power with district elections and off year elections. Now those who opose the current majority think they need at large elections and elections to coinside with regular elections. I am guess if we did change it as soon as it didnt produce the results they wanted, they would want it back to the way it was.
That is why I prefer to
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:59 — user12345That is why I prefer to keep the system like it is and focus the politicians on producing results and not manipulating the political structure for this year's benefit...
Broaden the definition
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 13:34 — Bob_SconcePartisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something
The 'something' here was the busing-for-socioeconomic-diversity philosophy.
Burns isn't really complaining about partisanship -- he ferevently believes in that 'something,' which makes him a partisan. He's complaining about the rancor that happens when partisans meet resistance.
He is talking about politics
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 13:42 — carson79He is talking about politics Bob and so are a lot of other people! He's not "complaining" about anything either. He stated his principles are not consistent with the direction the Board is trying to force us in and resigned. I don't think he meant to reference partisan politics or well I think he shouldnt have, but he did, and if anyone doesn't think that is what won this election for the "neigborhood schools" folks ($$$$$$) then I disagree.
Sure...
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:01 — Bob_SconceThere was money in the election. But, even more so, there was a LOT of time and effort. What did the money buy, some campaign flyers? The real effort was feet on the ground and word-of-mouth communications. And Burns was his own worst enemy: you don't mess up every family's schedule for some strange unknown education policy in an election year.
The election was like the 1994 congressional election -- up until that time, the Democrats were so used to getting their way that as soon as the Republicans took over, the Democrats started complaining about partisanship. In reality, they had been partisan all along, and just never realized it. The fighting only happens when you have opposition.
Exactly!
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:40 — JanisTangoI believe the implementation of Wacky Wednesdays, the 3 year assignment plan, and MYR shoved down some peoples throats helped the new candidates win the election.
Bingo Bango
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 15:50 — g88ky07Janis Tango!
"Wacky Wednesdays, the 3
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 15:07 — user12345"Wacky Wednesdays, the 3 year assignment plan, and MYR "
I agree ... to me .. logistical mis-steps ... but the election had little to do with dissatisfaction with educational performance which people are trying to claim after the fact ... personally, that is why I think we find most people are happy because only a minority of the people were hit the hardest with these logistics problems ... probably the ones that lived in high growth areas ...
I don't think educational
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 19:47 — red_balloonI don't think educational performance is a non-issue on this blog but undoubtedly assignments and calendar related issues appear to generate more interest.
I Think They Go Hand and Hand!
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 21:44 — JanisTangoThe reassignment mess and calender fiasco has caused a lot of instability in the school system. Education is impacted by that. When little Johnny moves 3 times in 4 years how can you begin to address what is causing an issue if his educational performance is going down. Did the teacher at the last school find the magic bullet in regards to reaching Johnny? Is it the move? Is it the bus ride? Is it the new kids? Is it that he has lost friends? Is it that he has lost his support group? Does he not fit in? You can't measure and analyze a moving target? If his performance goes up don't you think you would want to capitalize on that success? If it goes down don't you think you would want to have a concrete reason why. That is easier to do if the factors around him don't change every year.
Not to mention the fact that
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:41 — jenmanNot to mention the fact that they don't track individual student performance, only that of the school as a whole. They're not even TRYING to track that moving target. SHameful, really.
You can keep rationalizing
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 16:43 — woodstockYou can keep rationalizing things until the cows come home, but it does not change the fact that an a whole lot more people cared enough to vote for change than demanded we stick with the status quo.