Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




San Francisco Unified School District employee salaries

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
San Francisco Unified School District employee salaries are public records under the California Public Records Act.

Salaries

Sunshine Review sought information regarding the number of employees earning over $150,000 in annual salaries, as well as salary information for Board of Education members, the superintendent of schools, local superintendents, chief education officers, or chief executive officers.

In total, the district listed eight employees receiving annual salaries larger than $150,000. The highest-paid employee listed was Superintendent Carlos Arturo Garcia. Salary information provided by the district is as follows:

2011 San Francisco Unified School District employee salaries
Name Position Annual salary
Carlos Arturo Garcia Superintendent $290,144.17
Maribel S. Medina Chief General Counsel $195,937.04
Richard A. Carranza Deputy Superintendent $191,563.41
Myonghoon Leigh Deputy Superintendent $189,406.05
Roger Louis Buschmann Chief, Administrative Services $154,031.07
David L. Goldin Chief of Facilities $154,031.07
Joseph Charles Grazioli Chief Financial Officer $154,031.07
Carla Bryant Chief, Child Development Program $150,592.81
Francisca Sanchez Associate Superintendent $145,735.70
Kevin M. Truitt Associate Superintendent $136,019.53
Sandra Louise Fewer Member, Board of Education $6,000.01
Kim-Shree Maufas Member, Board of Education $6,000.01
Hydra B. Mendoza Member, Board of Education $6,000.01
Emily Moto Murase Member, Board of Education $6,000.01
Rachel P. Norton Member, Board of Education $6,000.01
Jill P. Wynns Member, Board of Education $6,000.01
Norman Yee Member, Board of Education $6,000.01

The starting salary for district teachers was $47,000 for a credentialed, first-year teacher. It increased with experience and additional credentials and training.[1]

Benefits

Benefits information for the period of 2010-2011 provided by the district:

Name Position Benefit costs
Maribel S. Medina Chief General Counsel $85,252.21
Myonghoon Leigh Deputy Superintendent $82,410.57
Carlos Arturo Garcia Superintendent $71,085.32
Roger Louis Buschmann Chief, Administrative Services $67,018.92
David L. Goldin Chief of Facilities $67,018.92
Joseph Charles Grazioli Chief Financial Officer $67,018.92
Richard A. Carranza Deputy Superintendent $46,933.04
Carla Bryant Chief, Child Development Program $36,895.24
Francisca Sanchez Associate Superintendent $35,705.25
Kevin M. Truitt Associate Superintendent $33,324.78
Sandra Louise Fewer Member, Board of Education $1,470.00
Kim-Shree Maufas Member, Board of Education $1,470.00
Hydra B. Mendoza Member, Board of Education $1,470.00
Emily Moto Murase Member, Board of Education $1,470.00
Rachel P. Norton Member, Board of Education $1,470.00
Jill P. Wynns Member, Board of Education $1,470.00
Norman Yee Member, Board of Education $1,470.00

Teacher housing

The high cost of housing in San Francisco has forced some public school teachers to leave the city or bunk up with other teachers to save on rent.[1] San Francisco Unified School District officials wanted to change that and boost teacher retention by converting district property to subsidized housing for employees. As of 2010, nearly one-third of San Francisco’s 4,587 public school teachers lived outside the city, according to the United Educators of San Francisco, the teachers union.[1] Additionally, 75 percent of the 1,463 teacher aides — known as paraprofessionals — commuted from around the Bay Area.

The project could take several years. The district planned to ask developers for proposals in summer 2011.[1]

Phone use

San Francisco Unified School District provided Sunshine Review with limited information regarding employee cell phone use. From June through December of 2010, the district paid $7,210.56 for the cell phone usage of 17 employees. The average monthly cost per employee provided was just over $89. The largest monthly cost paid out in that time period was $633.00, for a phone used by Associate Superintendent Kevin Truitt in July 2010.

Retirement

Sunshine Review also requested information showing total overtime payments made to retiring school district employees from the period of 2008 to 2011. The grand total for the three year period was nearly $1.8 million.

School year Total
2008-2009 $537,144.00
2009-2010 $657,093.52
2010-2011 $506,509.21
Grand total $1,700,746.73

Salary records project

In 2011, Sunshine Review chose 152 local governments as the focus of research on public employee salaries. The editors of Sunshine Review selected eight states with relevant political contexts (listed alphabetically):

1. California
2. Florida
3. Illinois
4. Michigan
5. New Jersey
6. Pennsylvania
7. Texas
8. Wisconsin

Within these states, the editors of Sunshine Review focused on the most populous cities, counties and school districts, as well as the emergency services entities within these governments. The purpose of this selection method was to develop articles on governments affecting the most citizens.

The salary information garnered from these states were a combination of existing online resources and state Freedom of Information Act requests sent out to the governments.

Importance of public employee pay disclosure

In July 2010, The Los Angeles Times uncovered that officials in Bell, California were making remarkably high salaries.[2] Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo was earning a yearly $787,637. It was later uncovered that Rizzo's total compensation after taking benefits into account topped $1.5 million a year.[3]

For comparison:[2]

  • Manhattan Beach, with about 7,000 fewer people than Bell, paid its most recent city manager $257,484 a year.
  • Long Beach, with a population close to 500,000, paid its city manager $235,000 annually.
  • Los Angeles County paid its chief executive, William T. Fujioka, $338,458.

Corruption solution

After this report was released, governments began to proactively disclose salary information of their employees. Before the end of the summer of 2010, more than a dozen cities in Orange County, for example, posted salary information on the front pages of their websites.[4]

The cost of transparency websites maintaining such information ranges from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands. These websites also save money, and this often is not taken into account when measuring costs.

Citizens upset about the breach of trust and armed with information formed a group called the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse, which pushed for an independent audit of city salaries and contracts.[5]

Citizens, empowered with information, are key to keeping government free from corruption and efficient. A study published by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia revealed that the city of Philadelphia has a problem with the efficiency and costs of public employee pensions.[6] The amount that Philadelphia pays to pension recipients limits the city’s ability to use its budget effectively.

The report revealed that there were more individuals receiving pension benefits—33,907 claimants in 2006—than workers in the city—28,701.[6] The authors of the study recommend three steps towards addressing the problem of high costs in pensions.[6] First, improve data collection so that decision-making in terms of pension policies is more informed. Second, promote transparency for better accountability to citizens. Third, reduce costs and use the savings for developing Philadelphia.

Resistance to public employee salary data as public records

The idea of making public employee salaries is relatively new. In 2008, several local government employee associations and unions protested the posting of state employee salaries by newspaper The Sacramento Bee.[7][8] At the time, it was seen as a safety risk and invasion of privacy.

Sunshine Review aims in posting salary information

Publicly posted salaries often leave out important information. Salary schedules can be published as ranges, not as specific take-home compensation, and high-level, highly-paid positions are often not disclosed proactively.[4][3] Additionally, salaries leave out compensation received through health and retirement benefits, as well as benefits such as commuter allowances and cell phone reimbursements. This project aimed to close the gap and provide a more accurate picture of public employee salaries for the sake of public education and transparency.

External links

References