Sanville, UCF board agree to new contract

Pin It

Deal expected to be formally ratified in Feb., extends term through Aug. 2018

UCFBOE14-15

Dr. John Sanville, seated at right front, Superintendent of Schools of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District reached a tentative deal with the UCF Board of Education on a new contract to stay on as superintendent through Aug. 2018.

By Mike McGann, Editor, The Times
EAST MARLBOROUGH — The Unionville-Chadds Ford School District and Superintendent of Schools John Sanville have reached a tentative agreement on a new four-year contract, school officials announced Monday night during the Board of Education meeting.

Sanville, whose initial three-year pact was set to expire Sept. 1, would now remain under contract through Aug. 30, 2018, assuming the deal is finalized in the coming weeks. Under the tentative agreement his salary would be set at $210,000 per year, with increases linked to the Act I index — as an example, the index for the 2014-15 budget is 2.1%, were that index to hold for the next year, his salary would increase to $214,410 for the 2015-16 school year. In addition, under new deal, Sanville would get 10 additional vacation days — now a total of 30 — in the new deal.

The deal is expected to formally ratified by the board at the February board meeting. The full details of the new contract are expected to be posted on the district Website in the coming weeks, prior to the board voting on the pact, board president Victor Dupuis said.

Sanville deflected praise for his work and said all of the recent success was due to the efforts of many in the district.

“This is really a referendum on the hard work that everyone in the district does,” he said.

In a related matter, a number of board members objected to a letter to the editor that was published in The Times this past weekend (the letter was also sent to local print publications — and may be printed there later this week, as well) from Pocopson resident Bruce Yelton.

Related Content:

Letters to the editor and the greater conversation

Yelton called for Sanville’s dismissal and claimed — although he did not cite sources for his claims — that test scores were down, there were morale issues with staff and that the district had mishandled a Right To Know request of his.

Keith Knauss disputed all of Yelton’s claims, point-by-point.

“I believe that Dr. Sanville has shown excellent performance,” he said.

Dupuis agreed, but castigated The Times for running the letter without fact-checking and said in the future such letters should presented for review prior to publication.

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

27 Comments on "Sanville, UCF board agree to new contract"


Guest
Kristin Hoover
1 year 4 months ago

You have to love the “red herrings” that are being thrown out! The real issue is that Sanville needs to go. A guy who arrogantly empowers himself to make deals with non-residents to educate their children for free providing they spend 4 nights a week at the business…..please! This guy hides in RTK confidentiality and the board thinks this is OK. I think he is a bully based on my experience. There is no check and balance on the power of the Superintendent because, as TE Resident points out, the board operates in the great filter of whatever the Superintendent wants to let them know with whatever spin he wants. They hired him and so it reflects on them if he fails. No member of the board is going to show any disagreement because of having kids in the school or threaten their position in District sports. They would be “Manzone’ed”, not for the original issue, but because they wouldn’t “play the game” of total agreement. They save Sanville to save themselves. People were devoted to Sharon Parker, but not this guy. The “quiet riot” has already begun against Sanville. The question is not if, but when.

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

This I know. The only thing School Board Directors are afraid of, are tax paying citizens (especially parents) banding together for a common cause. That is where your power lies. It can’t be kept in the shadows. It can’t be kept quiet. They can bully and intimidate one or two parents or tax payers who don’t bow to their authority or who dare to question the filtered information presented by administrators. They cannot bully and intimidate an entire group of parent, tax paying citizens coming together over a common cause.

As Ms. Hoover, it has also been my experience that School Boards work for administrators (when they are supposed to serve the citizens) and tax payers and students are after thoughts.

Guest
Kristin Hoover
1 year 4 months ago

I feel bad for the bus drivers as well. There are a whole host of people who support the educational system. Keith may quibble over exactly what and how much is outsourced at the moment, but the whole agenda of the board is to deal a blow to those who depend on the retirement system. The bus outsourcing study was supposed to be political cover for the bus drivers to be outsourced and then it didn’t happen to turn out the way they expected The tide has already turned on Sanville and in the meantime, taxpayers need to be vigilant about all of these important issues. You have to remember that people with absolute power can’t stand any dissenting voices because they are evidence of cracks in the power that have to be stopped before the whole thing erodes. They have to constantly try to measure the size of the revolt!

