Terrebonne school chief’s contract OK’d

Despite claims that the Terrebonne Parish school chief’s contract was negotiated in violation of state laws, there is almost no chance it can be undone since the school board approved the contract at last Tuesday’s meeting.

School board attorney Berwick Duval notified school chief Philip Martin last Wednesday that his discussion with the board’s Executive Committee on Jan. 28, which led to his $134,500 annual base salary deal, was not in accordance with the state’s open meetings laws.

The committee – board president Hayes Badeaux, vice president Gregory Harding and Roger Dale Dehart – did not provide a 24-hour public notice of the meeting’s time, location and agenda, or keep a written record.

“The law states that if you ratify whatever was done at that meeting, with a subsequent opening meeting, then the violation is cured,” Duval said. “(The school board) ratified the contract at a regularly scheduled opening meeting. So the matter is resolved.”

However the Terrebonne Parish District Attorney’s Office is investigating whether it was legal for the board to approve the contract, according to Duval.

There is no criminal penalty for violating open meeting laws.

“The only remedy is for an interested party to file suit within 60 days to void whatever action was taken at the meeting that violated the law,” Duval said. “The court can assess a $100 civil fine.”

The board approved the superintendent’s contract, which runs retroactively from Jan. 20 through Dec. 31, 2012, by a 6-3 vote.

Badeaux, Harding, Dehart, L.P. Bordelon, Rickie Pitre and Clark Bonvillain voted for the contract. Roosevelt Thomas, Richard Jackson and Donald Duplantis opposed it.

Martin signed his new contract on Friday, according to Duval.

Besides his salary, the package includes vehicle compensation, Professional Improvement Pro-gram bonuses – paid by the state – retirement and insurance benefits and professional association membership dues and travel expenses.

The total package is worth $144,500 annually.

Even before they voted on the contract, board members protested the way negotiations were handled.

Duplantis was the first to question the legitimacy of the executive committee meeting that produced Martin contact.

He offered a motion to return the matter back to the executive committee so the committee could advertise the meeting and for public comment on the superintendent’s contract. That motion failed 5-4.

Board members also debated whether Martin should have been given a nearly $30,000 increase in base salary from his predecessor, Ed Richard Jr., who retired Dec. 31. That is double what the board usually increases the salary of the next superintendent.

“With all due respect to Mr. Martin, he is a rookie superintendent,” Duplantis said. “I don’t think we should be paying him at the top of the scale. He should be somewhere in the middle.”

Martin said that the contract was reasonable given what his counterparts in Lafourche and St. Mary parishes earn.

“This number is less than comparable. It’s not more. It’s not even the same,” he said. “I think it’s only fair that as superintendent, I’m going to put my heart and soul in this job that I be compensated in a fair manner.”

Thomas and Jackson suggested giving Martin an incentive-laden deal that would gradually raise his pay for the school system reaching certain testing goals.

“We have to change the way this board just automatically gives the next superintendent a $15,000 increase over the last one,” Thomas said. “That’s why this system is stuck in the rut it is in.”

Badeaux explained that the Executive Committee based its negotiation on the contracts of the past three superintendents – Frank Fudesco, Elizabeth Scurto and Richard – and what Martin’s peers in neighboring parishes receive.

Harding insisted the committee was not trying to hide anything from the public or fellow board members.

“I’ve been through two or three superintendent searches. That is the way we have done it in the past,” he said. “Unfortunately, there were only three members present, and we came to an unanimous agreement.”

Despite questions over whether the board violated state laws, some members are hoping to put this matter behind them.

“I think it time for us to move beyond this issue,” Duplantis said. “It’s a forgone conclusion that the is going to ratify the superintendent’s contract.”