Superintendent’s Contract Extension

Dr. Merck was offered and signed a 4 year contract in 2014. His salary was raised to $120,000. He also is given $9,000 for a car allowance and $12,000 a year as extra retirement monies to be put in a 401k. His total compensation was $141,000 a year, as compared to $108,000 as a principal the year before. The board approved his contract 6 to 0 in April 2014.

In late 2015 he had his first evaluation and it was favorable. He had about 2 ½ years left on his contract. He didn’t ask for a pay raise, but asked for his contract to be extended. All the board members supported extending his contract, and most wanted to give him a pay raise. Some of the board members (mainly Herb Cooper, Brian Swords and Judy Edwards) argued relative to other districts his pay is low (some superintendents are paid over $200,000 a year), and this is where the notion of giving him a $50,000 pay raise came from.

Myself, I thought, Dr. Merck was given a significant pay raise only 18 months before when he was promoted to superintendent, Dr. Merck wasn’t asking for a raise, and the board was still looking for funding to give some employees extra raises. I supported extending his contract, but not giving him a pay raise.

In late 2015 the board members agreed to extend his contract to 2019 and the board leadership focused on that and the board voted 6 to 0 to extend his contract. Where there was disagreement (his pay raise), the leadership put that discussion off until the spring of 2016.

Judy Edwards, Phil Bowers, Brian Swords, Dr. Cooper and Dr. Merck came up with the plans and supported closing schools, and ultimately they closed AR Lewis and Holly Springs in the spring of 2016. The public was angry and that made it very difficult for the board leadership to follow through with their plans to give Dr. Merck a raise as board members had hoped.

Instead, the board leadership proposed a 3% pay raise and another contract extension, this time one that was ironclad. More on that later.

In the past the school board has given 1 or 2 year contracts to its superintendents. Dr. Stewart signed 1 year contacts. Dr. D’Andrea, Dr. Hunt and Dr. Pew 2 years. And after a year the board would extend their contract a year and did that with all of those superintendents, so they always had a 1 to 2 year contract in place at any given time.

When the board hired Dr. Merck, it decided to give a 4 year contract from 2014 to 2018, knowing he had long-term plans to stay with the district. As I said, all board members voted for that in 2014.

Under the law, the school board has all the executive, legislative and judicial authority, so the school board hires the superintendent. Under board policy, the board has limited itself to only managing the superintendent (not the department heads, principals or employees), so it is no surprise the hiring of the superintendent a board’s most important decision.

As I mentioned, the board gives the superintendent a contract with a term of let’s say 2, 3 or 4 years. The board also has an opt-out provision in the contract, to end the contract at any time, but if the board does that, it must pay the superintendent one year salary. That opt-out provision costs about $120,000.

Like I said, Dr. Merck’s initial contract ended in 2018. In late 2015 we extended that to 2019. I supported that.

Where I got off the train was in the spring of 2016, when the board quickly came back and extended his contract again, this time to 2021 — 5 years out. And if that current board or a future board wanted to change and hire a new superintendent, it would have to pay Dr. Merck a 3 year buy out or nearly $400,000.

No board is ever going to pay the superintendent $400,000 to just leave, so the board gave the superintendent an ironclad long-term contract.

Like I said, I voted to hire Dr. Merck in 2014. And in October 2015 I voted to extend his contract to 2019. However, I opposed this long-term ironclad contract the board gave him in the spring of 2016 and voted against it.

The most important decision a board makes is hiring the superintendent. Three of the six board members face elections every two years. Half the board changed in Nov 2016. The other half could be replaced in Nov 2018. None of these new boards could choose their superintendent given how long this contract is and the ironclad buy out provision in it.

Like I said in the newspaper article at the time, I supported Dr. Merck, but I opposed the agreement’s terms and how the board of 2014 tied the hands of future boards (2016, 2018 and the board of 2020) when it came to the most important decision the board will make. with the most important decision the board makes.

There was also a court ruling that stated a board or council could not extend the contract of a superintendent or county administrator beyond the term of the existing board members and that was 2016 and 2018. This was confirmed by the South Carolina Press association and our attorney to then said to me, we’ll who on the board is going to sue us?

Authority flows from the public that elects the school board to the superintendent the school board selects and hires. One of the reasons the superintendent listens to the board is he knows the board had the ability to not renew his contract or terminate it with a buy-out. In this case, both of those avenues are gone, because the superintendent has a 5 year contract and a buy-out that is so costly it will never be exercised.

As a result, board influence on the superintendent will be reduced. Additionally, given the public elects the board and the board hires the superintendent, the public has indirect influence on the superintendent. That will be gone too.