2.11 School Board Executive Compensation Practices. Introduction

Transcription

1 Introduction Figure 1 As part of Education Reform in , 27 denominational scool boards were consolidated into 10 scool boards and a Frenc-language scool board. From 1 January 1997 to 31 August 2004 tese 11 scool boards operated under te autority of te Scools Act, Effective 1 September 2004, 9 of tese 11 boards were dissolved and 3 new boards were created resulting in 5 newly establised scool boards. Figure 1 sows te former 11 board boundaries and te newly establised board boundaries. Department of Education Scool Board Boundaries Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 185

2 In contrast to te old Scools Act wic allowed a board to set remuneration for its staff, te Scools Act, 1997 states tat salaries for directors and assistant directors (executive) will be paid in accordance wit scales approved by te Lieutenant-Governor in Council and tat a board will not pay remuneration greater tan te approved scales. Te scales tat were establised were based on te Hay system metodology as was used for oter Government management employees. Tis system was used by Government to rate eac scool board executive position and to establis a scale for tat position. Eac salary scale consisted of 33 steps; owever, employees could only advance to step 25. Steps 26 to 33 were used to place employees wose salary at te time was already above step 25. Director and assistant directors were placed on te scale at te next igest step to teir salary witin te public service at te time. Tis resulted in some executive being placed below step 25 wile oters were placed between step 25 and 33. Executive placed below step 25 would advance four steps on te scale wit eac year of service to a maximum of step 25. Scope and Objectives We completed our review in November 2004 of te scool boards executive compensation practices. Te objectives of our review were to determine weter: scool boards' compensation of directors and assistant directors were in compliance wit legislation and Government policies; and te Department of Education is monitoring te remuneration practices of eac scool board and tat policies are establised and communicated. Conclusions New Boards Te Department of Education as created inconsistencies in te salary scales of te newly created boards similar to te inconsistencies created in 1996 and wic contributed to former boards contravening legislation and Government policy. For example: Effective 1 September 2004, te Province restructured te scool board system and reduced te number of boards from 11 to 5. Cabinet approved new salary scales for te tree newly establised boards wile te salary scales for te two uncanged scool boards remained te same. In addition, te Department of Education did not adjust te salaries of all executives of te former boards wo 186 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

3 were taking positions in te new boards to account for salaries wic were in excess of tat approved by Cabinet. Contrary to Government's policy, te Department of Education placed 5 education officers (former associate assistant directors) in te tree new boards above step 25 of te Province's management employee (HL28) scale. Former Boards As at 31 Marc 2004, 10 of te 11 scool boards ad approved salaries for 38 of teir 42 executive personnel totalling approximately $322,000 in excess of salaries approved by Cabinet. From October 2002 to February 2004, te boards approved payment of approximately $248,000 in retroactive pay to executives for unapproved increases to step 33. As a result, te boards are not complying wit te Scools Act, 1997 or Government policy, and are utilizing operating funds tat could be used for oter purposes. In addition to te salary top-ups, executives will eventually be eligible to receive iger pensions, severance, redundancy, and accrued paid leave on retirement or termination of teir position as a result of te top-ups. Te Department of Education did not ensure tat former boards placed employees on te approved scale and step as directed by Cabinet. In fact, te Department approved certain salaries paid to executive above tose approved by Cabinet and Government policy. In oter instances, te former boards were refused approval to top-up salaries and, as a result, te Department contributed to inconsistencies witin te system. Tese salary inconsistencies were a major argument tat te former boards gave wen tey disregarded te Cabinet directive on executive salaries. In addition to regular salaries, some former boards contravened Government policy in compensating executive staff in oter areas. For example, one former board reimbursed eac of its four executive $252 per mont or $12,096 annually for local travel in lieu of submitting travel claims and oter supporting documentation. Anoter former board paid its Assistant Director of Finance approximately $34,000 for leave and overtime in contravention of executive compensation practices and is allowing tis individual to accrue annual leave and sick leave instead of paid leave as per Government policy. Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 187

