Letters to the editor

July 21, 2003

Superintendent's pay a lot more than fair

To the editor:

I did some figuring. I am aware that some of the figures could be changed by a week or by an hour or so, but the basic concept would still be correct. If my figures are completely wrong, please let me know.

Counting time at home calling and thinking and doing paper work Superintendent Elizabeth Morgan probably works at least 12 hours a day, six days a week. (I realize that this is probably a conservative estimate)

So that is six times 12, or 72 hours a week of work.

However, those eligible for overtime would get time-and-a-half after 40 hours, so Morgan's 72 hours a week of actual work would be computed as 40 hours straight time plus 32 hours of time-and-a-half overtime.


Thirty-two hours of overtime would be paid the same amount as 32 plus16 hours of straight time, or 48 hours of straight time. Since 40 plus 48 equals 88, an hourly employee working as much as Morgan would be paid for the equivalent of 88 hours of straight time a week.

So 88 hours a week time 52 weeks in a year equals 4,576 of straight-time-equivalent hours a year.

Morgan makes $120,000 a year and $120,000 divided by 4,576 equals $26 an hour. That would be the compensation rate for an hourly employee who works as long per week and makes as much a year as Morgan does.

I mentioned this figure to my wife, who pointed out that her mother is a nurse with a two-year degree and who makes $27 an hour.

When the public complains about the amount of money paid to the superintendent, perhaps it would be useful to point out that she is making less per hour than many professional people who do not have to manage an organization with a yearly budget of more than $150 million a year.

Russell Williams
Washington County Board of Education

County dropped ball on subdivision

To the editor:

I am writing this letter in response to your article titled "Flooding dampening their dream." I currently own a home in Tilghmanton Estates, built by Insignia Homes.

In writing this letter I am in no way minimizing the problems that the Rices have had with flooding in their home. There is another side to the story.

The side that tells about all the satisfied home owners in our community. The side that describes Insignia Homes as a reputable company which stands behind what it does 100 percent.

Your article implied Insignia Homes was completely responsible for the flooding problems the Rices are experiencing. Although Insignia Homes did build the home, it was approved by Washington County from start to finish.

If there were foreseeable problems with the water table, why did Washington County allow this home to be built? Isn't that why we have inspectors and permits?

My experience with Insignia Homes has been nothing but positive. I can only say good things about the quality of workmanship and how Insignia Homes has worked with us to make our dream home a reality.

Finally, I would like to add that I like my home so much I would recommend Insignia Homes to anyone. The fact is I am so satisfied with my home and the quality work of Insignia Homes, I recommended them to my sister, who has built a home in Tilghmanton Estates as well.

Daniel and Tammy Bowers

The Herald-Mail Articles