• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

The Sweetwater Union High School District has been without a superintendent, or interim superintendent, for close to a month now. At the last board meeting, president Pearl Quiñones told the public to direct all district concerns to Maria Castilleja, director of curriculum and instruction, who would be serving as “the duty officer.” Nobody informed teachers or the community that former interim superintendent Ed Brand had resigned — his empty chair was the only clue.

Due to a recent ruling that changed the way the California State Teachers’ Retirement System works, Brand’s retirement would have been reduced because he also had a $20,000 consultant’s contract with the district.

Brand recently said to the U-T, “In the July board meeting I told the board that I had to officially resign as of August 31 and that I would be comfortable volunteering.” (Brand had signed a new contract in June, extending his “interim superintendent” status to December.)

Brand explained the situation this way: “I needed to know if somebody didn’t like a decision I made, I’d have the same protection I would have as a consultant or as a superintendent….” In the end, Brand didn’t volunteer to continue serving as interim superintendent; he went home and has been waiting for a new contract.

In the same September 20 U-T article, Brand said he had been led to believe that the board would make a decision on a contract on August 20, then again on September 6. But now the contract discussion appears to be happening on Monday, September 24.

Alex Anguiano, president of the Sweetwater Education Association, has called for the contract to be posted with the agenda for the purpose of transparency — the agenda is expected to be posted late today, September 21.

On the education association’s Facebook page, Anguiano speculates about the contents of the contract:

“Will he be offered a life insurance package greater than yours or mine? I do not believe that his life is worth more than ours. Will there be a buy-out clause? [Remember the last superintendent Jesus Gandara’s buy-out clause.] Will he have the same benefits cap as us? Will he maintain his same rate of pay or will he be offered an increase. I do not predict that he will lead by example. What other perks will he get? Will the contract grant him the authority to circumvent the Board?”

The Sweetwater Education Association’s representative council voted “no confidence” in Brand on September 17. Anguiano will join others who are urging the board not to give Brand a contract in a press conference prior to Monday’s board meeting.

In a September 21 interview, Anguiano said, "It is my understanding that the board will go into closed session first to discuss the contract. Then they will give the audience hard copies of the contract and vote on it.  That does not give us enough time. I want to go through it with a fine-tooth comb."

When asked why the education association representative council voted “no confidence,” Anguiano said, "We are looking for someone who has the qualities of honesty, transparency, and integrity.  This superintendent [Brand] doesn't have those qualities."

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

eastlaker Sept. 21, 2012 @ 5:54 p.m.

Not only does he not have the qualities of honesty, transparency, and integrity, Ed "Bad News" Brand also is a master at gaming the system--any system. Sweetwater doesn't need any more of that.

We want people who play by the rules and do the right thing. Ed Brand wouldn't know how to begin in such a scenerio...let us hope that the Board of Trustees realize that offering Brand a new contract would be an enormous mistake on their part.

Maybe the Board of Trustees can turn over a new leaf themselves and start acting like they know how to follow rules and respond to the public's demands for respect and honesty.

Is that possible?

P.S. The agenda has been posted, and I do not see a contract. Under "F. Superintendent Discussion Items", number six is "*Consider the Employment Agreement for Dr. Ed Brand as the new superintendent. (F/I: See below.)" However, I did not see anything listed "below".

Am I missing something?

4

justateacher Sept. 21, 2012 @ 6:36 p.m.

Glad it wasn't just me. Saw nothing below either other than the something about the fiscal impact being included in the current 2012-2013 budget. Also noticed that the only closed session item is listed as vaguely as it was at the last "special meeting". Sadly we all know he will be given a contract. Two board members will likely be convicted and in jail in February and hopefully we'll have at least one new board member after the elections. In a perfect world they will be intelligent human beings who will choose to get rid of Brand. So again we'll pay a massive chunk of money that we do not have to get rid of someone who never should have been hired. So exhausting and depressing.

5

joepublic Sept. 21, 2012 @ 6:46 p.m.

