To the Editor:
Carol Dreiling’s article “Board Approves Classified Salary Changes” asks more questions regarding wage and salary administration in USD 418 than gives answers. Again, it asks the question if the superintendent is working for the board or if the board is dominated and intimidated by the superintendent?
On July 22, I e-mailed five board members and asked if a secretary who works for Dr. Watson received a 25 percent “merit” pay increase and an administrator who reports directly to Dr. Watson received a 25 percent “merit” pay increase? I did not receive one reply. In the accounting profession, we call that “negative assurance.”
Did USD 418 have an existing policy, approved by the board for “merit” pay? I doubt it because the meeting agenda had to be annotated to include this item.
Merit pay needs to be available for all USD 418 employees, or none, with objectives, policies and procedures to be written and approved. After the fact merit pay for the chosen few is bad for employee moral.
What about the projected budget shortfalls and declining enrollments we read about all spring? Where did the money come from for merit raises?
Recently USD 418’s sensitivity in dealing with human resource matters and the public in general has been less than stellar. Do you recall the messy hire of Coach Young and the district’s attempt at damage control? In 2006, the one-to-one initiative was crushed at the ballot box. What educational benefits were derived from that 2007 trip to China? Now it appears we have two compensation schedules for USD 418, the written and unwritten.
I may run for the Board but I don’t know if anyone would want me. If you want me to run my address is acctsolsk@sbcglobal.net.

Steve Kresky
McPherson