Pros and Cons of Firing a Superintendent
by the Tahoma Values Team
Recent events have the community abuzz with talk of firing the Tahoma Superintendent, Mike Hanson, before his official retirement at the end of this school year.
We do hope to address the recent complaint made against Hanson, and the 20+ women and nonbinary folks who have signed on as complainants, once that information becomes publicly available. Malia Hollowell mentioned the complaint in her public comment on Nov 14, and appears to have hired a lawyer to conduct an “external investigation”. We have taken previous stabs at this conversation, but the new complaint is likely to have huge ramifications, potentially beyond just the superintendent. We’ll keep you posted as we learn more.
To reiterate our public statement from Nov 15th:
This article is not an attempt to address these very real concerns, but is instead a look into the logistics and potential costs and benefits of firing the superintendent.
Hanson was originally hired into the superintendent position in 2020, and given a three year contract. In 2023, his contract was renewed for another three years, through June 30, 2026. This means Hanson technically has over 2.5 years left on his current contract, though he has stated that he is retiring at the end of this school year.
We’re going to break down some of the arguments we’re seeing folks make, in favor of firing Hanson earlier than his stated retirement date.
If It’s for Cause, We Won’t Have to Buy Out His Contract
The accuracy of this argument partially depends on whether Hanson would be willing to sue, which is impossible for us to know. What we can do is look at recent precedent in our district and elsewhere in WA state, when firing a superintendent.
Right here in Tahoma, we let our former superintendent, Tony Giurado, go at the end of his first year after reaching a settlement agreement with him. That settlement involved TSD paying his salary and benefits for the remainder of his contract, or until he gained equal employment, costing the district potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Elsewhere in the state, the Evergreen School District chose to pay out their superintendent’s contract despite having abundant evidence of cause, saying that it was the more “fiscally responsible action”. Later, “Board President Victoria Bradford noted that longer cases that feature litigation and termination for cause prove to often be rather expensive endeavors, regardless of how troubling Merlino’s case.” This cost the district almost $306,000.
The Monroe School District chose to pay out their superintendent to the tune of “nearly $400,000 after an investigation showed employee claims of his behavior creating a toxic work environment were mostly credible.”
The Lopez Island School District recently paid $60,000 upon the resignation of their part-time superintendent, after he received a vote of no confidence from 90% of the teachers there.
On the other hand, at least one superintendent in WA state has attempted to sue after termination and failed. This happened in Richland, WA. After three years of ongoing litigation, the former superintendent dropped his last lawsuit against the district. Still, this wasn’t completely cost-free for the district: “Jansons said he did not know what the legal cost was for the district’s defense, though ‘without looking at numbers, I’d say the bulk of this was covered by insurance.'”
In Colorado, a superintendent successfully sued his district for wrongful termination, and won $832,000: “$270,000 owed to him for the remainder of his superintendent contract was paid by the district and an additional $562,000 in settlement money to resolve the claims stemming from his termination.” (Though it should be noted that, “The settlement money came from the district’s insurance policies.”)
Consensus: Unlikely
It Would Substantially Reduce His Pension
There are actually two of these arguments, and we’ll tackle the second one in the next section. By this first argument, firing Hanson today would prevent him from receiving a higher pension amount because he won’t have worked for three years in the (higher-paying) superintendent position. This argument has a couple of issues. First, Hanson took over the superintendent position on July 1, 2020, which means he’s already served in that position for over three years.
Second, your retirement benefit isn’t determined by a snapshot of three years, but rather on an average of your highest earning consecutive months. And that average is actually based on your top 60 months/five years of income, not three years, so Hanson was already going to receive a slightly smaller retirement than he could have if he stuck it out another year. Per the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems:
The Average Final Compensation, or AFC is the average of your 60 consecutive highest earning months in your career. This could be at the beginning, middle or end of your career.
Third, as we saw above, termination agreements can include continued payments into benefit programs for a specified time or through the remainder of the contract. This could result in Hanson actually being in a better retirement position than his current retirement plan.
(Some have also speculated that the district could take away his pension entirely, but this is not the case. Once someone is vested in the WA state pension program, they can receive their full retirement benefits regardless of being fired. Hanson is fully vested.)
Consensus: Mostly False
It Would Delay (or Reduce) His Retirement Benefits
This is Hanson’s 30th year teaching and he will turn 55 this spring, which means he will be eligible for early retirement, per the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems. Full retirement would be available if he delays taking his pension until age 62, if he has 30 years of service. If he has less than 30 years of service, he can receive full benefits at age 65. (He can choose to simply delay his retirement in the system, which is possibly what he was going to do anyway. That means he would stop working now, but not pull on his retirement money right away.)
Full retirement
This info is similar for all WA state pension plans, not just PERS 2
Full retirement is the earliest age you can retire without any reduction to your retirement benefit. For PERS Plan 2, this is when you reach age 65. If you have 30 or more years of service and you are age 62, you can also retire with a full benefit. What if you want to retire younger than age 65 and you don’t have 30 years of service?
Early retirement
If you retire before age 65, it’s considered an early retirement. If you have at least 20 years of service credit and are 55 or older, you can choose to retire early, but your benefit will be reduced. There is less of a reduction (in some cases no reduction) if you have 30 or more years of service credit.
Firing him a few months early may cut his years of service to just under the 30 year threshold, but without access to his date of initial hire as a teacher and pension information it’s difficult to say. With just slightly less than 30 years of service, it is possible he would need to delay his retirement, or he could just find another WA state public service job for a few months to boost his years of service. It’s even possible to purchase additional service credits.
Consensus: Possible, but unlikely to have a huge impact
It Sends a Message
This one is pretty simple: In the view of these folks, Hanson deserves to be fired and doing so would send a message that the board has heard the concerns of the community and even former board members. This argument brushes aside the financial concerns and only focuses on the action. These folks feel that by firing this superintendent, the board can send a clear signal to the community, staff, and any future employees – including whoever is hired as our next superintendent – that the district is serious about changing the climate and culture in Tahoma.
The investigation into the complaints against Hanson, which Malia Hollowell referenced in her recent public comment, is ongoing and the outcome is as yet unknown. The school board is probably unlikely to move before there is “cause” to fire him, in which case this would not be an immediate solution and may not even be possible before his currently scheduled retirement date. Alternatively, if the board chooses to terminate his contract without cause, expect a big payout.
Consensus: Possible, if you ignore the timing and/or $$$ involved
Conclusion
Firing a superintendent – especially one who is planning to retire in seven months – can be a costly endeavor. Sometimes money is not the prime concern of a school community, however, and the school board will need to figure that out, or figure out other ways of addressing the community concerns. Once again, we think they need to hear from our community. You can email all of them at once using this email address: SchoolBoard@tahomasd.us
This article was a collaborative effort of the Tahoma Values team, but we are always looking for people to write articles for us! If there’s something you’d like to publish with us, send your submission to tahomavalues@gmail.com
