Why are departing KC school board members renegotiating the superintendent’s contract?
In less than a month, voters will elect new Kansas City Public Schools board members from newly redrawn districts. So, with just a few weeks left in their terms, why are outgoing school board members trying to renegotiate Superintendent Mark Bedell’s contract?
It’s not that Bedell doesn’t deserve consideration for a new three-year agreement. His steady leadership has been critical in stabilizing a district that for years struggled with low test scores, a dwindling student population and a revolving door of superintendents.
But the current board is getting an overhaul and shrinking from nine members to seven. And the decision to extend or renegotiate Bedell’s contract should be left to the incoming board.
A 2013 state law required the nine-member Kansas City Public Schools board to eliminate one sub-district and one at-large seat by April of this year. All seven seats are open and will appear on the April ballot. Some board members are running for re-election, but most will be replaced.
Bedell’s current contract, renewed in August of 2017, expires next June. The newly elected board should make renegotiating Bedell’s contract and retaining him its first order of business.
Board Chairwoman Melissa Robinson said Bedell’s representatives approached the school board about a new deal. A majority of members agreed to entertain those discussions. Attorneys on both sides are currently at the negotiating table.
“The board is very proud of what this administration has done,” Robinson said.
Bedell became the district’s 27th superintendent in a 45-year-span nearly three years ago. He has implemented effective strategies such as full-day pre-kindergarten and a mentoring program for some of the district’s struggling students.
The district is in a better position to return to full accreditation because of the work of Bedell’s office and cabinet. And there is tangible proof that student achievement is on the rise. In February, the district celebrated its highest scores in the state Annual Progress Report. The community’s confidence in the public school system has grown as a result.
“We want the continuity and upward trajectory to continue,” Robinson said.
Understandably, Bedell has voiced support for current board members pursuing a new contract.
“As a superintendent, I’m not interested in leaving my livelihood in the hands of people I haven’t worked with,” Bedell said Monday. “I tell people it’s a very competitive market out here, too.
“At the end of the day, you want the board that you are working with execute the contract because they understand your body of work. They understand the context.”
It would be disruptive to lose a talented, dedicated administrator such as Bedell. But we can’t ignore the fact the current board is on the way out, and voters will select new board members in just a matter of days.
Entering into a new, years-long contract that the incoming board had no say in isn’t a sound strategy.
Bedell’s original contract pays him $225,000 per year in salary, plus other benefits and a retention bonus due at the end of three years. He certainly deserves a raise for the work he has done.
A buyout would cost district taxpayers at least $500,000 if a new board moved in a different direction, though. Why take that chance?
“We want all of our money going to educate children,” said board member Amy Hartsfield. “They deserve that.”
Hartsfield said Bedell has done quality work leading the district, but she believes the incoming board should make the decision regarding a new contract.
“The expectation of board members is to provide proper governing and to follow policies and procedures,” she said. “That’s why we were elected. The next board will be elected with those same rights and privileges and I respect that.
“I would not want to tie the hands of the incoming board that might have negative financial implications for the district. They should have the same freedom as the sitting board has had.”
The outgoing board’s decision to renegotiate Bedell’s pay is well-intentioned.
But why should the current board lock down a contract that the incoming board could find problematic? Departing board members should trust their successors to do their jobs.
Editor’s note: This editorial originally misstated when Bedell’s current contract will expire.
This story was originally published March 5, 2019 at 7:00 PM.