4 Findings and Recommendations Compliance - Former Scool Boards Te Scools Act, 1997 states tat salaries for directors and assistant directors will be paid in accordance wit scales approved by te Lieutenant-Governor in Council and tat a board will not pay remuneration greater tan te approved scales. Tese salary scales were approved by Treasury Board on 4 October 1996 and by te Lieutenant- Governor in Council troug OC Tis approval indicated tat successful applicants were to be placed on te approved salary scale at te step next igest to teir current salary, but in no case above step 33. Te Minister of Education communicated te approved salary scales to te district scool boards on 25 October 1996 and at tat time indicated tat te boards did not ave te autority to top-up te approved salaries. Subsequently, in a letter dated 15 November 1996, te Minister provided some flexibility to boards and permitted tem to appoint te new directors and assistant directors at any step on te approved scale not in excess of step 25 as long as te boards were prepared to fund te difference in salary from oter funds. Our review of compensation paid to scool board executive identified te following issues: In January 1997, a total of 12 directors and assistant directors were placed on steps above step 25 because teir public service salary at te time was iger tan te applicable step 25. Four of tese placements were at step 33. Up to February 1999, 2 boards increased anoter 8 executive to step 33 contrary to Cabinet directive. From October 2002 to February 2004, 9 boards increased 33 current and former executive to step 33 contrary to Cabinet directive. Te 9 boards approved tese increases retroactively, some dating back tree years. Figure 2 provides a summary of tese retroactive payments by board. 188 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

5 Figure 2 Scool Boards Retroactive Payments to Step 33 October 2002 to February 2004 District # Number of Positions Retroactive Payments Board Approval Date Effective Date of Increase 1 (Note 1) 4 $2, June October Marc September ,285 9 February July (Note 2) 1 32,654 26, November November July September , June September ,367 10, April April September September , June July , June July ,784 7 April Marc ,859 3, October November May July 2003 Total 33 $247,874 Source: Scool Boards Note 1: On 24 June 2003, te Board approved te advancement of 3 executive positions to step 28 effective 1 Marc 2003 and on 3 October 2003, all 4 executive were approved for advancement to step 33 effective 27 September Note 2: On 19 November 2003 te Board approved te advancement of 1 executive to step 25 effective 1 September 2001 and to step 33 effective 1 July In September 2000, te Minister of Education advised te board cairpersons tat te autority of te boards to place directors and assistant directors at step 25 ad been removed as it was done previously only as part of te transition process. However, subsequent to tis directive, a benefits package, dated 12 June 2001, sent to te boards by te Department of Education did not reflect tis revision. Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 189

6 In order to clarify its position, te Department of Education issued a letter on 13 November 2001 to all board cairpersons tat te autority of boards to top-up any salary to step 25 ad been removed. However, between 12 June 2001 and 13 November 2001, one board (District #1) advanced 2 executive to step 25 of te applicable scale and subsequent to 13 November 2001, tree more boards (District #3, District #6 and District #7) disregarded Government policy and eac advanced one executive to step 25, wile anoter Board (District #5) disregarded Government policy and advanced tree executives to step 25. Te salary scales as approved by te Cabinet consisted of 3 scales for eac board. Separate salary scales were implemented for te Director of Education, te Assistant Directors of Programs and Personnel, and te Assistant Director of Finance. Eac of tese positions was rated and points and salary assigned. Our review disclosed tat, contrary to te Cabinet directive, 7 of te 11 boards placed or advanced teir Assistant Directors of Finance on te same salary scale as te Assistant Directors of Programs and Personnel. For example, on 20 October 2000, one board (District #2) approved te Assistant Director of Finance, wo was being paid on step 33, to be paid on step 25 of te Assistant Directors of Personnel and Programs scale effective 1 September 1999, tus resulting in an increase in salary of $2,759 annually. As at 31 Marc 2004, te annual salaries of te Assistant Directors of Finance at te 7 boards were a total of approximately $58,000 iger tan teir approved scale at step 33. As a result of tese unapproved step increases and classification canges, te scool boards approved executive compensation totalling $321,581 above te salary levels as approved by te Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Figure 3 provides details of te annual salary top-ups. 190 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

