Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables associate superintendent proposal after public criticism over cost and role
Summary
Board members debated a proposed associate superintendent position and citizens criticized spending; the board voted to table the proposal until its next meeting so the superintendent can be present for questions.
The DeKalb CUSD 428 Board of Education on April 1 tabled discussion of a proposed associate superintendent position after extended public comment and board debate over the role’s duties and cost.
Public commenters raised concerns about the proposed position’s cost and priorities. “I believe it would be irresponsible of the board to spend an additional $223,748 on one person,” said Erin Grick, identifying herself as a citizen and parent, referencing the figure printed in public comment materials. Another commenter, identified in the record as Mr. Marsherbot, said the district should prioritize classroom spending rather than additional administration: “You could allocate the money you have for the education of our students, not for more administration.”
Board discussion covered succession planning, departmental oversight and fiscal priorities. A board member who supported the position said it would create a clear line of succession and help ensure important departments do not “fall through the cracks.” Other board members questioned whether the district could develop succession plans without adding a high-salary position and asked for comparative information on how similar districts structure central office leadership.
Because the superintendent was not present to answer detailed questions about reporting structure, specific duties and whether the role would be posted externally or filled internally, a board member moved to table the item until the next meeting. The motion to table carried by roll call.
Why it matters: The proposed role would add a senior administrative layer and, depending on salary and fill strategy, could have material budgetary impact. Public commenters framed the proposal as a choice between additional central office spending and classroom resources.
What’s next: The board directed that the associate superintendent proposal return to a future meeting with the superintendent present to answer questions about duties, hiring process and cost implications. Members asked administration to provide comparisons to similarly sized districts and to clarify whether the appointment would be an internal promotion or an open search.
Quote: “We were spending a quarter million dollars on more administration,” said Mr. Marsherbot during public comment.
