Hadley will owe departing school superintendent $90,000 to $100,000
HADLEY - The town will owe Superintendent of Schools Nicholas D. Young between $90,000 and $100,000 in compensation for unused vacation time when he leaves to take the same position in South Hadley later in 2012, the chairwoman of the Hadley School Committee said Monday.
Young's decision to take the job in South Hadley where he lives comes less than two years after he signed a revised six-year contract which - in addition to providing 5 percent annual raises - allowed him to carry over all unused vacation time from year to year. In November 2010, Young was owed about $90,000 for 177 days of unused vacation time.
Young announced last week that he had accepted an offer to become South Hadley's new superintendent. He expects to depart by late June or early July, although the exact timing will not be determine until Young and South Hadley officials agree on a contract. He was chosen from among five finalists to succeed Gus A. Sayer, who announced his retirement in August and had earned $129,000 a year.
Robie Grant, chairwoman of the Hadley School Committee, said it will not take any official action on a successor until Young has completed contract negotiations with South Hadley. Grant said the committee would likely hire an interim superintendent while a search committee is formed to find a full-time replacement, which could take up to a year.
"It's important to realize we have a good school district and we have the time to let parents and the community come in and talk about what they want from a new superintendent," Grant said.
The committee will also need to determine how much money is owed Young during the remainder of his time as Hadley superintendent, she said. Young's new contract increased his annual salary from $126,000 to $134,000 in July 2010.
However, instead of taking the 5 percent raise his contract provided for the current fiscal year, Young accepted the $375 bonus given to all Hadley teachers this year, according to Grant. "He said he would take what the teachers take, but the contract was never amended" to reflect that, she said.
And the value of his unused vacation is another factor to be determined, Grant said. "He has quite a hefty amount of vacation and I don't know exactly what it will be," she added. "I think right now it is between $90,000 and $100,000."
Young, 44, has served as Hadley superintendent for 11 years, and has held positions in the Hadley schools since 1994, including elementary school principal and special education director. In 2000-2001, he filled all three positions.
"He excelled at all three and we didn't miss a beat," said longtime School Committee member Thomas Waskiewicz. "He deserves the best. He is the best."
In 2010, Young was named superintendent of the year by the American Association of School Administrators. And on Monday, he received widespread praise from school committee members.
"As far as Nick goes, he has served the district well as long as he's been here and we wish him well," said Molly Keegan, the board's newest member.
Young's contract in Hadley was revised two years ago after he became a candidate for superintendent in Granby and Longmeadow. At the time, both Young and Waskiewicz spoke about the possibility of the superintendent remaining in Hadley until he retired.
However, the new contract deal became subject of controversy in town after Finance Committee members asked him to disclose the number of vacation days he had accrued to help them plan future budgets. After initial resistance and a request filed by the Gazette with the state supervisor of records the information was released in November 2010.
During her campaign for school committee the following year, Keegan argued that the town had offered Young an excessive contract and she finished first in the voting. Linda Dunleavy, who placed second in that four-person election and won re-election, was one of two school board members to vote against Young's contract. Tracy Kelley, the school committee chairwoman who signed off on Young's contract, lost her seat in that election.
Young's explanation
In a telephone interview Monday, Young said the majority of the vacation time he is due was from the 1990s when he was special education director. "The school committee didn't give me anything extra," he said.
Young also reaffirmed that he would not seek the raise he is owed under this contract this year, beyond the bonus paid to all teachers. "I am not seeking that (raise)," he said. "It will all be negotiated in good faith."
Under his contract, Young must provide Hadley with 120 days notice before departing. Young said he would likely stay on until late June or early July.
Keegan said she was not surprised to learn of Young's decision, pointing out that he has been a finalist for superintendent at several other districts in recent years.
"He's young, he's got quite a resume," Keegan said. "It was logical that after spending so much time in our district he was going to move on."
Kelley, the former school committee chairwoman, said she suspects that Young is leaving because "the majority of the school committee that is there now didn't want Nick to be superintendent any longer.
"It's 100 percent the reason he's leaving and it's sad, it's devastating for Hadley in my opinion," Kelley said. "If he were treated like the professional that he is, he would be here now, we would have him."
However, Young and members of the school committee denied Kelley's assertion.
"Not thinking something is a good business decision is different than thinking someone is a bad person," Keegan said. "I was against the contract then, and I have had a good working relationship with Dr. Young now."
Waskiewicz said "everyone who is on the school committee is there to advance what's best for the Hadley schools. I think the fact that we are not in lockstep in a strength of the school committee."
Young said his decision to leave has everything to do with the opportunity in South Hadley.
"I have a fine working relationship with people on the School Committee across the board," Young said. "We're getting things done, we got a lot of things accomplished in the fall."
