Letter: Superintendent’s Pay Raise is Unwarranted

Share this:

Superintendent Viloria’s contract amendment along with, in my opinion, a generous 8.1 percent raise, is yet another action by our School Board that further puts into question their strength and abilities to govern effectively, independently and most importantly, transparently. Viloria’s contract three years ago had a starting salary of $240,000. This third amendment to the previously contracted compensation package projects a base of $300,000, an increase of 25 percent by 2021, excluding benefits and 25 days vacation. Not bad considering this is his first superintendent gig. LBUFA and CSEA only received a 4 percent negotiated raise this year, along with two other top administrators. His salary package will exceed our city manager, with 10+ years’ experience and a larger budget. How did that happen?

From public records requests in February 2019, Wolff questioned Viloria on the necessity of the site principals attending all of the board meetings. Viloria responded indicating an expectation in our district because “we pay our principals 25-20 percent more than other districts” and, “it is interesting as the executive team, asst. superintendents and myself are underpaid by county average.” Is that acceptable? Are these the legal and ethical obligations Wolff was referring to in her LTE? How does this chain of actions demonstrate integrity of the board? Perhaps Normandin’s comments in the June 25 meeting, “Superintendent is paid less than the top 150 in the state,” supports the 8.1 percent raise amidst a projected 3-4 percent cost of living and steady interest rates. Our district is four schools and less than 3,000 kids. Salaries are based on performance and maybe district size? Not optics. Our district is currently involved in multiple lawsuits. (None of which are directed at Perry, despite the board’s public accusations). The honors grade bump denial was in part due to an administration and board oversight, now corrected. Our AP students participation numbers and passing rates were rising before the controversial calendar change. The new High School bell schedule is not community friendly in my opinion. Actions were taken by the board with new bylaws and policies that create ambiguity and secrecy. Livestreaming is on hiatus for over two months. Principal attendance is being questioned. Is this the improved communications the board rewarded? Does this show the integrity and ethical obligations of the board? Wolff states that the board has a professional duty to take steps to protect the district. Based on the state of things mentioned above, I ask, from who?

Sheri Morgan, Laguna Beach

Share this:
Firebrand Media LLC wants comments that advance the discussion, and we need your help to accomplish this mission. Debate and disagreement are welcomed on our platforms but do it with respect. We won't censor comments we disagree with. Viewpoints from across the political spectrum are welcome here. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, our community is not obliged to host all comments shared on its website or social media pages, including:
  • Hate speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic slurs, or calls for violence against a particular type of person.
  • Obscenity and excessive cursing.
  • Libelous language, whether or not the writer knows what they're saying is false.
We require users to provide their true full name, including first and last names, as a condition for comments. We reserve the right to change this policy based on future developments.

Scroll down to comment on this post.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here