<p>After being ‘let go’ ,now files for unemployment benefits!!! Is the local uproar warranted?</p>
<p>S/he can apply, but it will be up to the state office administering unemployment benefits to determine his/her eligibility. If s/he was terminated for cause, not for “lack of work”, tough luck getting any bennies.</p>
<p>Looks like she’ll get it…</p>
<p>The district “agrees not to contest any claims which Dr. Ackerman may make for unemployment compensation benefits…”</p>
<p>She’s eligible for the state maximum of $573 a week, based on her former salary of about $350,000.</p>
<p>Most urban school systems appear to be cesspools of taxpayer abuse.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with the unemployment filing. I have a problem with the 900K severance. A year would be plenty for someone in that position.</p>
<p>Suburban schools have problems controlling costs too, but they tend to be smaller and have more voters interested, so there is somewhat more voter control. </p>
<p>Urban districts have more ways of getting funding from non-voters (equalization payments from so called “rich” areas, income taxes on commuters, etc.). They are somewhat less responsive to stakeholder inputs.</p>
<p>I don’k know about urban vs. suburban schools, but I agree that 900K severance is absurd for a public official. This is the sort of thing that makes me, a supporter of public schools, cringe with anger.</p>
<p>By comparison, looks like San Francisco got a “deal”…</p>
<p>in 2006, Ackerman was also shown the door in San Francisco, collecting $375,000 in severance pay to clear out of her office. She then briefly sued the district, claiming she was owed $172,000 more in unused benefits, a lawsuit she eventually dropped.</p>
<p>yeah, makes a lot cringe with anger…</p>
<p>To be fair – and I don’t like being fair to Ackerman, who is a VERY unpleasant person:</p>
<p>I wouldn’t subject my worst enemy to the death-of-a-thousand-cuts Ackerman suffered here. There were months of will-they/won’t-they on a daily basis. The circumstances of her firing, coupled with her age and her checkered history, effectively make it impossible for her ever to get a comparable job again. (Anyone who gave her a comparable job would deserve impeachment on that basis alone.) Her reputation, which was still pretty good in many circles, took some huge hits, some deserved and some not. She was one year into a four-year agreement (the people who signed a new multi-year agreement with her deserved impeachment on that basis alone, but most of them have resigned or been fired). She had met every educational goal the governing body set for her (which, unfortunately, did not include not being a colossal jerk). </p>
<p>The amount she settled for was less than she might have won in contract litigation, and included her agreement to stop fighting and not to disparage the many parties arrayed against her. She would have been capable of causing a WHOLE lot more trouble if she had stayed and fought, so there was real benefit in getting her to go semi-quietly. This wasn’t any kind of sweetheart deal at all, it was the result of bitter, nasty negotiation.</p>
<p>Also, when the agreement was reached, an essential part of it from both sides was that this was NOT to be taxpayer money. Private funders had agreed to provide the severance amount. Unfortunately, they all backed out when the state ruled after the agreement was announced that they couldn’t remain anonymous, and the District was left with the dilemma whether to tear up the deal and go to war with Ackerman or pony up the taxpayer money and try to raise compensating funds from the prospective donors later.</p>
<p>Finally, some of the things that led to Ackerman’s firing were rather more admirable on her part than not. She refused to let a powerful politician dictate who got the contract to run a school in his district. (And she was flat-out told that she would be fired because of that . . . about a year before it happened.) She didn’t play ball with an entrenched contractor in connection with a huge security initiative. And she embarrassed the Mayor by refusing to go along with his strategy to fight state-level budget cuts by threatening to defund popular programs that the District was not legally entitled to cut.</p>
<p>She was recruited to move here, and paid a pretty market-rate salary for a job that’s almost impossible in good times, and reeeeeeally unpleasant right now. It was always going to be her last job. She worked darn hard, day and night (although she ate out on the public dime a bunch, too).</p>
<p>In that context, I’m not certain that, effectively, giving her 30 months of base salary only was so outrageous.</p>
<p>^^^we do have a history of giving long term contracts to people who didn’t do so good in other cities,lol…the guy who ran the Housing Authority and now Ackerman…</p>
