DN Editorial: The mystery of the superintendent's contract

MYSTERIES ARE popular beach reading, which must be why the school district has unwittingly released what may be this season's whodunit: Superintendent Arlene Ackerman's unsigned contract amendment released to City Hall last week. The district released hundreds of pages of documents in exchange for extra city money under a new accountability agreement .

While the documents provoke many questions, the four-page contract amendment is particularly mysterious: It doesn't say who created it, though it appears to be an opening negotiation from Ackerman's lawyers on her behalf. In addition to her salary and 20-percent performance bonus, this revises the term of a retention bonus that would give her $100,000 if she stayed through June 30 of this year. On top of that $100,000 that is placed in a trust, the proposal asks the district to pay her $150,000 each year she stays in the job, until 2015, at which point, she collects from the trust at least $700,000 (plus investment profits). She will have to spend none of that money on health care, since the amendment also calls for her to get health care for life. Her vacation days have also been bumped up from 35 to 39, which is about eight weeks.

If this was indeed generated by Ackerman, it's a telling clue of her expectations of her job.

Unfortunately, those expectations belong on Wall Street - or in a Hollywood divorce settlement - not on Broad Street.

By our quick math, this amendment would bring the total Ackerman take-home pay to almost $4 million for holding the job for seven years. Let's not forget what that job is: managing the eduction of some of the poorest students in the state, under a current staggering deficit of over $600 million.

The day after it was released, the district said that the document got out by mistake . . . which had to be embarrassing for the superintendent. That's where another mystery unfolds: Did Ackerman not review the documents before they were released to the city? It's hard to believe that a district unused to transparency would have casually released a batch of records without her checking to make sure the right ones were submitted. And if she didn't check, did the staff release that document because they knew how embarrassing it would be? Whatever the answer, the biggest mystery of all is how Ackerman and the district continue to be incapable of shooting straight. *