John Deasy is the superintendent of L.A. Unified School District, with about 560,000 students, the largest school district in California, and second in size only to New York City’s school system. Deasy’s salary is $275,000. Do you argue that Deasy should also reduce his salary to $152,000?

DJUSD is 196th in size out of 955 school districts in the state.

Woodland $190k
Vacaville $194k
Yuba City $180k
Folsom-Cordova $213k
Rocklin $174k
Marysville $168k
Roseville Elem $175k
Roseville High $196k
Washington $170k
Natomas $175k

DJUSD could not find a qualified Superintendent for the state average of $159k. That is the price to run districts that are half our size or smaller.

The Associate Superintendents are paid comparably as well. Asking for $30,000 reductions is unrealistic and does not solve the budget problems for the district.
Administrator pay is not the problem.

That is incorrect. A 5.5% across the board cut was proposed as a solution in place of the $3.5 million cut that took place for next school year’s budget. If Measure C had not passed, it would have required an additional $6.5 million. Refer to to the Feb. 16, 2012 school board meeting, agenda item V.c. Discussion to reduce or eliminate particular kinds of certificated services, Budget Reduction Planning presentation for reference to the 5.5% cut to address the $3.5 million deficit:

https://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/files/MTM0MDI2MDU5NTAwMS9kYXZpc2VBZ2VuZGEvOTkyLzUwMjEvRmlsZXM=/2-16-12_budget_reduction_planning_worksheet_revised_2-13.pdf

“The school board approved a resolution authorizing Assistant Superintendent Matt Best to not serve layoff notices to employees who have jobs funded by Measure C if Davis area voters approve the parcel tax by the required two-thirds majority when the ballots are counted Tuesday.
Best was quite blunt about what will happen if Measure C comes up short of the required two-thirds majority.
“Measure C funds the equivalent of about 78 full-time positions, held by a total of about 120 people” (since some of those positions represent part-time duties). “So about 12o people would get pink slips by March 15 if Measure C doesn’t pass on March 6,” Best said.”
OK. If the measure passed and they still fired the teacher’s isn’t that a deception? They mentioned the number which will not laid off if the measure passed, they did not promise just to reduce as those doing damage control now are desperate trying to save face for what the board did.
My comments are not salaries of teachers. I support them. My comments are directed to administrators making more money those college professors and in the case of the 4 superintendents they should reduce their salary not to teacher levels, they need to reduce commensurate to other administrators in counties around who do the same job. Case in point the overage superintendent makes $152,000. Mr Robinson makes around $180.000. He should voluntarily reduce his salary by $30,000 and other administrators should do the same, but not the teachers. Having said that, it also follows that if you have a common crisis, everyone needs to do their part. A reduction of 5% across the board was proposed as a solution if Measure C did not pass, to maintain current levels of the program. Those of us who work for the state have reduced by 15% so 5% seems reasonable. Why then now a new $642 tax?
Finally, I too believe in reason and respectful debate. I happen to disagree with whet the School Board is doing and their past decisions that brought a deficit. Just because I disagree some that cannot debate rationally, resort to personal attacks. It is easier to kill the messenger when you do not like the messenger.