School Board Article in Fosters

Board reviews, revotes, approves key contracts

By AARON SANBORN
asanbornfosters.com
asanborn@fosters.com
Thursday, February 12, 2009
DURHAM — Despite the legitimacy of the new three-year contracts awarded to the Oyster River School District superintendent and business administrator being called into question, the board again discussed both and approved them Wednesday night.

The public outcry caused some School Board members to question the board's process of having approved the contracts in the first place, resulting in the new vote during Wednesday's board meeting.

Both contracts, which included 3.5 percent pay raises for both Superintendent Howard Colter and Business Administrator Blaine Cox, were originally signed by School Board Chair JoAnn Portalupi, but by no other School Board member.

Durham resident Megan Turnbull questioned whether the board followed proper procedure in November by deliberating the contracts and voting on them. She said meeting minutes from multiple November meetings only mentioned the board finalizing details of Colter's contract and discussing a personnel matter regarding Cox. None of those minutes referenced deliberation or a final vote on the contracts, she said.

"How should this be interpreted?" she asked. "We know Ms. Portalupi signed Mr. Cox's contract on Dec. 3, yet I cannot locate any meeting notes supporting plans to 'finalize the contract' or vote on the contract."

In regards to Colter's contract, the meeting minutes only said that the board voted 7-0 to finalize the details of Colter's contract.

"How should this be read?" she asked. "The board voted to finalize Howard's contract in order to finalize it in the future, or to go ahead and sign it? This needs to be clarified because my interpretation is of the former, not the later, yet, Ms. Portalupi executed this contract on Dec. 10."

Turnbull said she put in multiple Right-to-Know requests seeking to get minutes that referenced deliberation and a vote on the contracts, but only received two e-mails stating the board would reply in greater detail after Wednesday night's meeting.

Other members of the public also demanded the contracts be deliberated in public.

Portalupi said the 7-0 vote to finalize the details of Colter's contract on Nov. 5 in nonpublic session was the night the board approved the contract. Portalupi signed the contract a month later.

"To finalize details of a contract means we're in agreement," she said.

Portalupi said while the board usually votes on the superintendent's contract, it doesn't vote on the contracts of other administrators, like Cox. Instead, it lets Colter have the final say on that.

On Nov. 12, Portalupi said the board listened to Colter's recommendation of signing Cox to a three-year contract and giving him a 3.5 percent raise, but no vote was taken.

"My sense was that at the end of the meeting we agreed with the superintendent's recommendation," she said.

However, two board members said they were confused by the process in approving both contracts and said the language of the minutes didn't reflect them being approved.

Board member Jennifer Rief said she had asked to see a review of Colter during the Nov. 5 meeting and didn't realize the vote to finalize Colter's contract was the "approval" vote.

"How can I commit to a new contract when I've only worked with the superintendent for six months," she said. "I was under the impression we were still in the process of deliberating the contract."

Board Member Kim Clark also said she was under the impression that more deliberation would follow the Nov. 5 meeting.

Because of the conflict within the board, the board decided to once again deliberate and vote on both contracts. The board deliberated in nonpublic session for about 15 minutes and voted in public. The board voted 5-2 to approve Colter's contract with Rief and Clark voting against it.

The board then voted 5-1-1 to approve Cox's contract, with Rief voting against it and Clark abstaining.

Concerns were also raised about the term length of the contracts and the wage increases.

"The right thing to do is to nullify the contracts and revise them with a salary freeze for 2009-2010 and for one-year limits," Turnbull said. "Considering the current economic climate and what other school districts are doing across the country, it is appropriate to freeze our central office administrators' salaries and limit their terms to one year."

Portalupi said the multiyear contracts were necessary to ensure stable leadership in the district and also noted that other districts were looking to hire Cox.

Cox's base salary is now $96,153 and Colter's is $131,435.