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

Keith protects his own, yet he takes tax paying citizens to task for exercising their rights to freely speak out about issues.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Supreme Court protects statements and free speech by citizens due to the extreme power public officials have over citizens. Public officials uses bullying and intimidating tactics to protect themselves from being exposed. We need to protect our free speech. Citizens should have no fear whatsoever about questioning public officials.

Guest
Keith Knauss
1 year 4 months ago

TE Resident,
Thanks for the chance to expand on my point. You were ” surprised and saddened by an editor who would be for censorship by school administrators over a student high school newspaper.”
.
My point is that the editor has made it abundantly clear that he is against censorship and is in 100% in agreement with your viewpoint. See his article noted above entitled “Letters to the editor and the greater conversation”. The editor did note that “the district has such right [censorship] for the school newspaper”, but in no way endorsed exercising that right.
.
It’s confusing to others and frustrating for me when someone doesn’t spend the time to read posts critically and comes to a conclusion 180 degrees out of whack.

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

Wow. There you go again. My conclusion is not 180 degrees out of whack. He also said “ironically, I thought as the effective publisher that the district has such right for the school newspaper.” He has made it clear, and rightly so (IMHO) that censorship of Mr. Yelton’s letter is wrong. Even if I don’t live in this district, what kind of a School Board Director says things like this to a tax paying citizen.

I know exactly what Mike said, I read the post and now your trying to discredit me by deflecting attention away from the real issue, and onto my critical thinking skills and this is exactly the way you bully and intimidate citizens into not speaking out, and like Ms. Hoover said proving my point and it’s very clear you have no awareness about what you are doing.

Guest
Keith Knauss
1 year 4 months ago

Why did you say you were ” surprised and saddened by an editor who would be FOR censorship by school administrators over a student high school newspaper”?
.
Editor McGann said exactly the opposite – he made it abundantly clear he is AGAINST censorship.
.
I think your statement is “180 degrees out of whack” and confusing.

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

O.K Keith, I guess you’ll have to continue to be confused over this issue that, as Ms. Hoover said really doesn’t matter much and isn’t the main point. I think I’ve made myself clear.

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

Thank-uou. As editor of a publication I am surprised and saddened by your thoughts on this matter.

In 2009, student journalists at Conestoga High School contested a proposed policy they believed would have forced censorship of their award winning student news paper – The Spoke.

The policy would have implemented administrative prior review and redefined the role of the newspaper advisors essentially asking them to censor the student produced publication at the discretion of school officials.

The students formed a website:

http://www.friendsofthespoke.org

Mike, please go to this site and read about this student editors experience. He went on to Princeton University after having forced the administration to back down give up on this policy change.

Guest
Keith Knauss
1 year 4 months ago

“As editor of a publication I am surprised and saddened by your thoughts on this matter.”
.
Huh? What?
.
This is a perfect example of why any comment from TE Resident is suspect.

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

Keith, I don’t understand your reply. Why are my comments suspect because I am surprised and saddened by an editor who would be for censorship by school administrators over a student high school newspaper.

It’s true, I’m new to this site and perhaps put my comment in the wrong spot. The comment was directed to Mike, the editor.

Could you please explain. I’m confused. Was that your intention?

