Why is PUSD offering yet another 3 year contract given the recent past experience with payouts? Why do they have any contract lasting three years? Did they not learn anything from their past experiences? Can someone point to where this proposed contract is on the internet?

And why a nearly $60,000 increase in pay to come to Pleasanton for a proposed salary of $265,000?

TransparentCalifornia is showing his total pay was $173,787 in 2014 then $206,418 in 2015.

If the increase is justified in the responsibilities of the job I don't see any issue with the pay increase.

Now $265k for that job seems crazy to me, but what do I know, people are telling me I didn't understand my Costco vote so this must make sense as a superintendent salary

as a data point the super in SRVUSD makes $309k. they have double the amount of schools, double the students and 3x the budget......

Wow. Must be easy to be generous with other people's (taxpayer) money. Who needs eighteen paid sick days every year? Is that a typo? Also, why do we have to give him $10,000 for relocation expenses? It's his choice whether or not to accept the job and the move. PUSD must be rolling in dough.

Good time for the issuance of that I1 bond money, just in time to give the new super a big paycheck with benefits, maybe we need to keep an eye on where that estimated 69 million is going to be spent because once those PUSD people get their hands on it say adios suckers!! Maybe hire some more consultants at some high dollar amount to keep an eye on those pick pocketing thieves writing the checks! Looks like the new super will be making about the same as some of our BART janitors plus a few extra benefits, might be time for the janitors to re-negotiate.

Based on his blogs, he probably needs all those sick days to recover from jet lag to attend all those "invitation only" events (Gak!) Web Link

As he uses up our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to jet around the world to attend symposium after symposium, conference after conference, roundtable after roundtable, he probably needs the sick days to recover before jetting off to the next event.

But 18 days of sick days is absolutely absurd. That is 3 1/2 weeks!

And 27 days of vacation days? 5 1/2 weeks of vacation is outrageous.

I hope those are typos in the article.

Other than people named Kottinger and Bernal, this man has more influence over the value of your home than anybody else in town. This position should be very well compensated. At the same time, this position would be very closely scrutinized...
How much should we pay him? How many vacation days should he get? That stuff is rounding errors in terms of a school district budget.
If we've got the right guy, he'll be worth every penny and nobody will care that he's not at his desk during the month of July!

"If he's the right guy...." what's are batting average there?

Agreed, compensation packages should be comeserate to job responsibility. My issue is there is no pay for performance. His salary should be less with incentives to max it out. We are now locked into a three year guarantee and with our avg that was a bad move

and why the need for a 'professional coach'? At that salary rate, they shouldn't NEED one.

Waste of $$.

Whoa,hold on a minute, I missed the comment about the "coach". What's that going to cost us?? If Haglund needs a "coach" for a year then maybe he isn't qualified for the job, who gets held by the hand and bottle fed for a year while pulling in the big bucks and benefits?? I'm guessing the #2 or #3 person below him that's already on that bloated payroll wasn't qualified either to "coach" Haglund, life is good on the taxpayer dime!

Amazing! Teachers who work with kids in the classroom are often exposed to colds, stomach flus, pink eye and even lice aand are given 10 days a year of sick leave. This superintendent is being given 18 days a year?!? Who writes these contracts?

Coach is probably a fallout requirement (aka board CYA) measure more for them than him. Ie they need to show they did everything possible to set this individual up for success. Id tack this more on our incompetent board than on the individual.

Tag it onto the $1M their last two mistakes are costing us, and whose taking personal accountability - taxpayers.

This cost should be paid for by the board members and the union. They made the decision to work with, or work against, the individuals they need personal incentive to make things work, not a seemingly endless supply of taxpayer money to pull from to cover up problems instead of working through them.

I wish him all the best and hope he can lead our district by reaching out to all constituents and listen to all stakeholders' input. Then perhaps he can revisit the enormous amount of money being spent on 'instructional coaches' and the lack of feedback on their effectiveness. When you have classes in secondary schools maxed out with students, and teachers on special assignment 'coaching' without any transparency, it's time to ask some questions. The community needs to know these concerns have fallen on deaf ears at the district.

If Mr. Haglund were to read all the Pleasanton Weekly posts, he would be wise to run run run. The comments on all the stories are sarcastic, negative and down right rude. Mr. Haglund, are you sure you want to be a part of this community?

Too much money.. too much sick leave.. too much vacation time!! When in the hell is he gonna work?? Y'all freakin' crazy!

You know, just because one has a 18 day annual sick leave allowance doesn't mean that one has to actually take all those days as sick leave. That's just an upper limit on the number of permissible sick days. I certainly don't take all of my sick leave days. In fact, hardly any at all. Some people do take sick leave days regularly thinking that they are the equivalent of vacation days. Is all the outrage here against the 18 day annual sick leave allowance from people who are interpreting sick leave allowances as being vacation days due to how they themselves use their own sick leave allowances? I wonder.

