Let's see if I've got all of this straight.
Three years ago the board approves a 25% raise for the superintendent (about 30,000$ a year) to convince him to stay, while telling other staff and teachers they're not worth a 2% raise. They supposedly include a provision by which he gets a 54000$ bonus if he sticks around for three years, and is not held to retirement deadline rules that apply to all other staff. All of this is done because, the board explains, the "morale in the district is so good".
The district also employs an assistant superintendent, a director of curriculum, a director of business, a director of special education, and director of transportation etc., striking many in the real world as making the district hugely top-heavy toward administration cost.
The superintendent notifies the district two weeks late that he wants the money that is supposedly used to save the district money by replacing higher cost teachers with cheaper beginners. This, of course, will not be the case here unless the board decides to not replace the superintendent and instead allows the already well-paid other "directors" to assume his responsibilities. This, of course, probably wont' happen as it makes far too much sense.
Instead, we will pay someone nearly 11,000$ to find a new superintendent, while having several former administrators sitting on this board who apparently can't do this without expensive outside help.
I hereby offer the services of Ned "Guido" Neighborhood, attorney at law for the law firm of Dewey, Screwum and Howe. Ned will find the right person for the job, perhaps with a nice starting wage of a beginning teacher....somewhere in that low 30's range. Ned will also investigate the "morale" of staff three years down the road from that last "morale" boost.
