These raises for Paterson school officials were turned down

PATERSON — A plan to give several of the school district's top administrators substantial raises failed to get enough votes during a special Board of Education meeting Monday night, officials said.

A vote on a resolution that outlined pay increases for the assistant superintendents was 4-3 in favor, but the measure needed five affirmative votes to pass, officials said. Two board members — President Kenneth Simmons and Oshin Castillo — were absent from the virtual meeting.

Simmons and Castillo could not be reached for comment on how they would have voted.

Board member Emanuel Capers said he voted for the raises because he said the administrators deserve better pay. Capers said the proposed increases would have put the Paterson officials on a comparable level with the pay given to their counterparts in Newark and Jersey City — the state’s two other large school districts.

Paterson's Board of Education headquarters.
Paterson's Board of Education headquarters.

But board member Vincent Arrington said even though he considered several of the assistant superintendents as friends, he voted against the hikes because of “bad timing,” with contract negotiations with the teachers’ union at a standstill.

“I think first we have to focus on getting the teachers’ contract signed and sealed,” Arrington said.

It was unclear Tuesday whether district officials planned to bring the raises up for a vote again.

Under the plan, the district’s deputy superintendent and six assistant superintendents would have gotten 3.25% cost-of-living increases and five of the assistants also would have received additional “right-size” raises.

Earlier:These Paterson school officials had raises coming. Now, they are on hold

Want a $7,500 bonus?:Take a teaching job in Paterson

Some district sources have said the right-size raises were designed to address private complaints from high-ranking officials about the starting salary of $170,000 given to the district’s new technology chief, an assertion that the district’s spokesman has said is not true.

Here are the proposed changes that were voted down:

  • Business Administrator Richard Matthews would have gone from $185,764 to $200,764, an overall 8% increase.

  • Assistant Superintendent David Cozart would have gone from $175,236 to $195,019, an 11.3% increase.

  • Assistant Superintendent Cicely Warren would have gone from $175,214 to $194,999, an 11.3% increase.

  • Assistant Superintendent Cheryl Coy would have gone from $170,904 to $186,195, an 8.9% increase.

  • Assistant Superintendent Joanna Tsimpedes would have gone from $169,437 to $184, 714, a 9% increase.

  • Assistant Superintendent Luis Rojas would have gone from $195,584 to $202,973, a 3.8% increase.

  • Deputy Superintendent Susana Peron would have gone from $239,834 to $251,129, a 4.7% increase, which would have included $3,500 for Peron attaining her doctorate degree.

The proposed raises had drawn criticism from leaders of the Paterson teachers’ union and from rank-and-file educators.

Paterson Education Association President John McEntee Jr. said Tuesday that the district should not be giving “extraordinary raises” to top administrators while rank-and-file teachers are getting no increases at present. The union’s contract expired June 30, and talks broke down after the union asked for 15% annual hikes and the district’s counteroffer was no raises at all.

Monday’s meeting started about half an hour late because not enough board members were present. At one point, shortly before the meeting started, Superintendent Eileen Shafer made a phone call with her virtual meeting microphone unmuted. She was calling Simmons, shortly after telling everyone else on the meeting that board member Nakima Redmon would join the session soon.

“Ken, it’s Eileen. We need you in this meeting,” Shafer said.

McEntee said he believes Shafer was trying to get enough votes for the proposed pay increases to get passed. But district spokesman Paul Brubaker offered a different explanation for the call.

“The video of last night’s special Board meeting makes it very clear that Superintendent Shafer was calling the Board president and vice president because they were needed at the meeting,” Brubaker said in a written statement. “Commissioner Arrington informed everyone at the meeting that the Superintendent was reaching out to them.”

“There were a number of measures before the Board last night, including the payment of bills, and the Superintendent gave the Board leadership the courtesy of letting them know the meeting was about to begin,” Brubaker added. “Nothing more.”

Joe Malinconico is editor of Paterson Press.

Email: editor@patersonpress.com

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Paterson NJ school officials do not get proposed raises