DJohns:
Your point is well received. I too would like to see longevity in that position. At age 63 indicates, he was born between 1943 and 1954 which puts his maximum retirement benefits at age 66.

Did the PUSD factor in the probability he will most likely be a short term employee? Will his performance justify the salary and benefits he will be eligible for in just three short years? What are the expectations of the board in hiring this person for this position?

The PUSD board should speak to this issue.

Nice age discriminatory comment. Hey, just wondering what ever happened to Jon Vranesh? Is he still around?

DJohns and Michael, first, the days of superintendents lasting more than 3-5 years have been gone for a long time. In that case, how old a superintendent is when they take the job is fairly irrelevant. Second, and to be clear, there is a difference between life time "benefits" and retirement (pension). Retirement is STRS, not the district (based on three highest years of pay). The district will pay their share; the employee theirs--it is unavoidable no matter the person in the position. Life time benefits are the district's, if they extend them in the contract.

The contract will be public record and published with a packet, or should be, prior to the board voting to approve it.

Sam,

The aging process has been discriminated against since day one without retribution.

I was a VP, Plant manager during the nineties. The CEO ordered me to get rid of a certain employee, because of his age, his health insurance benefit costs was higher that the younger employees.

I did not follow through with that order. That employee out performed everyone, years younger than him.

Sam, your comment regarding age discrimination is irrelevant, and stupid.

I don't think the comment was stupid nor irrelevant. You just basically said the man shouldn't have been hired based on his age. How is that not age discrimination?

And let's think carefully before hiring women in their childbearing years while we're at it, right?

Jen,

I did not state that he should not have been hired.
I pointed out that his period of employment is likely three years or less.
Would he in that three year period perform in a manner that will be worthy of the salary and benefit package that comes with the position.

I did not make a statement regarding women!

Michael, three years is enough to be wonderful or to be a disaster. The supt who stayed 7 was able to ruin the district finances. The one who stayed 4 was ineffective in some areas. And we have an interim who, in less than a year, has worked to turn many things around for the better. How old the person is, how long the person stays . . . neither will necessarily tell us potential success. And nothing says this supt will leave at 66. Success and fulfillment could keep a person beyond anticipated retirement age.

Is he older or younger than the guy we brought out of retirement? Geez

Kathleen your comments regarding PUSD paying for the new Supt retirement is not correct. The school district had to take a $154m hit to their bottom line to pay the state for the unfunded pension liability. Check the books. I agree that the district has become incompetdent however is there any Supt you likely other than Mary Francis? You mentioned that Mr Hansen has done a good job. What exactly has he done that impresses you so much?

PRC, there is STRS (retirement/pension) and then there are lifetime benefits. Two different things. I understand the benefits are unfunded, but they aren't paying the state. The district is recognizing the liability, which is now required by the state. I'll dig out the report I requested.

For Pleasanton, Dr. James. I have worked with or know other superintendents I liked very much. Mr. Hansen has been an open, calm, and patient administrator. Exactly what was needed IMO.

If we got the right person, his age won't matter...
And I agree, Hansen was just what we needed...