The SUHSD school board will more than likely be changing hands soon. It would really be a shame if the present board gave Brand a contract at all, but worse if it contained a severance package. I don't care if it is common practice or not in most districts, these are exceptional times, and a buy-out clause would be setting the taxpayers up, once again, for yet another fleecing. Remember, this man has already quit his job, why should we guarantee him a "package" if and when we fire him?

4

anniej Sept. 21, 2012 @ 7:45 p.m.

i can not even fathom the board offering brand a contract. BUT,,,,,,,, if it were to happen no doubt the demands of this man would undoubtedly be over the top. this would be hard for the taxpayers to swallow as they remember the evenings that they sat there and watched as many of their childrens favorite teachers were pink slipped - they remember the bus transportation being taken away - and they are reminded daily of the chaos that the elimination of the boundaries has brought their children with the overcrowding in the classrooms and the traffic nightmares that occur daily. last but not least are all of those prop o and mello roos dollars being spent on ipads.

why were we, the owners/providers of this district not told of brand's resignation? why did we have to learn of it in two interviews that brand gave to the ut and the star news? in those two interviews brand essentially threw the entire board under the bus - can not imagine that made the board happy.

why isn't the proposed/ possibly going to be offered contract there for the taxpayers to review? more secrets? could it be that bad???????????

the majority of the board are intelligent - surely they see the writing on the wall, ed brand got them into this fix when he, the almighty decided to:

  • cut transportation
  • eliminate the boundaries - WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL OR EVEN A VOTE!!!!

there were many other issues that served to discredit the very board that he is suppose to report to - but these two, well lets just they were the straws that broke the districts back and brought the entire community down on the board.

no longer does the board look out to a few concerned parents, now they are having to face an entire disillusioned community.

the star news poll indicates that over 93% of the community wants brand gone - they want the search for a new superintendent to begin immediately.

5

Visduh Sept. 21, 2012 @ 8 p.m.

In any rational world, or any rational school district, Brand as a candidate for either permanent superintendent or contract superintendent would be a non-issue. As badly managed as some of the No County districts have been, something like this would never, never come up. Worse yet, I cannot imagine him even as a candidate for superintendent in the San Diego City schools, and that's saying a lot! But it gets worse in that he resigned three weeks ago, and that was never revealed, and nobody at the district thought that was newsworthy enough to call a news reporter. Under normal circumstances, if he quit and nobody said anything, he would have called a news reporter or two or three and given him/her his side of the story. So, he's playing some sort of legal game, and likely some sort of brinkmanship with the board. I'd suppose he really is still trying to get hired. Bizarre! (I try not to use that word, 'cause it loses impact quickly.) As I read all this, I'm transported to some sort of place in a sci-fi movie or alternative universe where none of the rules I learned over many decades have any relevance at all. It is all so strange as to make words too weak to describe the situation.

4

eastlaker Sept. 21, 2012 @ 8:26 p.m.

You have captured the surrealism!

It is as if Sweetwater has been cast adrift--as I have said before, maybe we are so close to the border that the "important people" have decided that we don't matter down here. And yes, I know that is not a good attitude!

But what are we to think? What does it take to get some power for change here? Picketing? Sit-ins? Marches?

I guess our voices haven't been heard yet. What do we need to do to change that?

3

anniej Sept. 21, 2012 @ 8:20 p.m.

Visduh: welcome to our reality - can you imagine living in our twilight zone? hah, we are living it and still do not believe it. we continue to say what is next? we continue to question, where are cartmill and mccann? what are they fighting so hard to protect?

i know where ricasa and quinones are - fighting for their very freedom to stay out of state prison. with bunton (who the district just fired - hmmmmm wonder why (not really) and flores - who the district already fired - hmmmmmm wonder why (again not really) and others surely turning state evidence most likely the two of these ladies realize it is time to LETS MAKE A DEAL, or it is GO TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200.00. heck bunton was the primary architect on the majority of PROP O projects, and flores, well by golly we promised to give his company 20% of our prop o tax dollars - now both gone........................ oh the fallout when they get on the stand.

brand does not belong in any position of authority or any position that oversees finances - he is not capable. his every move is self serving - what is in it for me? how sad that a brain like that was not put to good use - the good of all - a real shame............

all eyes will be on John McCann and Jim Cartmill - how will they vote? this is one time when i look forward to McCann speaking........................i will be interested in what he has to say......................................

