April 30, 2014 at 12:23 p.m.
Mock trial coach responds to school district's decision not to increase compensation
Mock trial coach responds to school district's decision not to increase compensation
The committee delayed a decision on raises for Vick-Martini and Jacobi until the district's activities handbook is updated. The committee decided that the district should look at the entire Appendix A, which covers compensation for all coaches and advisors, before singling out one or two coaches for raises.
The decision did not sit well with Vick-Martini.
In an interview with the River News, Vick-Martini said she's upset not because she didn't get the increase, but with how the issue was framed by the district.
She claims she's not looking for a raise but for her pay to be restored to what it was before Appendix A was last revised.
"This is not about a pay raise. I'm not asking for a pay raise. What I'm asking the board to do is to restore the base pay that I originally had," she said. "In 2010, my base pay was $4,626 for an eight-month season. In 2014, my base pay is $2,400 for an eight-month season."
When that cut took place, head coaches of athletic teams got raises, Vick-Martini said.
"When they adopted Appendix A two years ago, my base pay was cut virtually in half. At the same time, all of the athletic coaches at the high school were given a raise in their base pay," Vick-Martini said. "In addition, we were all, as coaches, given the opportunity to earn incentive pay. My incentive pay this year was $600 for winning the regional tournament for the 27th time and $1,000 for winning the state tournament for the 17th time. The fact is, that additional $1,600 added to my new base pay of $2,400 means that I'm earning $626 less than I did before they adopted Appendix A."
According to the district's activities director, Brian Paulson, most high school athletic coaches did get a pay increase when Appendix A was last updated, but most were not substantial. Additionally, Paulson said many other coaches and advisors saw their pay shrunk.
"Some coaches or advisors did get increases and some didn't. Some got decreases," he said. "I would agree that there were many coaches that did get a raise, however, we're talking a raise of, some coaches got up to a couple hundred dollars all the way down to $23. For that to happen, our assistant basketball coaches, in general, had a small decrease. Track coaches had a decrease. Golf assistant coaches had a decrease. Every James Williams Middle School position was decreased."
"A lot of head coaches did get a small increase, that would be correct," he added.
One of the district's arguments against Vick-Martini's request is, compared to other mock trial coaches around the state, she is paid "very well," Paulson said. Vick-Martini says it's not fair to compare her to other coaches in the state because of her experience and level of success, which often leads to a longer season for her compared to the other coaches.
"They're saying that apparently this 48 percent cut in my base pay is justified because it compares favorably to other coaches who coach mock trial around the state. My question is this - have any of those coaches coached for 31 years? No, most of them are rookies," Vick-Martini said.
"Have they won 27 regional championships and 17 state championships? No, they don't generally work an eight-month season like I do. Do they fundraise to cover the cost to go to nationals? Not the ones I know of. Do they teach a seventh-hour mock trial class once they win the state tournament? No. The responsibilities I have and the record I have isn't comparable to any other program in the state."
"They like to use the comparison of other schools without knowing anything about those schools and I think that's not the issue here. The issue is the pay that's being given (to) coaches of academic activities versus the pay that's going to athletic coaches," she added.
Paulson said all coach and advisor pay is compared to compensation in other districts around the state, though he noted the Rhinelander district's financial limitations did play a part in the decision-making process.
"(The Appendix A Committee) compared to other people around the area, but we have to think about Rhinelander and what money we have to work with," he said.
Another of Vick-Martini's arguments is that her season is often much longer than the typical athletic season. To have her pay cut while others receive a raise isn't fair, she claims.
"The pay is grossly disproportionate for the time expended. If I were coaching athletics during this eight-month season instead of doing mock trial, I'd be earning three times as much. Quite frankly, I think my time is worth just as much if I'm coaching athletics as if I'm coaching academics," Vick-Martini said.
"I've coached athletics. I was a volleyball coach, I was a track coach, I know what kind of time expenditure it takes to coach athletics and believe me, there's no comparison. (Mock trial) is a much more demanding program than the athletic programs that I was involved in. Every one of those coaches who coach even as short as a 50-day season are getting more base pay than I am for eight months."
"I'm going to school every day and I'm there every weekend at the courthouse practicing with the kids. I'm tied down the entire school year for a base pay that's less than any athletic coach gets for a single season," she added.
Paulson said the committee considered the length of season when determining compensation for coaches and advisors.
"The Appendix A Committee, when they decided to put Appendix A together for coaches and advisors in our district, they looked at the number of days you worked. That was a factor, the number of days your season lasts," he said. "Another factor is that they only had so much money to work with and they distributed it as best they could, what they thought was going to be fair."
While discussing the issue last week, members of the Employee Relations Committee indicated it would be unfair to the other coaches and advisors, who experienced pay cuts as a result of the Appendix A revisions and accepted them without complaint, to adjust Vick-Martini's compensation at this time.
"Other coaches were looking at Appendix A and saw that they would also be receiving less pay and, while they weren't happy about it, they were understanding and accepting of that," said committee member Judy Conlin. "To those people who accepted the changes, I don't think that's fair to them to have an individual come forward."
Vick-Martini says no other coach experienced a pay cut as drastic as she and Jacobi.
