Dissension among Gilmer County Board of Education members in regard to athletic spending continued last week.
The topic this time around was athletic coaching supplements for the upcoming school year (SY23).
The SY23 compensations for coaches at Gilmer High and Clear Creek Middle were presented at the board’s work session last Monday, April 11.
These supplements are voted on yearly by the board, and totaled $313,200 for SY22. Supplements for SY23 are projected at an increase of approximately $65,000, which includes benefits such as Medicare and Social Security.
Superintendent Dr. Brian Ridley made the recommendation to approve the SY23 athletic supplements as presented at the board’s regular meeting last Thursday, April 14. Board vice chairman Doug Pritchett’s motion was seconded by board member Michael Bramlett.
The measure passed by a 3-1-1 split with board chairman Ronald Watkins, Pritchett and Bramlett voting in favor. Michael Parks voted against, while Joe Pflueger abstained.
Pflueger was previously the lone board member to vote against the purchase and installation of new scoreboards at Huff-Mosley Memorial Stadium and the GHS gym, which were funded through the 2015 ESPLOT. Both were approved by a 4-1 vote.
The process
County athletic director and GHS head football coach Paul Standard, director of human resources and facilities Dana Berry and former GHS principal Carla Foley were the trio that drafted the approved SY23 coaching supplements.
Standard explained the changes and his reasoning at the work session. He noted they did not start from scratch, but rather made adjustments to what was already in place from SY22.
No coach at either school will have their supplement decreased for SY23. At GHS for example, only as it pertains to head coaches, softball, competition cheerleading, swimming, baseball and soccer received a bump in pay.
In SY22, 19 GHS coaches had “extended days.” Those are days paid in addition to their 190-day teaching salary and coaching supplement, and it is budgeted at $350 per day. Under the approved SY23 supplements, now 28 coaches will receive extended days.
“I’m proposing additional days for coaches who were not getting days for their work during the summer,” Standard explained at the work session. “Those days that have been requested by me are for fall sports coaches, who are required to work in the summer because their first competition could be the first week of school.
“Previously, the only coaches who were getting extended days — and this was passed by this board prior to my employment —were head coaches and assistant football coaches. I’m trying to get equity within the sports. I felt for it to be equitable to all fall sport assistant coaches, that they receive compensation for their additional work in the summer.”
The method in which assistant coaches are paid has also been adjusted. Previously, assistants within the same sport were often paid different amounts for performing identical jobs. Aside from football coordinators, whose roles and responsibilities vary, all assistants within the same sport will receive equal pay starting in SY23.
“I felt like we had some inequities within a sport,” Standard said. “You had (varsity) assistants who were getting paid a lot more than another assistant within that same sport for the same job. I felt like that was something that needed to be addressed along with the extended days.”
Standard originally unveiled these proposed changes to the SY23 coaching supplements at the board’s annual retreat March 18.
Pflueger’s comments draw opposition from Watkins, Pritchett
Immediately following the 3-1-1 vote at last Thursday’s regular meeting, Pflueger shared his thoughts on the SY23 coaches’ pay and questioned the methodology used in its determination. Pflueger spent 30 years in education and was Gilmer High’s longtime band director.
He praised all coaches “across the board” for doing “amazing things” with student athletes.
“I think it is imperative for our district to try to equal the playing field as far as what the sports are getting, the individual sports, and what the coaches are getting, head coaches and assistant coaches,” Pflueger said. “We made up some ground this year, thankfully, and I appreciate that ground we’ve made up.
“I think we need to level that playing field, and we have to work hard at it because every coach is equally important, and they put in equal amounts of time. Some seasons are shorter than others, but there’s not a big difference.”
Pflueger then shifted his attention to how he would like to see these financial decisions made going forward.
“I’d also like to see us move toward a committee that would involve top-level administrators and school-level administrators to create this list so no coaches are making decisions to build this list in the future. I think that’s a slippery slope we walk on when we have involvement from coaches on that. That’s just a concern. I’d love to see us move toward some kind of committee that is an independent group that sets this for our system.”
He added, “We’ve made some gains, especially with our assistant coaches, and I appreciate that, but I think we just got to work on evening out the pay scale a little bit for all of our coaches. I want all our coaches to know they are valued and we appreciate what they do, and the time they put into this is astronomical. The work they do, you can go to any game or match, doesn’t matter what sport; these coaches are passionate about what they’re doing.
“I want to be recognized and have a more equal pay scale for this supplement.”
Ridley noted he would take Pflueger’s suggestions under advisement before Watkins shared his thoughts.
“You can’t treat them all equal. Different sports bring in different money,” he said.
Pflueger mentioned gate money is not used to pay coaches’ supplements but rather taxpayers’ dollars. Watkins said that while coaches are equal, the pay “can’t be.”
Pflueger responded, “We may not ever get it exactly equal, but we’ve got too big of a gap right now from a head coach that’s coaching one sport to a head coach at the high school that’s coaching a different sport. Some of them are working longer seasons and they might be working with less kids, but they’re getting paid half as much.”
Watkins said, “You can’t pay all the head coaches the same pay.”
“That’s why I said I’d like it to become ‘more equal,’” added Pflueger.