4

Jmbrickley Sept. 21, 2012 @ 11:52 p.m.

He won't say anything you will be able to understand. He's a politician, and a bad one at that, but he is going to tell us that Brand is the best thing for SUHSD. My take is Brand has the goods on them all, 'cept Bertha, and they better do what they are told or else.

3

eastlaker Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:08 a.m.

So what would those goods be? Do you think Brand has threatened the majority board with going public on all of them unless they "play ball"?

1

Missionaccomplished Sept. 24, 2012 @ 1:15 p.m.

Yeah, but as I remember, you were the one saying let's give Doc Branded a chance when he came out of reitement. A small group of us NEVER wanted him back since Day One.

0

cvres Sept. 21, 2012 @ 8:34 p.m.

Let Brand's resignation stand--this is spoiled administrator behaviour. He's out. Good riddance.

No more people from the retirement fund group. Do a search outside the south bay tar pits and bring someone with vision and commitment to the kids.

5

eastlaker Sept. 21, 2012 @ 9:04 p.m.

Let us try and keep in mind we need more than just a warm body. We need a thinking person with ethics, as well as the ability to treat others (including the public) with respect. And it wouldn't hurt to check into the schools the degrees have come from. Anyone know where Fast Eddy got his degrees? Might be good to know just for safety's sake.

4

anniej Sept. 21, 2012 @ 10:43 p.m.

Eastlaker: i, for one, will definitely keep that in mind. last time around, i drank the kool aid - was so darned happy to see 'the gandara' gone, thrilled to see 'corruptor at law' bonny garcia given his walking papers that i was lulled into a sense of security. it was OUR VERY OWN VISDUH who took me to the coat room on that one - and rightfully so.

you are right we do need MORE THAN JUST A WARM BODY. we need to be part of the process, but this time we all need to do our own due diligence by doing our own research to vet any candidates. gone are the days of sitting back and nodding when the new guy appears. i remember seeing a picture of 'the gandara' - believe it or not in his first appearance to the employees of SUHSD he actually rode in on a trycicle - ah, hello, we should have sent him packing right then. then there was the night that brand miraculously showed up at the southwest gym. 'dripping' with love of sweetwater, engaging us with "i have sweetwater running thru my veins'. ah, hello what he had running thru his veins was the green dye of our tax dollars.

i will never forget the day the light bulb was turned on in my head - and brand sat there and said to me 'this district can not heal with nancy stubbs here'. what?????????????????????? i almost could not believe my ears, one of the most highly respected employees the district had and he was talking to my about healing - ah that would be a negatory. i was awakened with that remark, awakened and infuriated. i now realized we had exchanged one opportunist for another (trying to keep this civil). i realized that he was in fear of persons like her - persons who would speak up for integrity. a person who understood what 'trust of the people meant'. what brand did not know is that i had worked with stubbs at my home school - i was on the school site council and had seen her in action when an incompetent attempted to take over the monies allotted to the school. this person wanted total control of the monies, and had no intention of allowing the parents, community members or any of the school personnel to have a say in how the money was spent. but i had been there during the GEAR UP fiasco, i had seen the mess this person had made of those monies and was having no part of it. fortunately for our school stubbs stood her ground reminding the powers at be what was legal and what was not.

4

Sjtorres Sept. 21, 2012 @ 11:59 p.m.

If the unions want Brand out so badly, maybe he's doing something right.

0

Jmbrickley Sept. 22, 2012 @ 12:01 a.m.