7 Figure 3 Scool Boards Executive Salaries 31 Marc 2004 Legislative Approved District Total Director $99,553 $99,553 $96,429 $103,450 $106,250 $106,250 $99,553 $99,553 $106,250 $112,825 $96,631 $1,126,297 Programs 85,002 85,002 95,474 86,469 92,988 93,891 86,637 85,002 93,891 96,509 N/A 900,865 Personnel 87,454 85,002 85,316 89,507 92,086 92,086 89,089 85,002 93,891 95,581 N/A 895,014 Finance 75,930 81,771 80,954 80,954 87,225 87,225 75,930 75,930 87,225 93,196 72, ,648 Total 347, , , , , , , , , , ,939 3,820,824 Board Approved Director 107, , , , , , , , , ,504 96,631 1,213,064 Programs 91,541 91,541 95,474 95, , ,114 91,541 91, , ,221 N/A 960,675 Personnel 91,541 91,541 95,474 95, , ,114 91,541 91, ,114 95,581 N/A 956,035 Finance 91,541 91,541 95,474 95, , ,114 81,771 81, ,114 99,409 72,308 1,012,631 Total 381, , , , , , , , , , ,939 4,142,405 Top -up Director 7,658 7,658 14,979 7,958 8,173 8,173 7,658 7,658 8,173 8, ,767 Programs 6,539 6, ,005 8,126 7,223 4,904 6,539 7,223 3,712 N/A 59,810 Personnel 4,087 6,539 10,158 5,967 9,028 9,028 2,452 6,539 7,223 0 N/A 61,021 Finance 15,611 9,770 14,520 14,520 13,889 13,889 5,841 5,841 13,889 6, ,983 Total $33,895 $30,506 $39,657 $37,450 $39,216 $38,313 $20,855 $26,577 $36,508 $18,604 $0 $321,581 Note: Mining grants of $14,970 paid annually to eac District #1 executive is not included. Role of te Department of Education Former Scool Boards Wen te salary scales were approved in 1996, Cabinet directed te Department of Education to ensure boards place employees on te approved scale at te step next igest to teir current salary. Our review indicated tat te Department did not do tis and, in fact, created inconsistencies in te system by approving exceptions for some boards wile refusing requests from oter boards since For example: Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 191

8 Prior to February 1999, two boards (District #9 and District #10) paid 8 executive at step 33 witout te prior approval of te Minister. However, as a result of legal advice, in February 1999, te Minister wrote te two boards and agreed to let te contracts in question stand but future contracts must be in compliance. Not only did te Minister approve tese contracts knowing tey were not in compliance wit te Scools Act, 1997 and Cabinet directive; te Minister ad no autority to disregard te Act or Cabinet directive. However, in 1996 and again in 2001, te Minister refused to approve step 33 for a director at anoter board (District #3). Initially wen boards paid executive at levels not approved by te Department, te top-up was not considered pensionable salary and te Department refused to make deductions for pension. However, tis was callenged in Marc 2000 and te Department, on te advice of te Department of Justice, determined tat retroactive payments totalling $102,000 to 1 January 1997 related to pension deductions, severance payments and unused vacation payments were required to be made by te Department, te respective boards and te employees in question. Tese payments were based on te fact tat in written correspondence in February 1999, te Minister ad allowed contracts placing executive staff on step 33 for two boards (District #9 and District #10) to stand. Te Minister ad no autority to provide direction contrary to te Cabinet directive. A tird board (District #1) wic paid its executive a top-up was also included in te settlement. In tis case, no written approval was obtained from te Minister. As for te boards tat te Department did not approve executive salaries in excess of approved scales, unremitted pension contributions were andled differently depending upon te board. For example, one board (District #1) deducted pension contributions and kept tem in a bank account after te Pension Division of te Department of Finance refused to accept tem. Anoter board (District #3) kept te unremitted pension contributions in an RRSP account. An Assistant Director of Personnel was ired by one board (District #9) in Marc 2002 and placed on step 33 of te salary scale as te executive's former salary at a University in Ontario was iger. Altoug tis is not in compliance wit Government policy wic would require placement on step 1, te Department of Education approved tis placement at step Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

