Three weeks have passed since the Grosse Pointe Public School System Board of Education meeting at which internal candidate Tom Harwood received support of four of the seven members of our Board to become our next superintendent after Dr. Suzanne Klein retires at the end of December.
That July 11th vote was based on a resolution to enter into negotiations with Mr. Harwood, who currently serves as the district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources. What remains to happen is for the Board to offer a contract to Mr. Harwood, for those terms to be negotiated with him, for him to accept them and then, as a final step, for the contract to be approved by the Board of Education.
A little over a week ago, Board President John Steininger seated a committee to develop the contract offer. That committee consists of Mr. Steininger, Board Vice President Joan Dindoffer, and me. As of this writing, no contract has even been extended to Mr. Harwood given that the committee has not completed its work.
Mr. Steininger called a meeting of our committee for tomorrow (Tuesday, August 2nd) at 5:30pm at the board office at 389 St. Clair. As always, committee meetings are public meetings so anyone may attend. I anticipate the objective is to review details of the contract offer. I do not know if the plan is to review the contract with the rest of the Board before being offered to Mr. Harwood or if the committee has been authorized to do so. I am not the chair so I do not know the plan, but expect such a detail would be resolved tomorrow.
Regardless, again, the final contract must be approved by the majority of the Board of Education for it to be ratified. I would presume this would be done at a Regular Meeting of the Board, the next of which is scheduled for Monday, August 22nd.
More details to follow after the meeting. (For more information about superintendent compensation, please review my previous post on this topic.)
3 responses to “Superintendent contract update”
Since Mr. Harwood is new to the role,. has less experience than Dr. Klein, pay him more than his current job, but less than Dr. Klein. I am sure he will gladly accept. The bigger question will be how will the 3 of you agree? John is a yes, you are a no, and Joan will be wishy washy once again. I was sorry you could not make the last board meeting. Your logic and reasoning were missed, even if I sometimes disagree. I sure wish board membership was for 2 years instead of 4. The last meeting was an embarassment to the whole community! Lets get the contract done and move on to filling the other administrator roles before school starts. Thanks for your service. You do more for the district than some of the 6 figure staff.
Wow. You suprised me tonight with your quiet, sneaky antics. I will have to take back the compliment I gave you earlier. Just remember, you are NOT an employee of the district, just a $500 “volunteer”. That doesn’t mean you have to act like it. How can you even be trusted to work professionally as a board member with Mr. Harwood in the future? He is now the Superintendent, not you!
Hello James,
You are correct to state that I am not an employee of the district, but rather a representative of the taxpaying public. My interest in the contract terms reflects that responsibility.
I advocated for a clause that is standard, and significantly more lenient, than those which are in nearly every work environment conceivable, one that would mitigate taxpayer risk in the event that a future board – perhaps even a very near future board – would not agree with this hire OR if this hire turns out to not work out. The clause I sought was not a pure “At Will” clause, as was presented in the news story (but that I know I have in my work environment) but rather more likely a 12 month notice period. This means that if we felt the need to part ways, the superintendent would get 12 months pay without working.
Without a clause like this, the taxpayers are committed to every dollar of this proposed contract (on the order of $500,000) unless there is “Just Cause” for termination, which is highly unlikely. Differences of opinion and philosophy, which are so common between school boards and superintendents, are not “Just Cause.” So if we find ourselves in this position – and if we’re being honest with each other, that is indeed a possibility – taxpayers are on the hook for the full term of this agreement. Whose interests does that serve?
The argument of those who oppose any protection to taxpayers in this agreement used the “we’ve always done it this way” argument. Sorry, but I don’t find that compelling or in the best interests of the taxpayers.
Iron clad, guaranteed contracts are rare these days. In them the employer takes on all the risk. How many people do you know that have one? I know I could be let go tomorrow, being owed almost nothing.
If Mr. Harwood chooses not to trust working with me based on my interest to mitigate future risk, that is his prerogative. As I stated last night, no one will be more interested in his success and that of the district than me. But contracts are instruments to protect against things when they go wrong. We can work very hard – or wish, hope and pray that they don’t. But let’s face it. Things can and do go wrong. Tom is as someone who understands the importance of mitigating our risk, as reflected when he and I worked closely on our bargaining unit contracts. I doubt he will have as an adverse a reaction to my interest as you predict. If he does, we will talk about it like professionals and move on.
Either way, I appreciate and respect your feedback.
Brendan