Huntley School Board member Larry Snow challenges the Huntley School District 158 board majority’s interpretation of Superintendent John Burkey’s contract.

Snow says that the contract does not guarantee the maximum raise possible every year.

If you were a school board member hiring a superintendent, would you want to base future salary increases on performance or just bet the farm on the come?

Superintendent Burkey’s contract has the following wording in it:

“The BOARD retains the right to adjust the annual compensation, salary and/or fringe benefits of the SUPERINTENDENT during the term of the Agreement, and thereafter, provided that any compensation, salary, and/or fringe benefits adjustment(s) shall not be lower than the annual compensation, salary, and fringe benefits paid by the BOARD as stated in this Agreement for 2006-2007.”

Mr. Burkey and the five person majority on this board are interpreting his contract to say that the salary increases in his contract are guaranteed because of a Miscellaneous clause saying an amendment to the contract is not binding unless he agrees to it.

Can you see that if you don’t question the final proposed specific wording people are quick to take advantage of a Miscellaneous clause and take salaries for each year and turn them into guaranteed salary amounts that the Board does not have the right to adjust? Does it makes sense to you the Board would include the right to adjust the annual compensation in a contract, if the intent were to make the salaries for each year “guarantees”? Is this consistent with a culture of “whatever you can get away with”?