9 In October 2002, te board also increased its Director's salary from step 25 to step 33 retroactively to May 2002, altoug a 1% salary differential between te supervisor and te tree subordinate positions, as per Government policy, ad already existed before te advancement of te Director. Te board, at its meeting, stated tat it ad a legal, etical and moral obligation to approve te increase. According to te Department's executive benefits package, wen promotions to a iger salary scale occur, te salary sall be set at te same step but te salary increase sall not exceed 10%. In August 1999, an assistant director, wose salary of $71,355 based on step 29, for one board (District #1) transferred to a similar iger rated position wit anoter board (District #10). At tat time, te assistant director was approved a salary of $78,491 at step 25 representing te maximum 10% promotion. However, in July 2002, approximately tree years after te appointment, te Department approved a retroactive cange to te assistant director's salary back to te date of ire at an annual salary of $82,301 wic was based on step 29. Te Board stated tat, at te time of ire, te assistant director ad been incorrectly notified tat te new salary would be $82,301 wic was based upon te Department's calculation, wic ad inadvertently excluded te 10% promotion calculation. Section 79(4) of te Scools Act, 1997 requires scool boards to obtain te written approval of te Minister of Education for all director and assistant director employment contracts. Te Department's Guidelines for Employment Contracts stated tat contracts sould not make reference to te specific Hay level, te step on te Hay level or te specific salary to be paid as subsequent canges in te scale or classification would create conflicts wit te employment contract. However, witout reference to tese specific items boards were able to cange te Hay level and scale witout aving to ave a new contract approved by te Minister. 4 executives at 3 boards (District #3, District #5 and District #6) refused to sign teir employment contracts because tey disagreed wit te step on te salary scale approved by te Department. Tese 4 executives were former teacers and terefore continued to be paid at teir teacers salary. As at 31 Marc 2004, te Department of Education recorded a liability of $170,000 for an amount up to te Department s approved step for tese 4 executive. Our review indicated te liability was understated for Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 193

10 one of te four employees by approximately $4,800. Two of te executive ave ad no contract since September 2001, one since September 2002 and te oter since September New Scool Boards Effective 1 September 2004, te Province restructured te scool board system and reduced te number of boards from 11 to 5. Tree new salary scales were implemented for eac of te tree newly establised boards wile te two uncanged scool boards (District #1 and te Conseil Scolaire Francopone) ad teir salary scales uncanged. A review of te newly establised salary scales indicated tat te Department is causing inconsistencies and confusion similar to wat appened in during te former scool board amalgamation. For example: Te assistant directors of finance for te tree newly establised boards were paid on te same level as te director of personnel; owever, in one of te uncanged boards, te director of finance was paid at a lower level tan te assistant director of personnel. Te assistant directors of programs are paid at a iger level tan te assistant directors of personnel wit te newly establised boards; owever, in one of te uncanged boards te directors of personnel and programs are paid on te same level. Te Department's executive benefits package states tat wen promotions to a iger salary scale occur, te salary sall be set at te same step of te new scale but te salary increase sall not exceed 10%. Our review of identified te following: Te Department placed te Assistant Director of Finance in one board (new District #4) on step 33 of te new scale based on promotion; owever, te Department did not take into consideration tat te employee's previous salary in former District #9 was in contravention of Government policy and te Cabinet directive. In tis instance, te employee sould ave been placed on step 25 of te new salary scale. As a result, te employee will be overpaid by $7,208 annually. 194 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

