Howell School Board signed contract without reading - again

After what happened with the contract regarding the former super, I figured the current board would learn by the previous mistakes. It appears that they did not do so here according to the Argus.

From the Argus

The Howell Public Schools Board of Education on Monday approved a contract with the district’s second-largest union despite board member concerns that they had not read the agreement.

The district’s contract with the Howell Educational Support Personnel Association — which represents nonteaching staffers such as secretaries, financial assistants and food service workers — is valid through June 2010.

I don't know if this is a good contract or not. That's not my complaint about this contract. My complaint is with the process. Board members and trustees need to read the contract before signing off on it. It's just common sense. Robert Parker, one of the three votes against this (Along with Ed Literski and Debi Drick) said it best.

“This board has enough interest, when you have the second-largest bargaining unit, to have an obligation to look at the contract,” Parker said.

Trustee Wendy Day agreed, but said it would be unfair to not approve a contract she said met the requirements the board gave its bargaining committee.

“I do not want HESPA to be punished for discussion that came up today,” Day said. “I think this is a good contract.”

Always read the contract. Always. The last thing needed is a rubber stamp. I don't expect boards to be micromanagers, but if your name is going on the record as approving the contracts, you better read it first. Contracts are the most important matter school boards deal with.

I like Wendy(who explained her vote on her site), but I could not disagree more with this comment. I don't think she's shocked by my view on this either as she's well know how cautious I am on financial matters going back to our time on the GOP executive committee. I think HESPA would not have a problem with the board reading the contract. They shouldn't have a problem with it. I hope it is a good contract, but reading it first would make sure it was a good contract. It's not a matter of punishment, but of checks and balances between the admins, union, and the board. Is this a good contract? I wouldn't know unless I read it. This vote should have been tabled until the next meeting.

Lastly, if there was any reason for the Howell School Board to read a contract before signing it, the Argus reminds us of what happened back in 2002.

In 2007, it created a stir when the Daily Press & Argus reported that some former and current board members at that time were not aware that the contract of former Superintendent Chuck Breiner did not have a “just cause” clause, which allows a district to fire a superintendent for good reason without incurring additional financial responsibility.

The newspaper’s review of the contracts showed the clause disappeared from Breiner’s contract starting in 2002. Breiner worked as superintendent from 1999 to last year, when he accepted a board buyout offer valued at more than $202,000.

Read before signing. Kudos to Bob Parker, Ed Literski, and Debi Drick for NOT voting for contracts before reading them. This should have been tabled until the next meeting so everyone could read it and make an informed decision. It's just common sense not to sign a contract you don't read.

Note to all board members across the country - READ contracts

Utterly amazing article in the Argus. You would think that a school board with a then insurance company business owner would be going over any contracts, right?

But his contract is missing a provision that is included in almost every other superintendent's contract in Michigan. Breiner's contract does not have a "just cause" clause, which allows a district to fire a superintendent for good reason without incurring additional financial responsibility.

All of the other five superintendentsin the county have such a clause. Breiner, superintendent since 1999, used to have such a clause in his contract but it was removed about five years ago. Neither board members at the time nor school administrators have explained how or why that occurred.

Without that clause, some board members say removing Breiner — who has come under criticism from some of those same people recently — could require honoring the remainder of his contract. That could add up to $800,000.

I can tell you why that occured. There are two possible scenarios. One, they all missed it due to failure to read or read carefully the contract. Two, it was intentional and was one of the prices in the bidding war a few years back to keep Mr. Breiner. Now there are different opinions on Breiner within the county, but I'm not going to comment on that in this article. I don't care if the Super was Joe Perfect. The problem here is bad judgment when it comes to basic contracts, especially when you are dealing with almost a million dollars when all is said and done. That's some serious money. I can't blame him for accepting that deal. I'd accept a deal like that as well.

Now considering there are lawyers involved, I'd suspect the lawyers as part of their fidiciary duty advised their clients (the school district, represented by the board) what was in the contract and gave them all copies of it.

The good news is that most of the board that approved this is gone. I hope the current board does some detailed review of their contracts for obvious reasons.