Search This Blog

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Raises planned for top CCS administrators and directors?

If you were an employee of the Clarkston Community School District and had your pay frozen OR had massive pay cuts and then had your pay frozen for several years, would you have a problem if administration was looking to increase the top administrator's pay and keeping the news hush-hush?  I would...

The district (read Dr. Rod Rock and Mrs. Cheryl McGinnis) decided to use a "round table" communication vehicle to communicate a few subjects to the school board during the 9/10/12 CCS board meeting.  It was recorded for Comcast channel 22 and the district's USTREAM account available here (click on the 9/10/12 board meeting video).  However, you won't hear any of that round table discussion on the recordings because although the district recorded that part of the meeting, there were no microphones being used and the material presented was not part of the board packet for the meeting (from 2 hours, 7 minutes to the end of the recording at 3 hours - the remainder of the meeting was not recorded due to the three hour maximum recording time and the recording not being restarted at three hours.  How convenient that there were no microphones...

During the round table discussions they discussed the status of:
  1. "Non-affiliated"/non-union employee contracts (presented by Anita Banach, the CCS Human Resources Director),
  2. IT in the district (presented by Matt McCarty,  CCS IT Director),
  3. and the "focus school" designations for Andersonville Elementary and Pine Knob Elementary (presented by principals, Jodi Yeloushan and  Bruce Martin), what the "focus school" designation means, what is being done to get off the list, and Title I status and it's impact on the schools. 
I was concerned about the fact that although Anita Banach advised that there was a "give to get" provision in each of the non-union employee contracts (leaving them all net zero or actually better for the district), there was an exception - the top administrators/directors (including Anita Banach), who would actually be receiving increases.

Did I hear that correctly?  If so, have the other employee groups (including the union groups) been made aware that the district is proposing increasing pay for top administrators, while holding all of the rest of the employee groups to the cuts they already had or a "give to get" net zero change, or is that the reason for not posting the board packets to the district website?

I am very disappointed in the district's attempts to not be transparent about what they are doing with increasing pay for top administrators (principals) and directors.

Maybe Dr. Rock, Mrs. McGinnis, and Anita Banach would like to say about the employees, "let them eat cake".


Please feel free to comment anonymously.


  1. No the Little people were told " no one has recv'd a raise" regardless of what u may have read Anita and other administrators DID not get raises. Which makes sense, it was true at that time.

    1. The only reason that she is getting a raise is because she was brought in under dubious circumstances and to ease the heat she took a lesser salary.

      The heat of the situatuon has cooled and she wants to be paid the same as her administrative "peers". Not based on merit, training, experience, or any other valid criteria. Dr. Rock does not have the fortitude to point this out -- so she gets the raise.

      Like her position, why do we have an IT director who has about the same level of training for the position and is also so highly paid. Oh! I forgot he has the expertise to write a technology plan for bond issues. They get written on the fly, change when challenged, are not based on identified needs, are evaluated by user responses not pre-developed metrics and they don't get passed. Maybe he should get a raise.

      They are in charge and they are the problem. We need to call them on the carpet and challenge their efficacy in the positions they hold.

      Why aren't they identifying weak points in curriculum delivery based on disaggregated testing data, establishing links to grades and teachers, and providing remediatiion/training in those areas.

      These are legitimate tasks for HR and Technology yet we continue to divert attention away from them and focus on Harvard conferences, Middle college and other wastes of time given the issues that need to be addressed.

      Please look at historical testing data at the elementary level and you will see that we have a two tier system in Clarkston that no one is addressing. Their are haves and have nots. Track the data, track the students and see if the lower results continue in middle and high school.

      It's not rocket science just work that should be done.

  2. In Anita's defense she handles alot for the district. She handles retirement issues, ohh wait the state does that, she did probably recommend that CCS hire a family members firm to advise employees about the state pension changes. She handles medical benifits, oops they have a company to coordinate that to. Well anyway I'm sure there is a reason she deserves much more than 92k a yr, we as taxpayers are lucky to have her

  3. Exactly, because it is not yet approved by the board. However, with the rubber stamp majority of Steve Hyer, Cheryl McGinnis, Barry Bomier, and Elizabeth Egan, it is sure to be a 4/3 vote to approve the increases.

    Plus, in the case of Anita Banach (maybe others as well), she will get her raise by changing her title so that she qualifies for a higher rate in pay.

    Anita was given the Director of Human Resources position because Dr. Al Roberts wanted to retain her as an employee when her Director of Communications position was eliminated. Anita did not have a Masters in Human Resources as the previous HR director had. Anita also did not have a Bachelors in Human Resources... Oh, but she had taken a couple of HR classes and was doing some HR work for her husband's company...

    Anita's original title was Director of Human Resources. Although all promotions or raises must be approved by a majority vote of the board of education, Dr. Rock apparently promoted her without their approval to "Executive Director, Human Resources". As "Executive Director, Human Resources", she supposedly would be entitled to more pay.

    The previous HR director's official title was "Central Office Executive Director" and she was responsible for more than just HR, had a masters degree in HR, and was paid based on her advanced education, many, many years of HR experience, and expanded responsibilities. Anita thinks she deserves that same title and pay.

    Make sure everyone is aware of this.

  4. Well, Anita DID get all the employee groups to agree to pay cuts/pay freezes, so she thinks that means she should get a hefty raise for all that hard work... I am shaking my head as I type this...