I'm surprised you didn't include some sort of anti-Obama tirade in that.

2

Sjtorres Sept. 22, 2012 @ 12:12 a.m.

I don't have anything against Obama. I voted for him.

0

eastlaker Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:06 a.m.

I think it is pretty universal that Brand is not wanted. Have you somehow missed the Star-News poll--93% want him gone. How about the vote of "No Confidence" from the Bond Oversight Committee--a group of truly professional, decent, honest people. Brand does nothing but create chaos and mess with people who are trying to do their jobs responsibly. I won't get into the psychological machinations behind all of what he is doing, but it isn't good.

Brand is out for Brand. And that is wrong for someone in his position.

3

anniej Sept. 22, 2012 @ 6:13 p.m.

Sjtorres: perhaps you might educate us at to what that something right might be.

2

Jmbrickley Sept. 21, 2012 @ 11:59 p.m.

Ed Brand's firing of Nancy Stubbs was the lowest, most vile thing that one person could do to another. If anybody has SUHSD blood in their veins, it is Nancy. Brand fired her because he believed she was one of the leaks during Gandara's term. Oh, how wrong Brand was (and is). He has no clue as to all the people who spy on him, but she was never one of them. Time for him to go. Go far, far away.

6

joepublic Sept. 22, 2012 @ 7:52 a.m.

Sjtorres: The unions wanted Gandara out too. By your logic he must have been doing something right. Really?

4

eastlaker Sept. 22, 2012 @ 12:26 p.m.

I applaud your sense of outrage.

I urge you to make a list of the deserving candidates and see if they are really interested, willing and ready for something like this.

First, however, the Board of Trustees would need to show backbone and not offer Brand a contract.

We need to get this self-serving and devious personage away from us.

3

bvagency Sept. 22, 2012 @ 11:49 a.m.

Not sure if any of you attended the Education Summitt. I was actually impressed with two of their cabinet members, the Interim Chief Financial Officer Richard Knott and Chief Facilities Officer Tom Calhoun. Both have a wealth of experience and impressive backgrounds. Mr. Knott sure seems like a substantial improvement over Ms. Russo. I believe this district can run without a superintendent for 6 to 8 months while a national search is conducted for a new Superintendent. These two men as cabinet members can certainly help lead this district forward. I have worked directly with Mr. Calhoun on the CBOC and its clear he is a top notch leader. Lets contact our trustees and let them know!

2

eastlaker Sept. 22, 2012 @ 12:21 p.m.

Is Mr. Knott willing to really tell the story of Sweetwater finances, and what it will take to get them back on track, which includes using categorical funds as designated, using Mello-Roos funds as designated, using Prop O funds as designated? How about payback for what has been misused?

I hope people are ready and willing to be honest, come clean and move in a healthy direction.

It is time that we can rest assured that our bond funds won't be biting us you-know-where the way Poway's will be. We deserve to know how the financials work, and how they will affect us today and in the future.

And Ed Brand deserves to have his resignation taken as final. No more Brand. Board of Trustees, wake up, do the right thing and send Brand packing. He isn't looking out for you, he is looking out for himself.

2

anniej Sept. 23, 2012 @ 12:15 p.m.

eastlaker: these persons have mortgages to pay - the ONLY thing that will restore integrity to this district is new leadership.

1

anniej Sept. 22, 2012 @ 6:15 p.m.

surely this board will not consider offering brand a contract. each and every area is watching and waiting.

4

VigilantinCV Sept. 22, 2012 @ 8:49 p.m.

Think about this: More than likely, Mayor Cheryl Cox will be the next Superintendent of SUHSD. They need a place-holder so she can finish the last two years of her Mayoralty term. Might it be Jerry Rindone if Brand's resignation is allowed to stand?

0

eastlaker Sept. 22, 2012 @ 9:45 p.m.

Can't say I follow your line of thinking--do you really think she would want to be Superintendent? She does have a background with CVESD, but? Is Rindone's term about up with the county B of E?

