Some important pieces in the "In Other Business" part of this article (excerpted):

"The board will consider approving a new employment contract with Superintendent David Haglund, who is nearing his one-year anniversary with the Pleasanton Unified School District.

"According to staff, the proposed contract 'supersedes and completely replaces the prior employment agreement (and any amendments thereto) signed by parties on June 13, 2017.' The previous agreement was set to last from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020.

"The new contract would take effect July 1, 2018 and continue through June 30, 2022, extending the contract term from three to four years. It calls for a new salary schedule with a step increase of 4% per year, starting with the 2018-19 school year -- this would increase Haglund's base salary to $280,900, a base salary adjustment of $10,600.

"Haglund recently was awarded a standard, retroactive salary raise for 2017-18, along with an extra $10,000 bonus, 'in recognition of an outstanding performance and service,' officials said."

The superintendent received an unprecedented, not "standard", 2% retroactive raise, plus a 1% bonus, plus $10,000. I stated this before, if APT and CSEA have settled for a coming school year (settle June 30, 2017, for the 2017-18 school year), a first-year teacher or classified employee starting on July 1, 2017--no matter how stellar--will receive only what was on that contract for that year. The superintendent also cut his first-year deal for the 2017-18 school year.

And the math seems off here. The superintendent was hired at $265,000 for 2017-18. He was given a 2% retroactive raise or $5,300 = $270,300. Adding four percent to that new base is $10,812 (not $10,600) or $281,112 isn't it? But it appears what they did was give him a 6% raise, with 2% being retroactive (which pencils out to $280,902.12).

More alarming is this paragraph of the new contract: "In an effort to maintain equity with other certificated and administrative personnel, the Board shall consider a salary increase each year of this agreement equal to the same percentage increase given to the administrative unit following Board approval of the increase in a regularly called meeting as required by law. Any such increase shall be effective on the same dates as granted to the administrative unit." A so called "me too" clause.

We are sending a dangerous signal to our bargaining units that 4% is a good starting point in negotiations for the next four years and we are codifying "me too" clauses with administrators and the superintendent. Is the result that the superintendent would get his annual 4% increase **plus** a potential additional 4% increase if that settlement is made with the bargaining units?

At 4% a year, year 2 is $292,136; three is $303,821, and four is $315,974--without me too clauses. AND, he is eligible for bonuses. AND it is a typical perpetual contract: "Commencing with the evaluation for the 2018-2019 school year, if the evaluation performed in accordance with Section 7, below, is satisfactory, a recommendation shall be brought to the Board to reform the term of this Agreement by one (1) additional year; in no event, however, shall the term of this Agreement exceed four (4) years. The recommendation to extend the Agreement shall be considered by the Board and acted upon in an open public meeting of the Board on or before June 30."

This, of course, will be one more reason we will hear there is no money for operating a school.

From the article: "*Board members will consider approving the Measure I1 Facilities Master Plan, which details how the $270 million from the Measure I1 school facilities bond should be spent." This is well beyond when it was promised, and two years after the passage of the bond. We are retrofitting projects into the money rather than identifying the needs and then passing a bond. It's worth scanning the plan where another $800MM of needs are listed.

Not listed in the article because it is on the consent calendar is to approve a contract with Kingsley Bogard (law firm). The board made an earlier commitment to end the contract with this firm.

These are the items that mysteriously wait for approval until school is out when many are busy with their summers.

Should have tried to keep my city job back in 1976 when I worked the summer in the city engineer's office.

Government workers: Guaranteed annual pay raises that aren't linked to performance each year, retroactive pay raises, cancellation of an agreed to employment contact to give more money that was originally agreed to, getting a pay raise just because other people in my office got one....WOW!

Kathleen, please run again for the school board. How does it end up that the superintendent gets 2 more years on this contract from 2020 to 2022?

And Kingsley Bogard? How can they possibly be rehired? I thought they fired them 2 years ago. I swear I saw a meeting where the school board said they would keep them on for a couple of months and transition an existing case to another law firm.

Meanwhile, with all the perks, trips, legal expenses, turnover, fiascoes, and not one shovel of dirt dug for a new school, the superintendent wants a brand new lucrative contract that extends out 2 more years? This is absurd.

