Roy Brooks' buyout
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on the lawsuit arguing that the Little Rock School Board's buyout of former Supt. Roy Brooks' contract was an illegal expenditure of tax money.
My witness says the justices' questions sounded favorably disposed to the school district's arguments that 1) it was a legal resolution of a contract dispute within the discretion of the board and 2) the issue was moot because Brooks' has been paid (as well as his lawyers). There's no money to recover without suing Brooks.
The lawyers challenging the buyout argue that the issue should be resolved regardless of money recovery because it could apply to other buyouts in the future. Justice Tom Glaze did wonder whether the expenditure was necessary for maintenance and operation of the school district, which is the constitutional standard for spending school money. But if a district can't fire a contract employee -- and pay according to the terms of the contract when that happens -- it will be hard to hire superintendents. Thus, a contract buyout seems necessary for operation as a personnel cost.
A quick decision, in the next week or two, is expected.
Comments
Districts should not be awarding golden parachute contracts to school administrators. Period, Max. These superintendents get better pay, better benefits, and better contracts. The court's ruling could put an end to the shameful practice of superintendents fattening their wallets at the expense of school children. And if the court fails to rule, the foxes will quickly learn the hen house door is swinging in the wind.
ARK. BLOG: I'm not unsympathetic. But, the downside, in addition to the fact that the notion of contracts for supers is a ship that long ago sailed, is that if you didn't have buyout clauses you could never fire someone who turned out to be a terrible mistake. And I think you can argue that contracts make some sense where a top administrator is answerable to an elected board. those winds can change dramatically, through no fault of the administrator.
Posted by: PVNasby![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 15, 2008 02:36 PM
"But if a district can't fire a contract employee -- and pay according to the terms of the contract when that happens -- it will be hard to hire superintendents."
Have you looked at superintendents' pay lately? Fayetteville interviewed at least a dozen who wanted the job up here. Building a new high school dispute drove most of them away. But overall, I think there are plenty of supers who will bite at those salaries.
The Springdale super draws $270K plus perks galore.
ARK. BLOG: And I bet it's under a contract with a termination clause. The guy being fired in Huntsville had one.
Posted by: L.Wood![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 15, 2008 04:54 PM
If there is a problem with the superintendent, why not fire him for cause? That saves everyone money and time. If there is not "cause" to fire the superintendent, maybe he/she shouldn't run off.
Posted by: tb0213![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 15, 2008 09:43 PM