GilfordGrok

 Everyone knows that when it comes to local property taxes, the portion allocated to fund the public (government) schools accounts for the lion’s share of your semi-annual tax bill. It makes little difference where you live- this fact holds true across the board. Everyone also knows that year after year, the costs for public (government) schools spiral ever upward. Even without the multi-million dollar construction projects and the long-term bond payments that many school districts cannot seem to do without, we are told that pressures and demands that “we have no control of” are what drives the annual increases. Salaries and benefits, of course top the list. And once a school district is done completing whatever massive construction project they have underway, the operating expenses must naturally increase.

Year after year, tax bill after tax bill, the amount of money a property owner must fork over to fund local public (government) schools just piles on. Whatever amount they get, it never really is enough- just ask any public school “advocate” and they will tell you that while what they are getting might be “adequate,” they can always use more. Oh, and by the way, in case you might have forgotten- “It’s all for the children.” They are, after all, the grease that keeps the multiple cogs in the educational-industrial complex well-lubricated. And if you don’t pay, well, you know what happens- the government takes your house- in the name of “the children.”

One area of growth and redundancy in many school district budgets that has been of particular interest to me through the years is at the administrative level. Town after town- city after city. No matter where you look, a very well paid superintendent with requisite bloated staff is almost always present. This layer of bureaucracy oversees the normal administrative structure one expects in most schools- a principal and others.

Other than delivering normal fiscal and administrative duties like payroll and purchasing, how much benefit does a typical school administrative unit (SAU) really bring to the table? Why is it that nearly all SAUs in the state have a superintendent AND some form of business officer? With building principals and assistants, department heads and team leaders, coordinators and various other staff, all “experts” in their specialties and overseen by an elected board of education, does anybody really believe that a position of “superintendent” is even necessary?

Consider some history from not too far in the past: The administrative structure of the Gilford school district is a relatively recent creation. Prior to withdrawing, Gilford shared an administrative arrangement with Laconia and Gilmanton. The thought was that the bloated bureaucracy this organization had become could be streamlined and more easily managed at the local level. Gilford’s voters approved an ambitious and forward thinking plan to conduct the school’s business without the need for an actual “superintendent” position. The school district would be managed by an “administrator” in partnership with the educational leaders from each building who would together make up a “cabinet” overseen by the elected school board.

Unfortunately, as most people know, this plan was scrapped and we were left with what we have today: A very expensive department that eclipses the old arrangement that many worked so hard to escape. In January of 2003, I reported in my Daily Sun column that the 2003-2004 base salary for the Gilford Superintendent of Schools was $85,400. Three years later, the budget passed in March pegs the $uperintendent’s base salary at $120,123- an increase of over 34,000 dollars! Did your salary increase that much in just three years?