"The fact is that no other coach at the high school received a 48 percent cut in their base pay. Only the coaches for mock trial experienced a cut of that magnitude. Having your base pay trimmed by a few dollars is not the same as having it cut in half," she said.
Additionally, Vick-Martini said that she does not get an additional stipend should the team make nationals. Instead, she said, she gets a stipend only if her team wins nationals.
"I don't get any additional pay (if the team makes nationals). The only thing that is an option, if we go to the national tournament, if we win the state tournament and go to nationals, is that if we win the national tournament, then I get another incentive pay," Vick-Martini said. "That's happened once in the entire state. It's happened once in 31 years. So, in other words, it means I work from mid-March, from the time the state tournament is over, until the end of the school year for no additional pay, for nothing."
Paulson said Vick-Martini doesn't receive extra money for making nationals, but does receive a bonus for winning state, which is the main prerequisite for going to nationals. He said the Appendix A Committee added the incentive pay structure to help compensate for longer seasons.
"There is incentive pay," Paulson said. "She gets paid $2,400. If she wins regionals, then she gets a $600 bonus so she's up to $3,000. If she wins state, she's up to $4,000 because she gets a $1,000 bonus for winning state. If she finished runner-up at nationals, she gets $500 and if she wins nationals, she gets $1,000. So, all-in-all, she has an opportunity to make $5,000 if she was able to win it all. There is more pay than just the $2,400, they just broke it down to compensate you for doing well."
The ERC committee directed Paulson and his Appendix A Committee to revisit the entire appendix instead of looking at just the mock trial coaches. Vick-Martini said Appendix A should be revised but the committee needs to take into account the length of a season and the work required by coaches and advisors.
"The issue here, and what they need to be looking at when they go back and revisit Appendix A, it's not about a raise for me, it's about equitable pay for time expended," she said. "What I'm asking for is simply to have my base pay restored. The original pay recognized the fact that if I won the state tournament and had to take on another two-and-a-half months of work every day after school, plus my own time afterwards, that I should get some additional pay for it."
Vick-Martini said she hopes the committee gets to work revising Appendix A, though she said she has her doubts that it will actually happen.
"The solution is to go reconvene the committee that came up with the Appendix A proposal and reevaluate it. It sounds very reasonable, that's the thing to do, don't just negotiate with this one person, let's go back and look at the entire thing, but the fact is, that's the same solution they came up with last year and they didn't do anything," she said. "They've been sitting on this solution for over a year, really two years since Appendix A was first adopted, because as soon as I discovered it had been adopted, I objected. I was told (they) will reconvene the committee and (they'll) look it over at the end of the school year. That was last year. It never happened."
"I agree that that's a solution, I'd just like to see them actually do it," she added.
When asked if she would participate in the Appendix A Committee meetings when they take place, Vick-Martini said she would and would have from the beginning, but was never asked to participate.
"I have never been asked to give any input. The committee that came up with Appendix A never contacted me for input. When they were making the decision that somehow I must have been overpaid for eight months of work, they never even asked what my job entailed. They asked nothing about it. They never asked for input," she said. "This is really the first time that I've ever told my side of the story and it's frustrating."
"They say they appreciate my efforts. I would submit to you that cutting my base pay in half certainly doesn't suggest that they appreciate my efforts. It's a slap in the face," she added.
Paulson said Vick-Martini had an opportunity to comment on the last revision to Appendix A before it was approved, and would be allowed to provide input again during this revision.
"After (the Appendix A Committee) put the proposal together, they opened it up for anyone to be able to come - coaches, advisors, things like that - for anyone to be able to come and by opening it up, coaches and advisors had an opportunity to voice their opinion. Then they would go back and work in their Appendix A group and bring it back again," he said. "After (the committee) did some revisions, they go to the advisors, they would go to the coaches, and they would have it opened up for anyone who wanted to come. That's our goal (for the second round of revisions). ... Everyone is able to voice their opinion."
In the end, Vick-Martini said she wants her compensation to reflect the work involved in mock trial.
"When they're reconvening that committee, what they need to be looking at is the disproportionate pay that athletic coaches get compared to the other coaches that are coaching interscholastic competitions that are academic," Vick-Martini said. "How do you justify paying an employee less for her time just because what she's coaching is academic instead of athletic? Again, if I were coaching athletics during the same time period, I'd be getting three times as much pay. To get a fraction of the pay simply because my activity is academic, how do you justify that?"
Paulson said the district treats those involved in all activities, be it sports or academics, fairly.
"We have around 23 sports and we have around 30 clubs in Rhinelander. I think our district supports both. With me coming in as activities director, I've tried to support all clubs and athletics and tried to treat them equally," he said.
Paulson said the same Appendix A Committee, made up of coaches, advisors and administrators, that made the previous revisions will reconvene to reconsider the section. The River News has asked the district to provide a list of the members of that committee.
Marcus Nesemann may be reached at [email protected].
WEATHER SPONSORED BY
E-Editions
Latest News
E-Editions
Events
August
To Submit an Event Sign in first
Today's Events
No calendar events have been scheduled for today.
Comments:
You must login to comment.