Pay raises to get close look

Friday, March 12, 2004 | 9:33 a.m.

The Clark County School Board voted unanimously Thursday to take another look at how Superintendent Carlos Garcia is authorized to hand out administrative pay raises and re-classify employees to higher salary brackets.

"This is not about about who received pay raises or whether or not the salary increases were warranted," board member Shirley Barber said. "Rather it's about the process itself ... that allows these decisions to be made without full board awareness, participation or approval. I have a real concern with that."

In January Garcia approved 10 percent pay hikes for Agustin Orci, deputy superintendent of instruction, and Bill Hoffman, senior legal counsel for the district. Orci's salary rose to $132,424 while Hoffman's pay increased to $123,456 annually.

Three years earlier Walt Rulffes, deputy superintendent of operations, was given a substantial raise when the district learned he was being wooed by other organizations, Garcia said. The raises for Orci and Hoffman were overdue and designed to bring "parity" to the pay scale for top administrators, Garcia said.

The School Board's own legal adviser later determined that Garcia had the authority to hand out the pay hikes. Both Hoffman and Orci, as members of the district's bargaining team, are considered "confidential" employees and are exempt from the pay scale set during union negotiations.

Garcia -- and the School Board -- came under fire when news of the raises became public. Following a closed session meeting Garcia apologized publicly to the School Board for not doing a better job of informing them that the raises were forthcoming, even though no district regulations were violated.

Barber, one of the more outspoken critics of the pay hikes, sought a change in district regulations that would require the superintendent to get School Board approval before reclassifying administrators when it resulted in a pay increase. Her motion died when no other board member would second it. Several board members said they didn't second the motion because of its wording and not because they disagreed with Barber's fundamental concerns.