Sam- as a teacher I have taken a total of 3 days sick leave in the past 4 years. So no, my feeling are not a reflection of my own sick leave use. I just think 18 days is excessive. If they wanted to pay him the salary stated for an adjusted year, then they should say so. But to add in 27 vacation and 18 sick days seems excessive. That's all! All that being said, I hope this candidate will be successful and provide the leadership we need at PUSD !

It is troublesome that the PUSD board who gave Rubino 12 sick days is suddenly saying Haglund deserves 18 days of sick leave annually. Without explanation, they have in the draft contract 6 more days sick days.

In addition, Rubino received 24 vacation days and Haglund's proposed contract is asking for 27 vacation days.

Why in this article is he quoted giving his cell phone number to random students that he meets on campus? Web Link Why is he telling random students that they should text or call him on his cell phone? I can understand giving his cell number to the Board members in case they have to get in touch with him in an emergency, but exchanging cell phone numbers with random students he meets on campus? Why not give the students the phone number of the superintendent's office?

Given the high number of vacation/sick days and giving students his cell phone number, does this mean that Haglund is never in his office?

And if a student has an issue with an issue on campus, be it another student or a safety issue, a teacher, or something going on at school, why would the student or parent not be directed to bring these issues up to the principal?

He wants students to text him or call him on his cell phone? Why?

The inflated sick days and vacation days are probably there to allow him to cash out surplus days in order to spike his pension.

You know, what's missing from this discussion are facts such as : How many sick days has Haglund actually taken in recent years at his current job? (Important because the best indicator of sick leave "abuse" is past history). How many annual sick leave days are usually permitted for Superintendents at other school districts in the Tri-Valley area as well as the Bay Area? Same with vacation days. How many vacation days are typically awarded for school Superintendents of surrounding school districts?

If the sick leave and vacation allowances are in-line with those for Superintendents at surrounding school districts, then that's just the "market rate" for signing on a Superintendent. If the allowances are excessive compared to surrounding school districts, then we have reason to complain.

Anyone care to go dig up the facts on what surrounding school districts offer their Superintendents? Or should we just continue to sit around here and whine and complain?

Dublin's accrues 1 sick day per month and a little over 2 vacation days per month. Haglund is a newbie with no superintendent experience and should be paid no more than Ahmadi's starting pay of $220k. The compensation and benefits offered Haglund far exceed his qualifications. Plus now the entire cabinet and union members will want PUSD to match his outsized sick and vac pay.

The Board needs to hire someone with superintendent experience like the rest of the trivalley and Bay Area does.

@HuH?? Good call on the spiking the pension with unused sick pay and vacation pay, how soon people forget this well known trick used by retiring fire chiefs and police chiefs for example to spike those pensions but then again they worked pretty much for 20 plus years to get those over inflated pensions, let's see how long Haglund lasts, my money is on 10 months factoring in the way PUSD works and their backdoor shenanigans.

I'm concerned about the sick day comments - regarding inflated pension and accrual.....do these sick days roll over year to year with a maximum accrual? If so, or if not, this is blatant abuse of taxpayer money.

If sick days accrue thats a liability we will be forced to pay (both during employment and post employment). If they don't accrue, we're still getting screwed because sick days can be used instead of vacation days (which will then continue to grow as a liability).

Pleasanton Parent, yes they roll over and yes they can be used toward retirement. And some districts allow using sick days/vacation days (personal necessity) for closing the district office (say 6 Fridays over the summer). Cuts the liability; cuts the cost of running the D.O. for six days. I don't know if Pleasanton still does that, but they did.

@Pleasanton Parent

Whether you personally think that sick days should accrue without limit and whether they should be counted towards retirement pension is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is a fair deal. What IS relevant is whether those things are standard practices for attracting quality candidates in the local school Superintendent job market. Yeah, you may think that it would be great for you and other taxpayers if a quality Superintendent willing to accept the California minimum wage and no pension or vacation/sick days could be hired for PUSD. But I've got to tell you fella that it's not going to happen. In order to attract quality candidates we have to field job offers that are competitive with what other school districts in the area are offering.

The board is out of touch with the community and out of step with education, thus they seem to seek out the latest fads, which at this point means giving everyone a Chromebook to lug around and stare at in school each day.

Plus, the bottom line is that given the quotes I've seen in the newspaper, the Board now seems to be enthralled with parking children in front of on-line video tutorials and virtual schools, which is hilarious because Pleasanton seems to be the scam city of the nation when it comes to these type of schools, which are routinely shut down by Federal and State law enforcement as being some sort of criminal organization, sham or scam. The latest is "Coding House" running out of a house in Pleasanton.

[I'm surprised the Pleasanton Weekly has not run cover story after cover story on it, because this particular scandal has been in the news for over two years and everyone knows about it, if you are in the tech industry, that is.]

Sam, the issue is that the school board is not attracting or choosing high quality candidates, yet they are paying over-market for them and giving them over-market benefit packages.

-- They are choosing candidates that have never been a superintendent before anywhere.
-- First Ahmadi had no superintendent experience. Now Haglund has no superintendent experience.
-- They either are not attracting quality candidates or are getting quality candidates and are choosing to offer the job to folks who have no experience being a superintendent before.

