Ann Arbor Public Schools employee salaries, 2008-2011

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search



BP-Initials-UPDATED.png This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia's current article guidelines. Please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org to suggest an improvement.



Ann Arbor Public Schools employee salaries for teachers in Ann Arbor Public Schools, Michigan and those of other public school teachers in Michigan were 16.5% higher than they were in Indiana in 2010, according to a salary comparison from the U.S. Department of Education.[1]

By June 30, 2010 all school districts were required to post financial, salary and benefit information according to the School State Aid Act.[2] In Ann Arbor, 88 school employees made over $100,000, including 22 teachers, even though teacher pay scales topped at $87,774.[3] Ann Arbor was the only school district whose teachers were earning above $100,000.[3] The superintendent's total compensation was reported at $247,751.43.[3]

The following data for Ann Arbor Public Schools was gathered from the district's response to FOIA Request Number 10111-0027. In the FOIA response, executed by the district on May 4, 2011, the district noted that the FOIA request was approved in part and denied in part. Disclosure of certain public records identified in the FOIA request was denied, as the district did not have the records. These records included overtime hours for retiring personnel and district personal car use.[4]

Salaries and benefits

Between 2008 and 2010, three district employees, in the positions of superintendent and deputy superintendent, earned salaries of $150,000 or more.[4]

Below is a breakdown of salary and benefits received by the superintendents and deputy superintendents between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010:

Employee title Medicare wages (per 2010 W-2) FICA tax Retirement Health Dental Vision Long-term disability Life 403B contribution Total compensation
Superintendent (resigned 10/30/10) $176,165.50 $9,176.00 $31,480.77 $0.00 $963.37 $57.48 $1,203.13 $140.00 $0.00 $219,186.25
Deputy Superintendent for Operations / Interim Superintendent $136,352.54 $8,598.71 $24,366.20 $17,375.34 $1,292.07 $95.80 $767.04 $168.00 $0.00 $189,015.70
Administrator for Elementary Education / Interim Deputy Superintendent for Instructional Services $124,696.95 $8,429.71 $22,283.34 $6,296.64 $501.06 $31.90 $719.10 $168.00 $0.00 $163,126.70

Below is a breakdown of salary and benefits received by the superintendents and deputy superintendents between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009:

Employee title Medicare wages (per 2009 W-2) FICA tax Retirement Health Dental Vision Long-term disability Life 403B contribution Total compensation
Superintendent $188,480.77 $9,354.57 $31,363.20 $0.00 $1,150.20 $0.00 $940.74 $168.00 $16,293.95 $247,751.43
Deputy Superintendent for Operations $135,496.30 $8,586.30 $22,546.58 $15,983.10 $1,150.20 $0.00 $696.18 $168.00 $0.00 $184,626.66

Below is a breakdown of salary and benefits received by the superintendents and deputy superintendents between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008:

Employee title Medicare wages (per 2008 W-2) FICA tax Retirement Health Dental Vision Long-term disability Life 403B contribution Total compensation
Superintendent $181,500.00 $8,955.75 $30,265.13 $0.00 $1,080.84 $0.00 $872.96 $179.45 $0.00 $222,854.13
Deputy Superintendent for Operations $135,590.88 $8,261.07 $22,276.28 $14,927.64 $1,080.84 $0.00 $638.49 $179.45 $0.00 $180,954.65

The seven Board of Education members received a stipend of $130 per month per trustee, resulting in total expenditures of $910 per month and $10,920 per year.[4][5]

Ann Arbor Public Schools spent $80,094,883.16 on teacher salaries and $36,151,688.87 on benefits in 2009-2010.[6]

Phone use

The following is a breakdown of billing by month for district personnel cell phone usage between 2008 and 2011, as reported by the district:[4]

Company / billing period Bill date Amount
Nextel 2010-2011 July 2010 $12,502.85
August 2010 $12,882.03
September 2010 $13,992.43
October 2010 $12,244.21
November 2010 $12,223.67
December 2010 $11,846.90
January 2011 $12,312.06
February 2011 $13,361.29
March 2011 $11,403.84
Total 2010-2011 $112,769.28
Company / billing period Bill date Amount
Nextel 2009-2010 July 2009 $14,749.66
August 2009 $15,546.76
September 2009 $15,649.56
October 2009 $14,959.29
November 2009 $15,771.11
December 2009 $14,880.56
January 2010 $11,958.23
February 2010 $11,868.88
March 2010 $12,522.30
April 2010 $11,687.93
May 2010 $12,044.72
June 2010 $12,227.92
Total 2009-2010 $163,866.92
Company / billing period Bill date Amount
Nextel July 2008 $14,298.36
August 2008 $15,214.25
September 2008 $14,453.84
October 2008 $14,440.90
November 2008 $15,209.15
December 2008 $14,580.85
January 2009 $15,359.36
February 2009 $15,901.88
March 2009 $16,291.05
April 2009 $14,611.61
May 2009 $14,888.62
June 2009 $14,455.54
Total 2008-2009 $179,705.41

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.

A study published by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia said the city of Philadelphia faced challenges owing to the cost of public employee pensions.[7] The report claimed the amount that Philadelphia paid to pension recipients limited the city’s ability to use its budget effectively.

The report said there were more individuals receiving pension benefits—33,907 claimants in 2006—than workers in the city—28,701.[7] The authors recommended three steps towards addressing the problem of high costs in pensions: improved data collection, expanded transparency initiatives, and reductions to the city's overall budget.[7]

Salary schedules can be published as ranges, not as specific compensation figures, and may 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.

See also

External links

Footnotes