Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Joplin school district seeking $180,000 superintendent

Board member Lynda Banwart (pictured) and the search firm hired to find a new superintendent were ready to crack the $200,000 barrier in annual salary for the next person hired to lead the Joplin R-8 School District.

"I'm not advocating spending more money," Banwart said, just before she advocated for spending more money.

So did Ryan Ray and Dr .William Newman of Ray and Associates, the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, based search firm.

"We don't want you to be a training ground," Ray said. "The average stay for a superintendent is three years. If they come in at $160,000, they may come in and jump." Ray added the board should "make (the pay) good enough where the person would want to stay here a couple of years."

Both Ray and Newman recommended paying $200,000 for the new superintendent. "For your district and the shape and issues you've got to have $200,000," Newman said.

The board discussed the kinds of candidates that could be attracted if the salary was lower than $200,000, including administrators from smaller school districts. Surprisingly, no one mentioned that the district went that route in 2007 when it hired a new superintendent from the smaller Eldon district, C. J. Huff, for $160,000.

A discussion was also held on what type of superintendent the district needs. Banwart said she was looking for someone with business experience, while Board President Jeff Koch opted for someone with more of an educational presence.

It was noted that the five-year plan that the board approved recently would provide the new superintendent with a basic structure for education and Ridder will also be concentrating on classroom and curriculum during his final year. That framework would enable the incoming superintendent to concentrate more on finances.

But he or she will also face other problems. Board member Debbie Fort said, "We need someone who can rebuild the trust," a reference to the problems the district had during the era when it was guided by Huff and Assistant Superintendent Angie Besendorfer.

The $200,000 annual salary was too much for board member Lori Musser, who noted she did not want to be at Wal-Mart and have to explain to a teacher why the district was paying $200,000 for a superintendent when its teachers are being paid below those in neighboring districts.

Board member Chris Sloan said he also had problems with paying that much.

The board rejected a motion to set the salary at $190,000, then approved, by a 6-1 margin, an $180,000 salary, with Banwart, who wanted to pay more, casting the dissenting vote.


Anonymous said...

This is why Joplin cannot get quality. Why not cut this search firm loose and add their fee to the salary. This pathetic, lazy, unqualified, unprepared Board should be handling this search. Not some slick, big-money cabal. NO Mrs. B, we do not need someone with business experience. And yes President K, we do need someone with an "educational presence". WOW ,what an enlightened thought from the doe-eyed doofus-in-chief. Over the last two and a half years, Joplin voters have traded idiots for morons. You've urinated then defecated in your bed, now sleep in it!

Charles Virgin said...

I attended the BOE meeting and I think our BOE did a very good job selecting the salary for the Superintendent search. Anonymous 9:45, it is rather apparent you have issues with our new BOE. They have came a long way in fixing the issues of this District. There is still a lot of work to do and this BOE has been responsible in their actions thus far. Instead of using childish comments, how about suggestions on how to fix the issues.

Anonymous said...

Definitely someone with an education background.
Someone with strong ties to the community isn't going to jump and run.

Subscriber said...

Randy, missed the meeting. Did they approve the professional development fee?

Anonymous said...

Need therapy much, 9:45? Perhaps you should run for the Board yourself. You seem to believe you know everything, even though you cannot write effectively. You certainly do not spend any time qualifying your assertions. Get some help. You'll feel better soon. Until then, we will pray for you. Good luck and best wishes!

Anonymous said...

@ Charles Virgin

What issues have the new board fixed?

Anonymous said...

I say let's cut any extra travel of any kind for any one. I say cut any extra administration not required by the state or federal government. I say if we are in such a bad financial situation suspended any activities for a year that happen outside the regular class day. Take the money and put it in the bank. That means no athletics , band or choir compatitions. Let our two athletic directors return to the classroom for a year or work as the assistent high school principal. Let take all the fun and extras out so we can be better off. Now you have to think is this person for real or is this sarcasim.

Anonymous said...

@ Charles I had issues with the old BOE as well. Like I said, idiots for morons. My "childish comments", (aka code for: comments which you do not agree with) are nothing more than my personal opinion written with anger and frustration. Also, I think I did offer a few suggestions, but here is another: Do not re-elect the four who were on this Board last year. The new members are bad but it's too early to condemn them, yet.
@12:36 I would run for the BOE but my IQ surpasses the maximum allowed for ANY elected office in Missouri. Why don't you run? You'd fit right in. Sorry, I would happily debate you on these issues with civility but you decided to insult rather than inquire. Was that written with the effectivity you were looking for?
This BOE is so worried about wasting money, yet it will hire a firm (for tens of thousands of dollars) then totally ignore it's recommendations. Why can't the Board conduct it's own search?! President Doofus' expertise is in Human Resources, right?

Anonymous said...

Why pay a consultant if you aren't going to use their advice. You obviously think they know more about the subject than you do or you wouldn't hire them. Why not spend the extra $20,000 if that is what it takes to get the best candidate?