Guest
Kristin Hoover
1 year 4 months ago

This is not your style. But then, this is not the Keith Knauss who made exactly the same kinds of right-to-know requests as Bruce Yelton. This is not the same Keith Knauss who won an award in Harrisburg for RTK requests. This is not the same Knauss who had his RTK request turned down by the administration for exactly the same reasons and the same one who was not happy about it. How much did the District (read TAXPAYERS) spend in legal fees on all that? Oh yes, nobody knows and it would probably take an RTK request to find out and “so it goes.” The current Keith Knauss is not the one who carried out the “Efficient Education” campaigns who responded to everything with numbers, numbers and numbers. The current Knauss plays golf with the right people now. The Keith Knauss of earlier times would have understood the need for discourse especially when his was the differing opinion. Now you are the guy who helped hire the ineffectual superintendent. You hired this guy who empowers himself to make deals with Chadds Ford business owners for a tuition free education and you now agree with that idea as long as nobody calls it a “deal.” You hired the superintendent who, in my opinion, bullied me and my son. The ultimate irony is that you hired the superintendent who hides behind RTK and confidentiality issues. This is the same superintendent who told me that there was no bullying in this District and then invites parents to participate in an anti-bullying group when one of the students “selected” to attend ends up BEING the biggest bully of one children of the very same parent who was in the breakout subgroup! It’s just one irony after another!!!!

Yelton is right. Sanville needs to go. Why give somebody four more years who wasn’t going anywhere anyway? Oh yes, the Board who hired him has to stick with him so that nobody thinks they made a mistake. The old Keith Knauss was the one that I respected even with our differences. The current Keith is the one who argues the point and makes a better case for why his opponent is right than his opponent.

Sanville’s downfall is already happening and lies is in the conversations people have with each other in the District. They used to call these whisper campaigns. One day before the next four years go by, Sanville will hit his Malcolm Gladwell “tipping point” and the end will come where the Board needs to take action. There are only two questions: 1) when; and 2) will how much will it cost the taxpayers to pay this contract while paying the new superintendent. I am a taxpayer who helped pay for Kinney. It’s simply a short amount of time and a lot of taxpayer money!!!

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

Thank-you Ms. Hoover for your thoughtful well stated comments.

You say, “It’s just one irony after another.”

I don’t believe it is irony. If a tax paying citizen, especially a parent, comes forward with a legitimate complaint, it is customary for officials to first smile, tell you how grateful they are, and then proceed to engage further in the same behavior which caused the parent to speak up. This serves many purposes.

1.) It says, we have all the power.

2.) we don’t care what you think

3.) if you say anything, we’ll do it more.

It trains parents to not come forward in fear of retribution.

Guest
Keith Knauss
1 year 4 months ago

I enjoy debating topics, but it becomes tiresome when responding to someone who can vacuously criticize without responsibility by hiding behind a pseudonym. In addition, TE Resident might want to figure out that listening to someone vigorously expressing an alternate opinion is not the same as “retribution by being viciously attacked”.

Guest
1 year 4 months ago

I would use my name but I have fear of retribution by a school official.

Thanks for telling me what to do…………again.

I just read the rebuttal again on Chestercounty press. In my opinion, (I understand that yours may be different and I respect that) the rebuttal has some vicious attacks in it. I think listing them would be petty so please read for yourselves if it interests you and as I say to Keith on Community Matters, readers can judge for themselves.

I find it interesting that you are calling on me to direct my salary complaint to my own district where our supt. makes over $300,000.

First, please provide the data to substantiate that unsupported claim. I won’t bully or name call you or viciously attack you by calling into question your motives for making what seems like an inflammatory claim. the way Mr. Dupri did to Mr. Yelton. Please see rebuttal in chestercounty press for data that substantiates that claim.

Second, The tide has turned hasn’t it, my friend. You see, I have had many, many discussions with Keith over the last two years about excessive administrator pay, especially supt.’s. And now, when it benefit’s you, because I’m posting in your district, you try to give the appearance I support my supt.’s pay. That is so disingenuous. Please see community matters posts over the last 2 years, You will see I have always advocated for lower administrator pay, while Keith has always advocated the opposite.

I would like to know where you came up with that $300,000 number though. That is beyond excessive. The numbers, as you know, have always been quoted around $225,000, with college fees, and car allowances on top but I have never known the real numbers. Any data you could provide and substantiate would be greatly appreciated. Hey, just post it on Community Matters!

Your people are probably tired of all this by now. Let’s get back to mine.