Finance Board Questions Pay Increase for Board of Ed Admin

Board of Finance members have applauded efforts by the school district to gain explanation for a 5 percent increase in officiating costs of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, but a budget workshop also led them to question hefty raises granted to a few district administrators earlier this year.

Board of Finance member John Moise asked the board to explain how they could question the CIAC when several employees received raises near 7 and 8 percent during a budget workshop involving both boards Wednesday evening.

“These are very large raises during tough times,” Moise said. “(Community Services Director) Janet Mellon has 600 families going over to her department seeking help and these raises are something we have a responsibility to explain to the public.”

During the Board of Education’s Jan. 13 meeting, the board approved an increase of just under 2 percent for the school district’s non-union employees but the approval caught the attention of the Board of Finance and local residents because while most had a zero percent increase or received a minimal raise, others were given raises near 7 percent.

The most notable increases were given to Director of Business and Finance Sherri-Lin Dinello, who will receive a $7,150 increase on July 1 representing a 6.6 percent increase in her base salary, and to Personnel Manager Kimberly Hunt, who will receive a $5,000 raise representing a 7.6 percent increase.

All non-union employees, who are evaluated on an 18-month basis, have agreed to accept zero increase salaries between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.

These raises not only present a red flag and are a cause for concern because of the tight budget the town will face this year, Moise said. He said the average resident and the average resident has been asked to do more at their job while receiving little in compensation.

“The 3 or 4 employees who received a considerable raise are drastically underpaid when you look at other districts of the same size,” said School Superintendent Joseph Erardi. “Comparatively they will still be no where near the salaries of other districts.”

Erardi said the raises are part of an effort to retain essential employees – an effort also designed to provide quality services without added long-term costs associated with finding a qualified replacement if these employees were to accept a job elsewhere.

Brian Goralski, chairman of the Board of Education, said while these employees received considerable increases, they were strategically given after the board approved an overall increase for non-union workers that amounted to under 2 percent.

“This is a group that voluntarily took a six month wage freeze and agreed to take a second consecutive six month freeze immediately after,” Goralski said. “After a full year, we need to be fair and we need to be competitive.”

Goralski said anyone with questions is welcome to ask the Board of Education directly.

The logic may make sense to the board and district administration, Board of Finance member Edward Pocock Jr. said, but he believes it’s still too large an increase to justify to the taxpayers.

“It’s a pretty tough increase to explain to the people,” he said. “The group may have been adjusted, but we as a finance board must answer to this. What are we supposed to tell the people?”