So, why did you vote in favor?

You'll see in today's paper the outcome of last week's long executive session: Brian Allen, the Chief Financial and Operations Officer for WPS was given a raise last week by the School Committee.

Why?

The short answer is the one alluded to by Councilor Rushton in last night's Council meeting (scroll down to 9:09): Mr. Allen had gotten another offer, and we'd rather keep him.
Mr. Allen oversees a budget of $333 million dollars. Last year--in part at the urging of state officials--he took on overseeing the operations side of WPS (something which in most systems of our size is an additional executive job). He's kept our numbers, which have never been the kind we'd like to see on a balance sheet, from being tragic. You might recall that the budget gap went from $26 million to more like $6 million? That had a lot to do with Brian Allen and his management. And he's done that year after year.

Councilor Rushton made a reference to Commissioner Moylan, who, you might remember, also received an attractive offer elsewhere. The City Manager with the Council made the effort to keep him.

If Mr. Allan left, the conversation on the council side would have been of how we could let such a person leave, and how could we mount a thousands of dollar national search for a replacement in the middle of the worst budget crisis in living memory? The majority of the School Committee did not want to do that. We already face enough difficulties; we don't need to find a new Chief Financial and Operations person at the same time.

As my colleague Mr. O'Connell says in today's paper, the timing could not be worse, and that was entirely covered in the conversation around this, believe me. We'd all rather that this happened at a time when budgets were flush, contracts were settled, and all was well.

But it's precisely because all is not well that we need to keep Mr. Allen on.