District 220's decision to extend the superintendent's contract is just one more example of the school board spending public money for the wrong reasons.
While the school board president said, "We just thought with all the changes ... it would benefit the community to have stability," we weren't born yesterday. There was no reason to reopen a contract that had two years to go except to protect the value of the superintendent's pension, which could've been reduced by budget cutting changes in the law next month.
Beyond adding to our pension woes, this decision by the District 220 school board draws attention to the 6 percent annual increases that the board awarded to the superintendent for 2013 & 2014, which certainly undermines their ability to negotiate any cost control in the teacher's contract now under discussion.
How many citizens of District 220 support this free-spending style and believe that it's really good for the community?