Schools Superintendent Alan Ingram’s announcement last week that he’ll leave the city at the end of the coming school year didn’t exactly bring an end to the dust-up over his employment contract—specifically, a provision that gave him $30,000 to buy a home in the city. (Ingram’s controversial deal was exposed earlier this summer by School Committee member (and mayoral candidate) Antonette Pepe, who pointed out that Ingram never, in fact, bought a place in the city (he rents an apartment instead), or moved his family here (they still live back in Oklahoma)).
But if Ingram thought his decision would buy him some relief from the controversy surrounding him, he thought wrong. The city’s elected officials don’t appear to be quite done wringing what political advantage they can from the drama—after all, Election Day is coming up fast.
This evening, the School Committee will vote on whether to ask Ingram to return the $30,000 (a move already approved by a subcommittee of the group). City Council President Jose Tosado (not incidentally, a mayoral candidate himself) has called for the superintendent to leave town immediately, saying taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook paying the “lame duck” Ingram’s $202,000 salary, and laying the blame for the deal on incumbent Mayor Domenic Sarno. Tosado’s fellow city councilors have also gotten in on the act, this week passing a resolution asking the School Committee to hire a local candidate as the city’s next superintendent.
None of these moves will actually amount to anything. In response to criticisms about the superintendent’s deal, City Solicitor Ed Pikula issued an opinion finding that Ingram’s decision not to buy a place in the city did not violate the contract, and that he could keep the money.
Like today’s School Committee vote, the Council resolution is meaningless; resolutions have no legal authority, and typically are just a way for elected officials to play to voters without actually having to do anything.
Still, while it generally seems a bad idea to limit the candidate pool for such a crucial position in any way, the impulse behind the Council’s hire-local resolve is understandable, given the recent history of superintendents whose commitment to the city left a lot to be desired. (Remember Joe Burke, the guy who held the job before Ingram, and who seemed to spend much of his time here faxing out resumes for positions in his home state of Florida?)