<p>The story told by JHS is not much different from the countless stories about school officials. Perhaps with the notable absence of embezzlement and fraud that usually marks the end of contracts and “resignation” of such officials. </p>
<p>What is remarkable is that how long the games of musical chairs continue with a seemingly unending demand for people with experience that end up being filled by people with tons of baggage. </p>
<p>Fwiw, prior to Philly and San Francisco, this lady was in Washington, DC. History repeats itself for some.</p>
<p>xiggi, the musical chairs game is not unique to public education. In my field, executives who run companies into the ground have no trouble moving on to the next “ship”. Judging by their glowing bios on the companies’ websites citing their previous prestigious roles, one would think that cancer has been cured. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>It seems everyone isn’t so prepared to defend Ackerman:</p>
<p>Critics called her “Queen Arlene,” saying she was polarizing, autocratic and overpaid; her $348,000 salary was twice what Nutter makes. The district’s $664 million budget gap this year – due in part to massive reductions in state and federal aid – led to thousands of pink slips and program cuts.</p>
<p>She drew criticism for a no-bid contract for school surveillance cameras, for her bungled handling of racial violence at a high school and for a high-profile dispute with a teacher who questioned Ackerman’s decision to turn a district school into a charter.</p>
<p>She also fought with the teachers union after trying to protect certain staff from layoffs.</p>
<p>Union president Jerry Jordan, who had previously called for Ackerman to step down, said Philadelphia needs a leader who is more willing to listen to teachers and employees.</p>
<p>“Many times there was a sense of intimidation and/or retaliation for people voicing their concerns,” Jordan said.</p>
<p>The problem is that this is the norm for executive departures in the private sector. The justification is that “we need to do that to be competitive.” No one pays any attention until it happens in the public sector, where things are made, well, public.</p>
<p>The problem is the acceptance of “price gouging” at the executive level, fueled by cronyism in private sector boardrooms, and then matched in the public sector. The amount paid to top executives employed in all sectors, public and private, during and after their term in office, should be reduced nationwide, plain and simple. That’s the only way to stop stuff like this.</p>
<p>^^^that may be taking things to the extreme. ;). ^^^^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All Philadelphia needs is getting advice on possible solutions from the people who are the source of all problems. Listening and pandering to the people who represent teachers and employees is what has created the current dysfunctional and hopeless system.</p>
<p>Comparisons to abuses in the private sector are merely attempts to defuse the real problems that arise from abuses in the public sector. Two wrongs do not make one right. And, fwiw, the comparisons for salaries and responsibilities are ridiculous. What would be the comparable size of a private or public company to the school district in Syosset? It has a current enrollment is 6,636 students and Carole G. Hankin is earning over 500,000 in that sinecure of a job. Know many public companies that serve fewer than 7,000 customers paying their executives that well?</p>
<p>Well put xiggi…our superintendent was so busy,he needed to hire an assistant superintendent…what a joke</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow! I don’t understand how a school board can justify that. By comparison, the Toronto District School Board has a $2 billion budget, ~600 schools serving ~300,000 students and the Director of Education is paid $271,000/yr.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to contest unemployment benefits was part of severance agreement. Blame the powers that be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In case one might think I stretched the truth a tad:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In Westchester County, superintendents can be paid almost $300k to run a district of fewer than 2000 students. Here are some salaries from a couple of years ago:</p>
<p>[Rye</a> Neck, Mamaroneck Schools Superintendents Among Highest Paid - Larchmont-Mamaroneck, NY Patch](<a href=“http://larchmont.patch.com/articles/rye-neck-mamaroneck-schools-superintendents-among-highest-paid]Rye”>http://larchmont.patch.com/articles/rye-neck-mamaroneck-schools-superintendents-among-highest-paid)</p>
<p>In addition, the contracts can include a pension and healthcare for life for the superintendent and spouse. On top of that, superintendents can accumulate “sick leave” that is paid in cash during their final year. I read about one Westchester superintendent who was paid $650k in his final year, including $300k in “sick” pay.</p>
<p>So much for local control.</p>