Should Perks Be Better Reported?

By Lee Ann Murphy

A new report by the New Jersey Commission of Investigation calls for greater transparency in reporting school superintendents’ perks and bonuses. It alleges that some bonuses are expressly added after officials announce plans to retire, in order to beef up the salaries on which pensions are calculated. The caveat here is that the commission makes no allegation of outright wrongdoing or lawbreaking. But, it says, school boards should do a better job of reporting real salaries to the public.

The commission cites numerous districts in the report, including the case of former Haddonfield Schools Superintendent Barry Ersek. The commission said that recognition bonuses and longevity payments added up to a raise of nearly $40,000 over three years, in addition to regular increments under the terms of his contract. The report also states that these sums coincided with a letter of resignation dated June 12, 2003, that expressed Ersek’s intent to retire effective July 1, 2005, and in essence inflated his salary retroactively for 2002–03 and subsequent years. The report says these inflated annual salaries were used for state pension-calculation purposes.

For his part, Ersek denies any manipulation of his salary and contends that his rate of increase in those final three years was less than that of some other administrators and faculty members.

The report falls short of alleging that the manipulation it outlines is illegal. But it does contend that public disclosure of superintendents’ true salaries is poor, and that the public needs to be better informed about how superintendents are compensated, with special consideration made to pension calculations. Whether any additional regulation will result from the report is yet to be seen. You can find the report online at www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/SCIHigherEdPressRelease.pdf.