He continued, "I look at a school like South Hadley that has a (public relations) challenge, they need a new elementary school. They have a need for someone who can really handle a challenging leadership position and that excites me."
2010 Superintendent Hadley Contract
2001 Superintendent Hadley Contract









Comments
WOW! How do I get a job like that?
Holy smokes!
* 10 days to double dip as a consultant
* 30 paid days off
* 18 days of sick leave with unlimited accumulation
* Uncapped vacation accumulation since 1994 with unused bought out at 100%
* An additional $18,000 in longevity payments for being there at least 10 years
* Town contributes $2,000 a year, every year, to his retirement account
* Every other year he evaluates himself
* Every other year the lowest evaluation gets tossed guaranteeing him a 2 to 2 split on the School Committee review at worst, so he will never get a bad review - smooth!
Don't blame Dr. Young one bit.
Blame the people who handed him a golden goose at the taxpayers expense.
Is this the tip of the iceberg?
I wonder how many other teachers/admin have vacation time like this built up.
Why wouldn't a cap be put on the time to cash in on unused hours?
one-sided contract?
Perhaps one of the other commentators that have access to the contract could answer why there is no penalty for Young to break the contract? Shouldn't he or South Hadley have to pay something to Hadley so Young could be "released?"
I know it's not the Red Sox (they have better negotiators), but it seems that the contract was there only to benefit Young, not the town. It certainly did not keep Young in the job.
Why bother next time? Just make the superintendent an employee-at-will.
The contract does not contain any language like that
I have copies of the contract in question and the previous contract.
Contrary to what some proclaim (members of the previous majority on the School Committee), there are MANY differences between the two contracts.
But to address your question specifically, there is no language in the contract that addresses that.
Again, nice gig if you can get it.
You are the idiot....
Valley Survivor...you are the idiot. Please if you are going to claim facts...then be sure they are factual and not some delusion on your part.
#2 - The "recent" contract did not change the payout to Dr. Young. What he had on the books was there and would remain there despite any new contract. This is not a "bonus" this is money rightfully owed to Dr. Young and anyone saying otherwise is misinformed has disturbingly low integrity. That money was owed regardless of anything written in the contract. The payout that will be made today is the same as the payout that would have been made two years ago.
# 4 - This piece of the contract simply stated that complaints should be brought to Dr. Young prior to raising them to the SC. This is standard business practice. You do not go over the head of someone to file a complaint before dealing with the person directly. This is the same for the teachers and other administrators within the school system and pretty much the same for any business or organization anywhere. This was also language that was already in the contract and did not change with the new contract.
#5 - Again completely wrong. The process put in place by the previous SC was that a person could address the SC for 5 minutes prior to the start of the meeting on topics on the agenda for that evening. This policy is still the same with the current SC. They changed nothing. I have reached out several times to several SC members and they cannot not answer even the basic questions on policy or budget. They do not prepare for the meetings (2 of the exisiting never have) and therefore, the public does not get final drafts of policy prior to them voting on it. Everything is done at the last minute with one SC member making edits to policies minutes before the vote.
Valley Survivor, pleae get your facts straight instead of spewing propaganda.
Best of luck to Dr. Young. He is making the right choice as he is an innovator and a leader, something that is obviously not welcome or desired by the current Hadley School Committee. I'm sure that after spending 30 - 50K on a search they will get the puppet they are looking for and pay him/her just as much as they are currently paying or they'll put a "interim" in place until they all step off the committee and leave the hard work to others.
Let me guess...........
....... which one of the present or former School Committee members that voted for the contract you are.......
#2 - are you DENYING that Young was allowed to accrue all of his unused vacation time for the past 18 YEARS with NO CAP?
The contract states, in item #10. Fringe Benefits, paragraph b.:
"Vacation time shall be carried over and may be used in any subsequent year of employment from the original date of hire in Hadley and throughout the term of this contact and, at the expiration or termination of this agreement, the Superintendent shall receive a sum equal to his then in effect per diem rate of pay for any such accumulated vacation leave."
That is insane! Dr. Young's state date was 1994! In the business world you typically max out your vacation at 6 weeks and either "use it or lose it." Young is getting near the equivalent to near an ENTIRE YEAR'S PAY! Why in the world would you agree to that??
#4 - the wording of his latest contract may not have changed, but just because you don't change a diaper doesn't mean the one that's being used is good. The contract specifically stated that all complaints would go to him and him alone for judgement and action. There is no opening for the School Committee to address any complaints, criticisms or suggestions. This is my understanding from reading the contract and the understanding of everyone I talked with that read the contract - including many people in Boston.
The contract states in item #8 Administration and Supervision of the School District, paragraph b."
