Dear Editor,
I was very disappointed to read the article (Dec. 20) that stated that Gavilan College was going to increase student fees again.
After increasing the fees from $26 to $36 in the fall of 2011, to now $46 in the fall of 2012, this constitutes an increase of about 75 percent. This will cause an additional financial burden on many students in tough economic times. Gavilan College also lost $480,000 in state funding, and yet six of seven board members voted to increase the Superintendent’s salary by an incredible $42,000 over a four-year period, and to give him a lump sum of $31,500 on Dec. 31, 2015 that was not necessary and not properly explained in his new contract.
What is troubling is that the superintendent and the board knew very well that funding cuts were coming and still six out of seven board members conveniently approved a huge increase in his salary shortly before the cuts were announced.
Obviously, the decision to increase his salary by $42,000 would have been much more difficult had the board waited until after the cuts were announced. The timing of the board’s decision is not only suspicious and questionable but illogical considering the cuts in education.
Dr. Kinsella’s new contract does not provide enough information concerning his salary. In addition to the above mentioned raise, his contract states that “each year beginning with July 1 his base salary will be increased by not less than the percentage increase applied to other educational administrators.” I interpret this to mean that the superintendent could be receiving two raises each year, one on Jan. 1 and another on July 1. This shows that the salaries disclosed in his contract are misleading and not correct.
This is utterly ridiculous, unheard of and unjustified. Who do you know that receives two raises a year? Especially in these tough economic times?!
Why after receiving an outlandish raise of $42,000 and a lump sum of $31,500 does the superintendent and six board members think he is entitled to another raise each July 1?
The lump sum of $31,500 is not explained in his contract. Why? How was that amount determined? The board has an obligation to explain and the public has a right to know. Contracts should be clear, concise and accurate. All aspects of the superintendent’s salary should have been disclosed. That clearly was not done.
The recent budget cuts and student fee increases are disappointing however after the Superintendent received his outrageous salary increase under a poorly written contract that misled the public these increases are an insult.
When board members make such illogical and desperate decisions like this it does not build trust – they destroy it and in doing so the superintendent and the board lose credibility.
Aurelio Zuniga, Hollister
Â
