By Lisa Wolff

In July 2010, Gov. Chris Christie mandated a superintendent salary cap, which took effect in 2011. The cap was meant to reduce the amount taxpayers spend on school administrative salaries by $9.8 million.

Instead, it is actually costing taxpayers more.

This month, the beloved superintendent of the Princeton School District gave notice. Had this 2005 Superintendent of the Year not retired, the cap would have forced her $225,000 salary to be cut by $50,000. So, "with a heavy heart and very mixed emotions," she announced her retirement. At age 56, she will now collect a pension of almost $144,000 annually for life.

Consequently, when the state attempted to reduce the superintendent’s salary by $50,000, they instead triggered a $144,000 annual payout for which the district gets nothing in return. The school district will still need to pay her replacement a comfortable six-digit salary. This instance alone leaves taxpayers holding the bag for an additional one-quarter of a million dollars over the three years until the cap is set to expire.

The increase in taxpayer costs runs contrary to the $9.8 million savings promoted by the governor.

The cap does nothing to address the excessive number of school districts or systemic pension troubles. Government leaders actually compounded the tax burden they set out to fix by imposing the salary cap. If legislators had simply kicked the can, superintendents would still be receiving high taxpayer-funded salaries, but at least they would be paying into the New Jersey pension system.

That’s not a solution, but it’s no worse than the status quo before the cap. Instead, the new cap serves as an incentive for superintendents to retire, triggering earlier-than-necessary taxpayer-funded pension payments.

The resulting superintendent revolving door causes millions in unwarranted spending for no discernible long-term value and obvious detrimental upheaval in the short term.

Indeed, the data support this scenario. According to the New Jersey School Board Association, in 2011-2012, one-third of all New Jersey school districts lost their superintendents. This rate was the highest in the 11 years that the NJSBA has monitored superintendent employment. Retirement was far and away the most common reason cited for the departures.

Retired superintendents can continue to collect New Jersey pension benefits even when they are employed full time. Per the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund Handbook, “working for private industry, the federal government, or a government agency in another state will not affect your retirement benefits.”

According to NJ Monthly, scores of New Jersey superintendents have left for superintendent positions in New York.

New York gets our talent. We get the pension payment.

Additionally, retired superintendents can receive benefits while working locally in interim jobs that last under two years. Indeed, a New Jersey Watchdog investigation found that 45 retirees have worked as interim superintendents so far during the current school year.

A 2005 file photo of Princeton Public Schools Superintendent Judith Wilson.

So, in addition to executive pay from school districts, superintendent retirees working as interim superintendents collectively receive more than $4 million annually from the state Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund. This includes only those working as interim superintendents; additional superintendent retirees are employed as interim principals, directors and consultants.

The obvious conclusion is that the salary cap does not cap payouts to the superintendent or the drain on the taxpayer; it simply elicits earlier retirement and hence triggers earlier payments from the state’s retirement system.

The state Department of Education indicated that at the time the cap was imposed, 366 school district superintendents were paid more than the new regulations would allow. The fantasy was that, as contracts expired, each superintendent would simply accept a pay cut. Per Gov. Christie’s math, 366 districts would save an average of just under $27K each, for a total of $9.8 million.

As each contract expires, the superintendent chooses whether to accept a pay cut. If as few as one-third of those over cap opt to retire and prematurely collect an annual $90,000 pension payment, that would completely wipe out the forecasted $9.8 million in savings. Further, this estimate does not include the additional health care and other expenses that retirees incur, expenses that are also paid by the state.

As superintendents are forced into early retirement by misguided state policies, taxpayers pay more and the future of our schools hangs suspended in the balance.

As we move into this election season, we must insist that legislators get serious about creating a more comprehensive conversation about education finance — a conversation that has a long-term view.

Lisa Wolff is president of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District Board of Education. The opinions expressed are her own. This article is not written on behalf of the board.

2 trchristie HINDASH.JPG

CONNECT WITH US: On mobile or desktop:

• Like Times of Trenton on Facebook

• Follow @TimesofTrenton on Twitter