0

anniej Sept. 22, 2012 @ 9:05 p.m.

'allowed to stand' - why on earth would ANY board offer a contract to a superintendent who abandoned his position, all in the name of more money aka GREED.

why on earth would ANY board allow a superintendent to bully them into keeping him when the very community who pays his salary WANTS HIM GONE.

brand threw the entire board under the bus when he gave those two interviews with the ut and star news divulging all that had been secret from us regarding his contract negotiations. well not all, we still have not seen the contract, that no doubt brand wrote himself - surely our board will decide to wave goodbye as brand 'walks off into the sunset' (his words not mine).

3

Sjtorres Sept. 22, 2012 @ 9:43 p.m.

Brand AND the board must go. The Board is riddled with felony corruption indicted crooks. The board hired Brand and are his bosses. If you want Brand gone but support crooks like Quinones and Ricasa, you don't really understand how things work.

3

anniej Sept. 22, 2012 @ 11:07 p.m.

Sjtorres: brand needs to go - a jury of their peers will decide the fate of quinones and ricasa.

4

Missionaccomplished Sept. 24, 2012 @ 1:36 p.m.

Remember, ANNIE, you were one of the ones who replied to me on signonsandiego to "let's give him a chance," whereas I rejected him from Day One.

0

Jmbrickley Sept. 22, 2012 @ 11:20 p.m.

Everything that is wrong with sweetwater will be present in that board room monday night.

3

eastlaker Sept. 23, 2012 @ 9:51 a.m.

Provided Fast Eddy actually shows up.

2

Jmbrickley Sept. 22, 2012 @ 11:22 p.m.

anniej... you going to attend the trial?

1

anniej Sept. 23, 2012 @ 12:11 p.m.

jmbrickley - wild horses could not keep me from it - i want to see the evidence that the da plans to present

3

oskidoll Sept. 23, 2012 @ 1:21 p.m.

It seems Joepublic's comment of September is on target.

Brand is setting it (and us) up for a grand contract buy-out if/when he is terminated...likely to occur after the election and new board member(s) takes seat in December. If he kept the current consultant agreement, he would not get a buy-out...that seems to be the motivation behind his demand for a new contract rather than staying through December when the consultant agreement is supposed to end.

Even if the election goes his way, the board is likely to have two fewer occupants after the January trial (Ricasa and Quinones), and again his job will be in jeopardy.

What games! Sadly, it's all about Brand and some members of the board's perceived notion of power and control, and of course, money.

Theoretically, the board is to set policy and hire a supe to manage operations. Well, we've been 'managed' and the public will is dismissed, dissed, and ignored. What policy? Bah Humbug!

3

anniej Sept. 23, 2012 @ 6:49 p.m.

oskidoll: how many times are communities going to buy out superintendents that never should have been given the position in the first place?

when you know better - you do better -------------------- well we all, including the board know better, now the question is are they going to do better? i said it before and i will say it again, the contract, the greed that surely is in there - that is the primary reason why this board will NOT allow brand to come back. the community, the taxpayers, the students, the employees, even the administrators would no doubt find the contents reprehensible. not something these board members want to deal with, how could they explain the greed and their yes vote.

brand abandoned the students, how do you justify that?

2

justateacher Sept. 23, 2012 @ 7:35 p.m.

I must admit I'm curious. So many people saying that surely the board will not offer Brand a contract. Do people truly believe this is the case? Sadly I am out of the country at the moment so I won't be able to attend tomorrow night but I have rallied as many colleagues as possible to be there. However, I just can't see any situation in which they would NOT give in to the Brand. This board makes me sick and sad.