BTW-the back story on "Coding House," a school from a P.O. Box in Woodside and formerly run out of 3381 East Ruby Hill Drive before being shut down recently by the State.

What it was
Web Link

Their old website
Web Link

Their shut down citations
Web Link

Web Link

What is hilarious is one of the apps demos is comparing what looks like Pleasanton Weekly stories on the topic of the Pleasanton school district and having users rate it with a face of Anger, Disgust, Fear, Joy, or Sadness Web Link

You simply can't make this stuff up....

Yes it does matter - our kids cant get a (removed) projector but school administrators and employees get vacation days, sick days that accrue only to be rolled into retirement payouts.

And to make it more abusive California already protects employees from termination for taking sick days off even if they don't have vacation time to use.

@ridiculous

Well, I think that your idea that a candidate for superintendent must have superintendent experience is just flawed. None of the outstanding Presidents in US history had experience with being President before they were elected. None of the excellent generals in US military history had experience with being generals before they were promoted. The current principal of our kids elementary school is an excellent one who until recently had no experience being a principal. The key factors are the individual and his or her preparation for the job.

If the board really thought they were hiring already prepared individuals, they would not have inserted a "coach" clause in the superintendent's contract.

I would argue that the constant tumultuous state of the school district, its constant churn of principals and vice principals, is in large part because the board does not properly oversee the school district and has failed in the last decade or so to be able to hire a competent schools chief.

Of course, Sam, you might believe it is perfectly fine to hire patently unqualified folks that require a "coach" clause embedded in their contract with a coach to hand hold them through on-the-job training. I can see how hiring so-called novices might be an interesting approach. But that approach has not worked in the past.

The children in the community will continue to pay the price of having to deal with the dysfunction and rampant turnover in the schools, thanks to the school board's mismanagement.

There are plenty of leaders of schools who have been superintendents before, don't need on the job training, don't need a "coach" and already know how to manage and lead educators. But for whatever reason, the PUSD board does not hire them.

Everyone that voted for this board shares responsibility for this boards mistakes!

Coaches are often used by very experienced superintendents. Boards change, dynamics change, priorities change--five people supervising one person . . . that alone is reason enough for a coach. I have seen one board member tell a superintendent what to do and the next board member say the exact opposite. The coaches help facilitate many things, including evaluations; the rest of the time they are mostly available by phone. This isn't a big deal. We provide professional training for teachers, and we should. Same here.

Here is the section of the contract that I see as problematic:

3. Compensation:
A. . . . the District Governing Board may, at any time during any school year, provide for an increase in annual salary following discussions with the Superintendent.
C. The Board shall consider an annual adjustment to salary when the Superintendent is evaluated.
D. The Board may consider a bonus based on performance.

I'm not sure why we would provide an increase in salary "at any time during any school year". I pointed the board to one district that has salary schedules for top tier management. A three year contract would have a series of incremental raises noted in the contract based on receiving satisfactory performance evaluations. This way, both sides and the community know at least the minimum raise each year of the contract. This does not prevent the board from raising that minimum if someone is stellar, nor does it prevent a one-time, off the contract raise (bonus).

What a salary schedule does is prevent the superintendent, as chief negotiator for the district, from receiving a guaranteed raise s/he negotiates--twisting their own arm to a very low threshold of pain. ("Uh, you got me, I'll give you 5%.") That has happened already in this district, a series of unaffordable raises, and the person went skipping off to retirement having secured a nice pension.

@ridiculous:" If the board really thought they were hiring already prepared individuals, they would not have inserted a "coach" clause in the superintendent's contract."

Lots of company CEOs get coached and have coaches. Not a big deal.

Forbes: "CEOs Just Want to Get Coached" :Web Link

........

.....Lots of company CEOs get coached and have coaches. Not a big deal.

Really? when making a 6 figure salary they also need a high priced coach? Perhaps they should apply for jobs that they are clearly qualified for and doesn't require a pricey coach? Or, better, they pay for the service out of their own pocket if they feel they are not able to handle the position.

If one needs a 'coach' right out of the gate, they are not qualified.

@Visitor: "Really? when making a 6 figure salary they also need a high priced coach? Perhaps they should apply for jobs that they are clearly qualified for and doesn't require a pricey coach? "

Very amusing. Even multi-million dollar quarterbacks like Joe Montana and Steve Young had coaches. What, you think that if they were really good, professional quarterbacks earning 6-figure salaries that they shouldn't need to be coached but should be able to work everything out by themselves?

......Very amusing.

Your example is flawed. Those quarterbacks made 7+ figure salaries, and we are not using 'coach' as in sports coach.

A person applying for a job needs to be fully qualified and not require a 'coach' on day one. If they do, perhaps they should go back to college and get a bit more training before applying for said position?

If the possible new sup is worth all this, he should decline said coach services. Yeah?

Kathleen, One of the problems I think we have in terms of salaries is the fact our next door neighbor LVJUSD pays their superintendent nearly 400,000 a year. While I am not suggesting that we pay our superintendent anything close to that amount, I think LVJUSD over-payment hurts us all.