Raymond V. Mariano: Raising School Committee pay a bad idea

Not every idea is a good one - some are bad. And then there are those ideas that are truly awful.

That’s the only way to describe School Committee member Sue Mailman’s idea to raise her own pay. Actually, she wants to double it.

Here’s some background. In 2022, School Committee members were paid $16,980. City Councilors received $33,960. The city charter dictates that School Committee members make half of what City Councilors make. Mailman wants to change the city’s charter.

Mailman says that “we have a responsibility to look at ourselves and talk about those things that are difficult.”

What’s so difficult about asking that your pay be increased - excuse me, doubled?

There are a number of things that the School Committee has a responsibility to do - almost none of which they have done. Raising their salary is not one of them.

First, they should get rid of at least half of the extra administrative positions that they added to bloat the school department budget. Then they can make sure that students are held accountable for their actions by insisting that violent behavior in schools has consequences and those students with low grades who make no effort don’t get to pass from one grade to another.

But what makes Mailman’s proposal truly awful are the phony reasons she uses to justify it.

Not an issue of gender

According to Mailman, her crusade is important because this is an issue of “equity “and “accessibility.” Clad in her shiny armor, Mailman said that she’s ready to be a “pain in the neck” about the current pay disparity between the City Council and School Committee. With words like equity and disparity, it sounds like a fight worth having - until you look at the facts.

Mailman says that School Committee members get paid less because we have always paid women less. Channeling her inner Nikki Haley, I’m guessing she wants to make this the “women’s issue of our times.”

In my first two terms on the School Committee, the majority of the board was composed of men.

Members included Dick Bonofiglio, Arthur Chase and either Tom Early or Jordan Levy as mayor. Before my time, there were majority male boards with members including Gerry D’Amico, Jay LaPorte, Al Cotton Jr., Roger Brown and the mayor.

Today, men make up a minority of the City Council. So how is this a gender equity issue?

School Committee members have generally been paid half of what City Councilors get paid because they hold about half as many formal meetings. And having done both jobs, I can attest that councilors attend way more meetings out in the community. That’s generally how it goes. The more you work, the more you get paid.

Saying that School Committee pay is an issue of gender inequity cheapens the legitimate issues of gender inequality that exist throughout society.

Not an issue of accessibility

Mailman also thinks that if we pay School Committee members more, we are likely to get more candidates running for that office. The facts clearly say otherwise.

When I first ran for the School Committee we had 18 candidates running to fill six positions and the pay was exactly zero dollars. It was an honor to serve and literally no one ever complained.

That same excuse was used when the City Council had its pay raised a few years back. Advocates for raising the salary insisted that if the salary was increased we would have more candidates and a higher caliber of candidates seeking a seat on the City Council.

Well, that didn’t work out as intended. There are fewer candidates running for the City Council in recent years than ever before. In most years, we don’t have enough candidates to even have a preliminary run-off election.

It’s not just Worcester. Many towns can’t get even a single candidate to fill an open elected position. In the past there was a long line.

The declining number of people running for public office has nothing to do with the pay and everything to do with the demands of the office and the public criticism that officials face.

One more thing

I think Mailman’s declaration that this is a gender issue is hogwash. But I find it hypocritical and ironic that Mailman blames the fact that in years past, schools were viewed as “women’s work” as a part of her reasoning.

It’s true that schools are run by teachers who then become principals and superintendents. It’s also true that the majority of teachers are women. I have no doubt that for years they were underpaid because so many of them were women.

But guess who decides what they get paid? That’s right, it’s the School Committee. And Mailman and other members on the School Committee just put teachers through the wringer for two-plus years before they decided to give them a modest raise.

If Mailman is so concerned about salaries for women and gender equity, get rid of a few of the extra administrators that are tripping over each other in the Durkin administrative building and pay teachers more.

Being a public servant is a demanding job. I think that so many of the people who serve the public are underpaid. If anyone thinks the School Committee should be given a raise, then build the argument on facts - that they do an equal amount of work as the City Council.

Otherwise, we should see this for what it is.

Email Raymond V. Mariano at rmariano.telegram@gmail.com. He served four terms as mayor of Worcester and previously served on the City Council and School Committee. He grew up in Great Brook Valley and holds degrees from Worcester State College and Clark University. He was most recently executive director of the Worcester Housing Authority. His column appears weekly in the Sunday Telegram.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Ray Mariano column on raising School Committee pay as bad idea