3

anniej Sept. 23, 2012 @ 9:52 p.m.

justateacher: i am NOT one of those people, our board is not stupid - nor are they deaf or blind. they must realize that all eyes are on them.

again i say - brand abandoned our students. brand threw the entire board under the bus in his 2 interviews, in those interviews he told us that the board had known since the 2nd week in july that he was walking away, they failed to tell us. brand wants a rich contract, our board is fully aware of what such a contract will do.

let us not forget brand told the community he would work the month of september for free - not only did he not - BUT HE ALSO CHOSE TO STRONG ARM OUR BOARD. who the h*** does he think he is?

to make matters worse, he does NOT live in the south bay, so what matter is to him if his money making schemes continue to fail.

last but not least let us not forget that brand eliminated home school boundaries WITHOUT board approval.

1

eastlaker Sept. 23, 2012 @ 10:30 p.m.

Loose cannon is the usual term for someone like Brand, but he is more like a nuclear device that is ticking down. Unpredictable, and we just never know what the next explosion will be like, except it will be messy.

I've said before, he needs to be reined in, as does the board.

0

mngcornaglia Sept. 24, 2012 @ 7:11 a.m.

he's gone. he's back. no, he's gone. no, he's back...(and repeat)...

2

joepublic Sept. 24, 2012 @ 8:41 a.m.

On Sept 22, bvagency commented:

"... I believe this district can run without a superintendent for 6 to 8 months while a national search is conducted for a new Superintendent..."

He's right. We really don't need an interim, and especially anyone with local political connections that is already receiving a state pension (been there-done that). It is a totally unnecessary step. One thing Brand's quitting did was demonstrate that Sweetwater can operate without a grossly over-compensated CEO.

2

Missionaccomplished Sept. 24, 2012 @ 1:52 p.m.

"Nobody informed teachers or the community that former interim superintendent Ed Brand had resigned — his empty chair was the only clue."

Save for a cryptic e-mail informing us that male-emasculator par exellence and Gandaya hatchet woman, Maria Castratilleja was giong to function as "Duty officer."

1

eastlaker Sept. 24, 2012 @ 3:20 p.m.

But wasn't that dated about a week and a half after the resignation was effective?

Crazy dateline: Resignation letter mid-August, effective Sept. 1, public not informed that he had resigned until approximately mid-September. How dishonest can you get?

But--all this had been 'under discussion' with the board since some time in July...why is the paying public the last to know?

Why should or would anyone trust Ed Brand and the majority board of Trustees for Sweetwater? When have they ever lived up to their word or even feigned an interest in following the community's wishes?

1

Missionaccomplished Sept. 25, 2012 @ 11:37 a.m.

Correct. Although some certificated people had gotten wind of it.

0

joepublic Sept. 24, 2012 @ 3:40 p.m.

Let's not forget that Quinones outright lied to the press following the last school board meeting.

...When asked point blank, however, board president Pearl Quiñones said, “No, Brand has not resigned.” (SDReader Sept. 11, 2012)

2

eastlaker Sept. 24, 2012 @ 5:14 p.m.

Good point. Is that admissible in a court of law?

Quinones isn't doing herself any favors by lying for Brand.

0

Missionaccomplished Sept. 25, 2012 @ 11:34 a.m.

It is a mystery to me why the blue collar and the para unit of the classifieds voted to "endorse" Q.

0

anniej Sept. 25, 2012 @ 2:45 p.m.

Missionaccomplished: one needs to look to the leaders of that union - "one can either be part of the problem or part of the solution"

it appears these persons are part of the problem, all eyes will be on them to see what their 30 pieces of silver rendered them.

i am at a loss for words - unions wonder why the public is growing increasingly ANTI UNION - this situation is the poster child for ANTI UNION

having said that - a few sell out leaders does NOT make a union. hopefully those union members who are suhsd residents will cast their vote for GEORGE CAMERON AND BERTHA LOPEZ. will it change things? votes will continue to be 3-2 mccann, cartmill, ricasa vs. quinones and lopez UNTIL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the trials

while mr. cartmill finds fault with our wanting to see justice done (he can not understand why taxpayers want them found guilty and sent to prison) - we the masses are of a different thought - we trusted these individuals and look what they brought us - pay to play aka CORRUPTION.

thank you mr. cartmill and ms. ricasa for traveling all the way to socorro, texas to seek 'the gandara' out -

0

greatness83 Sept. 24, 2012 @ 6:04 p.m.