The top head coaching supplement at GHS is football at $22,000. The boys and girls basketball head coaches, as well as wrestling make $10,000. These four supplements have remained static dating back to SY20.
Pritchett noted that markets exist for coaches, and if Gilmer lags behind then it will hamper its ability to attract quality coaches.
“There are a lot of other things we use taxpayer dollars for in addition to coaching supplements,” he said. “All of those programs are important, so when we start picking and choosing which ones we’re going to favor, that’s a dangerous slope to get on. I have had nobody come up to me and say, ‘We’re spending too much money on this sports program or that sports program, or the arts,’ or anything else.
“There are expectations in our community about what they want us to be doing and our children deserve it. As far as putting a committee together, what kind of expertise is that committee going to have in terms of what coaches in that market should be paid?”
Pflueger agreed attracting new coaches is important but also mentioned he would also like to retain the ones we have, “and spread the wealth a little bit.”
Standard, Kiker address board
The board then moved on to remaining business and wrapped up all items on the agenda. However, prior to its conclusion, Standard asked for permission to speak and addressed some of the comments made throughout the meeting.
“There is not one high school in this state where each head coach gets paid the same amount of money,” said Standard, who has 37 years of athletic administrative experience. “To sit here and say we don’t need to have a coach involved in making these decisions —that was referring to me —that is a direct questioning of my integrity.”
Standard noted that he, Berry and Foley spent several hours to “try to bring some equity within the sports,” and the board knew of these intentions since March 18.
“The idea that we’re going to have all sports equal pay is a fallacy. It has never happened. You look at any school within our region, it is not the case,” Standard said.
“My recommendation was to help some of our minor revenue producing sports and to add additional assistant coaches to those sports ... that was the point of this process we went through. To stand here and say we got to have a committee to decide supplements, that’s fine.”
Standard shifted his focus to Pflueger, saying, “No where in there did you say the athletic director should be involved, and that’s wrong. The athletic director knows what’s going on and knows how to recommend the subsidization of those sports.
“To say that no coach should be involved, that questions my integrity, and I don’t appreciate that one bit, and I want that a matter of public record. That’s not fair to me or my family. You can say a lot of things about me, but that ain’t one of ’em.”
Standard, who appeared increasingly perturbed, continued, “You saw where we started with the supplements and you saw where the recommendations were. It’s a shame that I’ve got to have that happen, and it ain’t right, and I’m just going to flat tell you that I don’t appreciate it not one bit.”
Paul Kiker Jr., a business owner and the president of the Gilmer Touchdown Club, was given the floor. He has a son on the GHS football team and cautioned the board about what happened previously in regard to Wes Tankersley, who ranks No. 2 as Gilmer’s all-time football wins leader.
“One question I would like to know, Mr. Parks, is why you voted ‘no’ against it? As a taxpayer, a voter and member of this community with a child in the program, I believe it should be on public record if you vote against something because you might know something we don’t,” Kiker said.
“The second statement I have, is Mr. Pflueger, I have some concerns about your thought process. You weren’t on the board when Wesley Tankersley was here, right? Would you agree the aftermath before Coach Standard came in was pretty chaotic?”
“Yes,” Pflueger responded.
“Tankersley would have been easily retained over a small pay raise,” Kiker continued. “So we were focused on a program, and for whatever reason, comments were made he was local, and he was gone. We had chaos ensue after.”
The “chaos” referenced by Kiker followed GHS football’s best four-year record in school history. Gilmer then became a turnstile for head coaches, and during that time the program had the state’s longest losing streak at 31 games.
“Rarely in the business world are people paid exactly the same for what they do,” Kiker said. “It’s a matter of responsibility, it’s a matter of revenue that’s generated per person and it’s all collectively generated within the program.”
Pflueger reiterated that he was looking for the pay scale to be “more equal.”
Kiker also had a son who played for Tankersley and drew parallels between him and Standard.
“One thing I have seen from coach Standard that has impressed me increasingly, and I’m not involved in every program, so I can only speak on what I know. The kid who gets to play is the one who has stood out, and it’s on their performance, it’s on their character and it’s on their discipline.
“He’s demanding excellence out of those kids and we’re building a better individual and that doesn’t happen in every program in the school system.”
Kiker concluded, saying, “I have severe concerns. If you’re going to vote against something, Mr. Parks, or if you’re going to abstain, anybody on the board, please explain to the community ‘why’ so we know. Because if you don’t, we’re in the dark, and it’s left for rumors across the board.”
Watkins added his last comment, saying, “I thought what Coach (Standard) has done on the pay scale, it made it more equal. He actually improved on the coaches’ pay, on the lower pay. And you still wouldn’t vote for it or abstained or whatever.”
Bramlett and Pflueger had a final exchange before the meeting adjourned.
“I thought it was a work in progress. That’s what I thought,” Bramlett said. “So, Coach did the right thing. That’s what he was given at the time. It’s a work in progress, and I think that’s probably what Mr. Pflueger said, too, that it was a ‘work in progress.’ Correct?”
“Correct,” Pflueger responded.
“OK, that’s all I wanted to hear,” Bramlett said.
Ridley noted coaching supplements are up for review yearly and next month they will discuss teaching supplements.