1/19/97 [The figures in both letters would be for the 1996-97 school year - df]

To: Ms. Betsy Wygant

CC: Snohomish School Board

When I phoned you on Jan 15th to give you some information regarding getting new equipment for the weight room, you stated that Snohomish used "no levy money" to fund the recent administrator salary increases. I feel you are in error in your assumption.

Using the figures supplied to OSPI by the district (see attached copies, OSPI report 1191 account 3100, Estimated Funding for 1997-1998 School Year), Snohomish is allocated 33 administrators at an "average" salary of $46,412. Along with this is a 3% raise totaling $45,957.63. This all totals to $1,577,878.40 that appears to be provided by the state for administrator salaries.

However, when I look at the 26 administrators currently employed by the district at an average salary of $81,000 (including $6,000) for "Professional Development", it all totals $2,106,000 which EXCEEDS the state allotment by $528,121.60.


It is obvious from the presentation made last September by the band director, parents and students and more recently the presentation made to the board concerning the problems in the high school weight room, that funds are NOT making it to where they are most desperately needed.

Surrounding school districts seem to provide funds to support their band needs and weight rooms. I don't understand why Snohomish can't do the same?

I am tired of hearing the students, parents and teachers of the district come begging repeatedly at board meetings for relatively small amounts of funding only to be turned away. Yet, when the administrators came before the board requesting "equal" pay for all administrators, they were given EXACTLY what they requested. (Maybe it would have been better to REDUCE their salaries to equal levels).

Please respond and inform me if my understanding of this is incorrect. Are the figures provided by OSPI to be believed? Is there some other hidden source of funds (other than levy moneys) that makes up the difference?

And if there is, maybe a good explanation of why those funds are not being spent on a new weight room, band instruments or full time staff nurses could also be provided?

Carter and MaryLou Burns
16011 95th. Ave. S. E.
Snohomish, WA. 98296

Snohomish School District [Letter Head]

January 28, 1998

Carter and Mary Lou Burns
16011 95th Ave S.E.
Snohomish, WA 98296

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Burns

Thank you for your letter dated January 19, 1997 to Betsy Wygant, regarding the cost of administrators' salaries in our district. The projected cost for one superintendent, thirteen principals, six assistant principals, four executive directors and two assistant directors is approximately $1,960,414.* The amount allocated from the state for salaries for thirty-three administrators is $1,604,410. The difference of approximately $356,004 includes $150,750 from categorical programs (for part of the salaries of two executive directors and two assistant directors) and $205,254 previously budgeted form the general fund (for part of the salaries of two other executive directors and the superintendent).

While the state allocates funds in certain categories based on formulas, state law permits districts to expend general fund monies according to local needs. The previous Board selected and approved salaries to equalize pay for all administrators, as well as attract and maintain qualified professionals. This action represented the first pay adjustment for administrators, since the number of days was increased and salaries were cut four years ago. The pay for Snohomish administrators is now aligned with administrative pay for middle school principals in comparable districts.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.


Ginny Tresvant

*Not inclusive of professional development.


c: Board of Directors

[df note-- In my opinion, these funds come from levy money, and/or out of basic ed program 01. See the spreadsheet for an evaluation of school district finances. ]

Main Page