August 13, 2014 at 4:48 p.m.
School panel rejects Appendix A revisions
School panel rejects Appendix A revisions
Board members David Holperin and Dennis O'Brien voted to reject the changes; Mike Roberts cast the only yes vote.
Holperin and O'Brien argued the pay schedule favors athletic coaches at the expense of the academic advisors and directed the administration to work with the Appendix A Committee to balance the compensation schedule.
At the heart of the debate is a question the district has been wrestling with for months - what is the appropriate compensation for mock trial head coach Kathy Vick-Martini.
Vick-Martini, who has coached mock trial for 31 years, has said she does not deserve a pay cut. During the 2013-'14 season, Vick-Martini earned a $2,400 base stipend. Because her team advanced to state competition, she also earned a $600 bonus. After the team won the state championship, she earned a $1,000 bonus, for a total of $4,000. She was eligible to earn another $1,000 if her team had captured the national championship but the squad finished in eighth place.
The Appendix A Committee agreed to increase her pay so she would earn $3,000 for what is deemed the regular season and $1,500 should the team win the state tournament and qualify for nationals, for a maximum total of $4,500. Two years ago, before Appendix A was last revised, Martini was paid $4,626 for the entire mock trial season. She claims the pay cut two years ago was unfair because other coaches did not receive the same reduction in wages.
"When Appendix A was adopted two years ago, my base pay was cut 48 percent. If you had asked every head coach at the high school to accept a 48 percent cut in pay as well, I wouldn't be here, but the only coaching staff that was cut 48 percent across the board was mock trial," she said.
"The new Appendix A (compensation schedule) that you received tonight does restore some of that pay. It takes away the bonuses and gives me a little bit more pay for the state season and restores the pay that I was getting all along for the national season, although not as much as I was getting. The bottom line is, although it is an improvement, ... I'm still getting a pay cut. I'm getting less than I received five years ago."
"You've downplayed my cut in pay by pointing to bonuses that I was able to receive by winning regional and state championships, but every head coach of interscholastic competition receives bonuses for winning and none of them had their base pay cut in half first, so their bonuses actually result in a raise. My bonuses did not result in a raise," she added. "They didn't recover the base pay that was cut. This Appendix A still is giving me a pay cut, which I do not think I deserve."
Under Vick-Martini's tutelage, the mock trial team has won 28 straight regional championships, 17 state championships and one national championship. She has also been awarded the Law Related Education Teacher of the Year award and the Golden Gavel award.
Board member David Holperin said he thinks Vick-Martini should receive the same compensation as the highest paid athletic coach or advisor in the district.
He also claimed there is very strong support in the community for Vick-Martini to receive a stipend on par with the district's athletic coaches.
"I don't think there's anything she said that we can actually dispute. I think it's all factual and I'm fully supportive of the concept of what she's saying," he said. "The head of our best and most successful program should be compensated at the highest level of any of the other people (coaches and advisors), and I'm saying that because that is what the taxpayers are telling me. The taxpayers are asking why is Kathy not at the level of our (coaches)? What have our sports people done in terms of that sort of a comparable return on investment, if you will? The answer is they haven't. We've had success here and there, but we haven't had that constant high expectation, that constant level of success in any other program."
Holperin then asked Activities Director Brian Paulson why athletic coaches are paid more than academic advisors.
"I'm going to ask you directly Brian, how is it that we agree to pay athletic coaches $5,000 and that we don't have mock trial or FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) or other competitive activities - let's call them academic activities - at that same level?" he asked.
"Some of it, what I believe listening to different athletic coaches and the committee, (is) the number of days that are worked in the WIAA season ... how many days they work, so that would be one thing," Paulson responded.
Holperin was unsatisfied with Paulson's answer.
"Let's take a look at that - days worked - would you admit that it is inequitable, then? Athletics is working less than some of the academic programs," Holperin said, noting that academic activities such as student council and FBLA are year-long activities and the mock trial season can be up to eight months.
"That is true. And then (athletic coaches) also, besides their season, they're developing their youth program to be able to be sure that they're successful, putting the amount of hours in, going to film their games, getting their kids to, you know, their fitness programs we have during the summertime. They also do fundraising and things like that," Paulson responded.
After hearing from Paulson, Holperin said he would not support the recommendations made by the Appendix A committee.
"I'm going to vote no for this because I'd like to see our most successful program be at the top of the pay scale and not in the middle or at the bottom. I'd like to see it at the top, and that would carry over to FBLA if they were equally successful or to student council if they're in a competitive situation," he said.
"The essence of what is being discussed here is, why are we paying athletics above what we're paying academics? I hear a lot from the community and that question is coming to me all the time. I've heard it since I've been on the board. Why don't we favor academics? ... There has to be a better balance."
Committee chairman Mike Roberts warned that a "no" vote would result in the pay structure reverting back to what it was before the revision process began. He said the Appendix A committee's recommendations improve the document and should be implemented.
"If this doesn't go through, the pay scale will stay as it is right now," he said. "I'm of the mind that I think this is better and is doing a better job of taking a lot of what has been said here into consideration and is moving things forward. It doesn't mean we have to stop, and we can say don't stop, let's figure out where we want it to go to move forward."
O'Brien sided with Holperin.
"I think we need to find a way to find more balance between the pay between athletics and academics," he said.
After the vote was recorded, questions were raised about what happens next.
Holperin said the administration should work with the Appendix A Committee on another revision.
"I think the administration needs to be involved in this," he said.
Roberts suggested the administration look into adding levels to the academic advisor pay schedule. Coaches are currently on a three-level system. They can move up and down a level depending on evaluations conducted after each season. There are no levels for academic advisors.
"The athletic activities all have levels - one, two and three - that they're placed in based on performance evaluations, ... but my question is why isn't debate, mock trial, dance, where there is competition, why are there no levels there, also, where you have the ability to evaluate an advisor and give some kind of (evaluation) on where they stand?" Roberts asked.
Paulson said the Appendix A Committee would consider adding levels for academic advisors.
"We have talked about that," he said. "That was something that we did talk about as a committee and if that's something that we're looking for, like I've always said, this is a working document, and it's always going to be tough, but that is something that we can do. We can go back to the committee and look at that."
Roberts said it would be up to the administration and the Appendix A Committee to come back with a new proposal.
"I'm going to send this back to the administration and the committee," he said.
Superintendent Kelli Jacobi will be taking the lead on the issue. Her husband, Jim Jacobi, resigned his post as assistant mock trial coach in early July so there is no conflict of interest, she said.
Also still up in the air is the status of the mock trial class. As part of its work, the Appendix A Committee has been looking into why Vick-Martini is not being paid as a teacher during the spring when mock trial becomes a seventh-hour class. The extra-curricular activity becomes a class if the team wins the state championship and qualifies for nationals.
Jacobi told The Northwoods River News she is still investigating that issue.
"That discussion is still ongoing. That hasn't even come to the board yet. (RHS Principal) David (Ditzler) and I will be meeting to figure out what the plan is. (Director of Instruction) Teri Maney will be part of that as well to come up with a plan," she said. "We don't have to know until much further into the school year, so it hasn't been (a) high priority."
Jacobi said that issue will come before the Instruction and Accountability Committee once a proposal is formulated.
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.