Double standards of superintendent are questioned

Repeatedly, this paper has quoted Superintendent Michael Juenger regarding his defense of an annual 6 percent salary increase leading up to his retirement as being “identical” to the package offered to teachers.

This assertion is, at best, misinformation.

The current contract states explicitly that teacher eligibility for this retirement benefit requires at least 10 years of service in the district before they may even apply. Simply ask Mr. Juenger or a board member directly whether he will have 10 years of service to the district, even on his final day. Unless they continue to occupy what appears to be a parallel universe, the answer will be no.

Also, it takes no mathematical wizardry to recognize that 6 percent of upward of $200,000 is hardly comparable to a typical teacher’s salary at retirement. One might even expect that Mr. Juenger – having his superior fiscal acumen – would appeal to the board to re-negotiate his contract downward in order to contribute his pound of flesh to the surgical procedure required by evolving budget constraints.

Also, during the time of the “surgical” cuts of teaching staff, how many administrative positions were cut or added? Let’s see here; the “brain trust” deciding where surgical removal was necessary, surprisingly, left themselves beyond the scalpel.

Is the district’s leader possibly suggesting that, had this compensation package not been offered to him, we would not have had the honor of having a district’s executive who projects continued deficits, failed with the sales tax, has lost numerous teacher positions, and is on the brink of a strike?

What a bargain, Dixon.