Would it be possible for Livermore to trade Pleasanton Superintendent Kelly Bowers for Superintendent David Haglund? Maybe we can make it a package deal by throwing in all our overpaid staff including Assistant Superintendent Chris Van Schack, Chief Business Officer Susan Kinder, and Redundant ROP Superintendent Julie Duncan. Wait - did I say overpaid? Of course they aren't! Haha! Everyone knows government employees are paid in accordance to their ability and value to the community. In fact we in Livermore know that a top rated nationally recognized school system like ours requires exorbitant salaries for (our many) district staff and Grade A commercial administrator buildings on the hill for them to look down upon us. I bet Pleasanton wishes their schools were as good as ours! And Pleasanton's Schools can become like Livermore's if we make this trade!

LP, :o) thanks just the same.

While frustrated by the KB contract renewal, and that it’s on consent, and with the timing—I should mention these renewals are annual. That said, they need to go; ongoing litigation or not. And maybe because it’s still ongoing?

I completely agree. I, too, am astounded that the district is continuing to use the legal services of Kingsley Bogard, who seem to have proved so thoroughly incompetent in past years.

The details are listed on the board meeting agenda, together with a link to the actual agreement, along with the same for a local legal firm. (Scroll right down beyond the end of the actual agenda.) The rates for the other firm are slightly higher. Though there appears to be a dramatic difference in the amounts paid to each firm. (Perhaps there are very good reasons for this : I don't know.) And what of the other companies briefly mentioned in the rationale?

To quote from the agenda:

>> Rationale:

On June 28, 2016, the Pleasanton Unified School District Board of Trustees (Board) awarded RFP 2015-16.12 for legal services to five firms and approved a contract with each of them for FY17. Kingsley Bogard was one of the five firms. The contract was for one year and terminated on June 30, 2017.

On June 27, 2017, the Board approved a new one-year agreement with Kingsley Bogard. This agreement will terminate on June 30, 2018.

The value of the agreement (Attachment A) is capped at $45K. If expenses exceed this amount, an amended agreement will be brought back to the Board for approval.

As of April 2018, the District had incurred $41K in legal services with Kingsley Bogard for FY 2017-18.

Recommended Motion:

The Administration recommends that the Board approve the agreement for legal services with Kingsley Bogard for FY 2018-19. <<

I am surprised that this significant decision should be listed under the Consent Calendar, which is allegedly for routine items requiring mere rubber-stamping. If a decision was indeed made not to continue to use Kingsley Bogard, when was the public announcement of the reversal of that decision? I seem to have missed it.

I agree with Kathleen Ruegsegger's comment about the "ongoing" justification, if such is the justification for the award. And whatever the justification, I do not believe that the award of yet another contract to Kingsley Bogard is in the district's best interest.

This, I hope, is a link to the online agenda for tonight's school board meeting (6/26/2018):

Web Link

How much do Superintendents in other Bay Area districts make? Give me five examples of comparable sized districts in affluent communities not just one. How much does it cost to hire a superintendent? Do we want to continue to have a revolving door or do we want to retain a strong leader?

It looks like we are getting a bargain compared to some other districts. Kathleen, do the numbers you state for Dr. Haglund include healthcare and retirement or is this total compensation? I didn't think PUSD paid healthcare.

Livermore: $318,932 wages + $59,733 health and retirement; Fremont: $285,650 + $18,555; Antioch: $271,944 + $40,321; Mt. Diablo: $257,960 + $51,782. You can propose an argument that Superintendents as a whole are overpaid but compared to other Districts it doesn't appear that we are overpaying our Superintendent.

Web Link

I think you can look for the contracts as you are raising the question. My issues are the retro pay and me too clause. Yes, retention is a good goal, but I don’t think we have to give everything away. I believe this will cost us with the bargaining units.

Ok, here is the link. Web Link

Most listings are for 2016. A couple 2014, which means they aren’t reporting. You also need to consider experience as a superintendent. Ours just finished his first year ever in that role.

A base salary is provided with other stipends and benefits listed separately.