"The Committee, individually and collectively, shall refer all complaints, criticisms and suggestions brought to their attention to the Superintendent for his study and recommendations rather than discussing and attempting to resolve them at their level."
The contract further states in item #16 Evaluation:
"The Superintendent shall be evaluated by the Committee every other year. The evaluation shall occur no later than July 1 of the year in which the evaluation is to occur unless otherwise agreed to by all parties. The School Committee shall construct a compilation summary and present the Superintendent with an evaluation report during the every other year formal evaluation process. When compiling the annual evaluation report, the Committee will drop from consideration the lowest combined evaluation score submitted by a School Committee member. On the year the evaluation is not going to occur by the School Committee, the Superintendent will submit a self-evaluation prior to July 1 to the School Committee focused on the goals designated for that particular year."
This mandates that the lowest score be thrown out but the highest is to be kept. So, say there is an evaluation and the SC is split 3 to 2 on it, the lowest vote gets tossed. That would make it either 2 to 2 or 3 to 1, thus guaranteeing no negative evaluation. Sweet gig, if you can get it.
#5 - go back and watch the tape of the Hadley Mother's Club candidate's night. Listen to the question from the audience and then listen to the answer given by the sitting SC member up on the stage. If what you say is correct, then the SC member who gave the answer up on stage lied - and I have no idea why she would and I don't believe she did. There were plenty of SC meetings were concerned parents were not allowed to address the SC.
There are more goodies in the contract too, but that's for a later time, perhaps.
Perhaps if you could direct us to another city/town where a very similar contract was in use, with a similar number of students, it would aid your argument. ALL of Massachusetts is open to go and look for one.
Contrary to what may be perceived here, I do wish Dr. Young all the best. Everyone needs to do what they can, legally, to better themselves and their family's situation. Dr. Young was handed a situation on a golden platter and he took it. I don't blame him - I congratulate him. Heck, I'd have taken it too! I mean, really, who would turn down a huge payday just to change from one paying job to another? He'd been looking to move on from Hadley for awhile and most likely would have regardless. The Hadley School Committee simply handed him an opportunity that no reasonable person would turn down.
The former majority of the School Committee, however, have A TON of explaining to do. And what you've written here so far is smoke and mirrors, 2cents.
Thank three people on the former School Committee
Let's set the facts out:
1. Young has been looking for another Superintendent job for YEARS and everybody knows it.
2. For anyone to say that the "new majority" on the School Committee drove Young out is simply disingenuous and sour grapes.
2. The former majority on the Hadley School Committee gave the town away in Young's newest contact by letting him accumulate unused vacation time going back TWENTY YEARS - with no cap. That is completely and totally unheard of in any sane business. He also got massive amounts of paid time off in his new contract.
3. The former School Committee majority simply GUARANTEED that Young would leave by giving him the contact that they did. Young just got a nice $100K bonus from the taxpayers of Hadley for doing nothing more than changing jobs - where he will be getting paid by the Town of South Hadley. Nice work if you can get it. The former majority on the School Committee accomplished the very thing they proclaimed to be wanting to prevent - and left the taxpayers of Hadley to pay for their folly. Josef Stalin called people like that "useful idiots."
4. Another aspect of the contract that was given to Young was that any complaints against him were to be given directly to him and for him only to address. The School Committee WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CONTRACT to ever bring up or address the complaints against him. Young was THE ONLY person the complaint would be given to and he alone would decide where it was a viable complaint, and if it was, ONLY HE would choose how to address it or not address it. Again, nice work if you can get it.
5. When the contract in question was being negotiated, it was rammed through the School Committee with little discussion, no public input (because there was a maze of bureaucratic hoops that average citizens had to jump through to even address the School Committee in one of their meetings). This was brought up in the last election. At the Hadley Mother's Club Candidate night the question was raised how a parent could address the School Committee. The answer, provided by a former member of the former majority on the School Committee, was a mind numbing mess virtually guaranteeing that no parent would ever reach the School Committee to address it. Memorial Library has the tapes - you can see it for yourself. Thank goodness the "new majority" on the School Committee has removed those hoops and is far, far more accessible to concerned parents!
And those are just some of the facts regarding situation.
As far as I'm concerned, the members of the School Committee, past and present, who voted for the contract should be the only ones responsible for paying the $100K bonus Young is getting. They were the ones that gave the town away.
don't pay him!
If this "genius" decided to not take vacation in the 1990s, then he forfeits the pay. Where in the policy or contract does it say that unused vacation time is available forever? How could a town possibly budget knowing this liability is a possibility?
Just don't pay him. What's the worse that could happen? You think this guy is going to sue the town and be subject to the cross-examination of an aggressive attorney?