BOE Takes Aim at 'Generous' Contracts

Brick's Board of Education will look into reshaping the terms of future employment contracts handed out to some non-union administrative employees, which one board member called "generous" at Thursday's pre-agenda meeting.

The discussion began after resident Vic Fanelli questioned some of the provisions of a $90,000 per year contract that was set to be approved by the board at its regular meeting next week between the district and Robert Vogel, presumably the person to be recommended by Superintendent Walter Hrycenko to fill the open position of facilities director.

Fanelli questioned a number of aspects of the contract that he said were not common in employment contracts in the private sector, including a pay-out for unused sick days up to $4,500 upon retirement; the ability to collect another $4,500 for opting out of receiving health insurance; and the ability for the employee to request certain items in his personnel file be "destroyed" once per year.

Board members agreed, with Susan Suter also taking issue with the potential employee getting 15 days of vacation per year off the bat.

Business Administrator James Edwards said the proposed employment contract for the facilities director was based off a "boilerplate" contract and the perks in question were part of the standard contract given out to non-union administrative employees in the past, such as the transportation director.

"My assumption was that with employment contracts … that someone had put that together, reviewed it, and said 'this is the contract you're going to use,'" said Edwards. "We don't monkey around with the language at all."

Board attorney Jack Sahradnik said school administrators had not forwarded the contract to him for review before the meeting, but advised board members that many of the benefits in the contract that were in question were not legally required to be provided to employees.

"My opinion as a board member is that the aspirations of the community are that some of these contracts are too generous," said board member Larry Reid. "We're providing payouts, waivers, that the community doesn't get. We saw, from yesterday's [township council election] results, that the community is fed up with these generosities."

Reid suggested further discussion of not the just the facilities director contract, but all similar contracts, should be held in a human resources committee meeting set for next week.

But Hrycenko urged board members to settle on contract terms Wednesday night, so the facilities director contract could be voted on at the regular board meeting next Thursday.

"We have an obligation, for the good of the district, that this has to be done this week," he said. "I don't want his contract to be an excuse for why somebody wouldn't vote for him."

Board member Kim Terebush defended the contract, saying the applicant was well qualified.

"You're not starting out with someone out of college or who is brand new," Terebush said. "As we beat up what the individual may be being offered, we have to consider the amount of experience this individual brings to this district. We have a large district with a lot of schools, and a lot of issues to be dealt with."

Sahradnik said discussing one, individual contract at a public meeting was "not the way to do this" and suggested broad discussions on such contracts at a future meeting.

Board President Sharon Kight agreed, and board members made plans to discuss such administrative contracts in general at a committee meeting set for Monday.