Please choose a superintendent that is for the students, the effective principals, and the teachers they favor, not a superintendent for the south bay teachers union.

0

eastlaker Sept. 25, 2012 @ 4:49 a.m.

To the great disappointment of those in attendance, Ed Brand was offered a contract for two years. He will serve himself and throw a few bones to those who live to supplicate. He will steal from the students. Shame upon those who voted for him. One can only hope they will reap what they sow.

0

Missionaccomplished Sept. 25, 2012 @ 11:31 a.m.

What do you expect from Repukes like McCan't or Cart-run-of-the-mill? Or the Dem-sell-out Ricasa? McCan't even wants to add an "assistant to the Superintendent." Is this Ricasa's way to distance herself from Q?

0

anniej Sept. 25, 2012 @ 3:15 p.m.

greatness83 - again i say "don't forget to check back after the trials"

lets see 4 suhsd trusted board members down (including superintendent) - wondering, out loud, if we might just be seeing round 2 - 3 more suhsd trusted board members down (including superintendent) hmmmmmmmmm

0

Sjtorres Sept. 25, 2012 @ 8:24 a.m.

The BOARD of trustees, whom you voted for, gave Brand this job.

0

greatness83 Sept. 25, 2012 @ 12:10 p.m.

There might be a silver lining in this. If Brand's contract is $252 grand, which is a raise of $12 grand, he will be taxed much more if prop 30 passes. If fact he might actually be making less after taxes than he was before. Think about it. If one had a choice to give him $240 grand a year or $252 grand a year if prop 30 passes, wouldn't the latter be a better choice?

0

jnojr Sept. 25, 2012 @ 12:20 p.m.

How much of a pension will he be running away with?

0

oskidoll Sept. 25, 2012 @ 2:40 p.m.

Good question jnojr! A quick calculation for STRS if he makes $252,000 x .02 (the age factor up to 62) x 25(if that is the number of years for which he has service credit in STRS) it would be $126,000 in pension, instead of the $118,000 he is getting now. Let's say he 'unretires' from STRS and takes the sweet (pun intended) Sweetwater deal. Not much of a difference, you might say! However, take alook at the benefits part of the package: he will take benefits until eligible for Medicare (at 65), so that's about another seven years, regardless how long he stays with SUHDS.

Some unanswered questions here, of course, because I am guessing at his total years of service in the formula.

Then there is the monthly mileage at $750 (another $9,000 PER YEAR) even for the one month he gets in vacation, plus all the other paid holidays the district gives.

So, that brings the salary/mileage up to $261,000 and does not even include the medical benefits the board just gave away for SEVEN years.
And a guaranteed buy out if his contract is terminated.... Talk about SWEET!
The board should burn in hell. Instead, they put the kids and district in purgatory with this megalomanic in the driver's seat.

0

anniej Sept. 25, 2012 @ 2:57 p.m.

Oskidoll: point of reference he will continue to receive medical, dental, vision UNTIL the age of 66. those benefits CONSERVATIVELY are equal to approximately $7,000.00 - so my neighbors lets add about $42,000.00 to that contract that fiscal conservatives john mccann and jim cartmill awarded brand.

folks, are you thinking what i am thinking? you remember that infamous line

SHOW ME THE MONEY

in sweetwaters case it is

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and the trail is red hot!

0

suhsdteacher Sept. 26, 2012 @ 8:35 p.m.

Did no one catch how it was slipped in that Barry Dragon is now consulting with the district? For how much? He is financial guy who helped Brand play with district money in his first run as sup. This is NOT good, people! It speaks to Brand's intent to keep being manipulative and sneaky with funds via slimy Dragon. WATCH CAREFULLY and QUESTION EVERYTHING FINANCIAL.

0

Sign in to comment