Around Squamish, many stellar employees are figuring out how to manage following tiny pay increases of one or two per cent, including, most recently, District of Squamish employees, who are receiving only 1.5 per cent more this year and similar raises in future years. That’s in a town where rental and real estate prices are rising dramatically, and grocery prices and other expenses seem to be following suit.
Meanwhile, at the Sea to Sky School District, administrators are poised to receive much heftier increases of up to 29 per cent this year. For those paid at the top, that means up to $42,000 extra, boosting their salaries as high as $186,000 if the draft budget is approved.
Senior administrators are currently paid $117,000 to $144,000 per year, with superintendents at the high end of the scale. With the pay increases, they would be paid $135,000 to $186,000, giving them an additional $18,000 to $42,000 this year.
It’s not acceptable.
School district administrators are paid by taxpayers, and their salary increases will come directly out of funding that could be used for classrooms where the taxpayers’ children are educated. In fact, the school district is anticipating a shortfall of $633,000 this year on a budget of approximately $50 million.
The board will have to find ways to cut, as school boards are not permitted to plan deficits, and the preliminary budgets are due June 30.
While taxpayers have some sympathy for a board that has to budget in new, downloaded costs from the province while trying to be generous to administrators, it’s clear that the pay increases need to be greatly scaled back. The public likely won’t swallow pay hikes as high as 29 per cent when their children’s education is at risk of deteriorating due to cuts.
Some executives will say the public doesn’t understand compensation, and that to attract the best administrators, the Sea to Sky School District needs to offer top salaries. But let’s be clear: The administrators in these roles already live in the Sea to Sky District and have made their homes here. If they’re thinking of leaving this stunning recreation paradise, there are probably other reasons they’re considering departing, such as to be closer to extended family or to take on fresh challenges elsewhere. And if they’re already here, they are managing on the current pay they receive.
Why should they receive more funding from the public coffers when most taxpayers are managing on meagre increases?
