Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers contested support-staff pay adjustments, votes for workshop and review
Summary
At a June meeting the Putnam County School Board approved most items in the G7 consent packet but deferred changes to the support-personnel salary schedule (item C) and directed a staff-led workshop to review job descriptions and comparative salary data.
Board members spent more than two hours debating proposed changes to the support-personnel salary schedule and whether the board is meeting its statutory duties to approve positions and job descriptions. The board approved G7 items A, B, D, E, F, G and H but withheld action on item C so the board and staff can review job descriptions and comparative salary data in a workshop.
Board member Phil Leary (mover of the discussion) cited Florida statute 1012.22, reading from the law: "the district school board shall, not may, not will, not can, but shall designate positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions, and provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees." Board attorney Jonathan Holmes confirmed the citation and said the statute is current through the 2025 session.
The discussion centered on claimed pay inequities between support staff and instructional staff, and on several specific figures cited by board members and staff. Examples discussed included proposed increases of about 8.8% in categories 4 and 5 of the support-personnel salary schedule; listed salary examples of $152,000, $140,000 and $138,000 for certain positions; a $161,000 base superintendent salary in the county and a referenced $170,000 proposed salary for some positions; and average salaries cited on the record: administrative assistants at approximately $65,000, executive secretaries at $56,000, and a beginning teacher salary cited as about $48,000 (but staff noted the different contract lengths and workdays make hourly comparisons more relevant).
District staff said many job descriptions have been board-approved in earlier years and explained which description changes do and do not require separate board approval. Assistant Superintendent Susan Whitehurst told the board the district is updating job descriptions and using the Department of Education crosswalk to assign job codes and classes, and that some positions were board-approved previously so a new board vote would not be required for a title that reappears.
Board member Leary moved to approve the listed G7 items except C and asked the board to schedule a workshop so staff could prepare comparative salary data and clarifying job descriptions. The motion, as amended, passed with an affirmative vote and one "nay." The board directed staff to schedule a workshop and provide prior information for board review before the meeting. The board also discussed, but did not authorize at this time, hiring an outside personnel-management consulting firm; that element was removed from the final motion and replaced with the staff workshop.
Why it matters: the discussion tied to budget planning and to the boardstatutory role in approving positions and compensation; several board members emphasized the need to avoid arbitrary decisions and to ensure accurate crosswalks between job descriptions and pay categories. The board asked staff to provide comparative data with similar-sized districts and to return with a workshop-ready packet.