11 Te Director of a former scool board (District #6) was approved to be paid on step 25 at $106,250. However, wen tis Director took a position wit te new District #3, te Department placed te Director on step 29 of te new scale at $114,762 instead of step 25 at $110,511, tus contravening te promotion policy wic provides tat te salary sall be set at te same step of te new scale but te salary increase sall not exceed 10%. As a result, te employee will be overpaid by $4,251 annually. Te Director of a former scool board (District #3) was approved to be paid on step 19 at $97,482. However, wen tis Director took a position wit te new District #2, te Department placed te Director on step 21 of te new scale at $106,261 instead of step 19 at $104,138, tus contravening te promotion policy wic provides tat te salary sall be set at te same step of te new scale but te salary increase sall not exceed 10%. As a result, te employee's annual salary is overstated by $2,123. Subsequent to te reorganization of te scool boards in 1996, 8 of te 11 former boards created 11 associate assistant director positions (Districts #3 to #9-1 position eac and District #10-4 positions). Tese positions were created by transferring a teacing unit from te various scools to te board offices. Tese positions were normally paid at 1% above te igest paid principal (including bonus) witin te particular district at an average of $85,400. Our review indicated tat te boards contravened section 92 of te Scools Act, 1997 in tat te required Cabinet approval was neiter requested nor obtained wen te scales were assigned to tese 11 positions. Furtermore te positions were never classified by Treasury Board Secretariat as is normal for scool board positions under section 7 of te Financial Administration Act. Altoug te Department of Education was aware tat te classifications were establised by te boards and not by Treasury Board Secretariat, te Department did not take any action to address te matter. Te Department's awareness was evidenced by te fact tat, in tese instances, it paid te salaries troug its Teacers' Payroll Division and was reimbursed by te boards for te topped-up portion of te salaries. Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 195

12 In 2004 te scool boards were again consolidated and te Department requested tat all te associate assistant director positions be eliminated and tat individuals filling tese positions be returned to teir permanent teacing position and salary. Wit te creation of tree new boards and te continuation of two former boards te Department created and Treasury Board Secretariat classified 9 senior education officer and regional education officer positions witin te tree new boards. Of te 9 new positions, 5 were filled by previous associate assistant directors and, terefore, in accordance wit Government's personnel policies and procedures, tese individuals sould ave been placed on te scale at a level 5% above teir current permanent bargaining unit position (e.g. teacer pay rate of $68,117 plus 5% = $71,523). However, te Department and te boards placed tese 5 individuals on te scale at a level based on te unapproved and terminated associate assistant director scale. As a result, 5 of te 9 regional and senior education officers are being paid above step 25 of te Province's management employee (HL28) scale at an average salary of $83,700, contrary to Government s policy. Oter Compensation Issues All scool board executive must abide wit te Executive Compensation Plan and boards are required to comply wit te Scools Act, 1997 as to teir duties and responsibilities. Our review identified te following: Government policy permits te payment of a car allowance were employees are required to ave a car as a condition of teir employment and also reimburses employees for actual distance travelled based on te submission of a travel claim. One former board (District #3) reimbursed its staff in accordance wit tis policy; owever, it reimbursed its four executive for 800 kilometres per mont ($252) in lieu of local travel claims witout supporting documentation. For te fiscal year, tis resulted in payments of $12,096 to tese executive witout adequate documentation. 196 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

13 Our review identified a number of compensation issues wit an Assistant Director of Finance wit one board (District #1) as follows: As per te Benefits Package provided to scool boards, assistant directors wit up to 10 years of service were to accrue 25 paid leave days per year. Tis new policy eliminated te use of annual leave, sick leave and family responsibility leave provisions used under te former scool board system. Tis individual was ired in June 1997 from outside te Provincial government and commenced to accrue 30 days in annual leave per year plus 2 days sick leave per mont. As a result, tis individual accrued approximately 35 more leave days and 168 days more sick leave days during te past 7 years tan provided by Government policy. As at November 2004, leave continues to accrue in contravention of Government policy. We also identified tat from July 2002 to July 2003, tis individual was paid $18,292 over 11 pay periods for 55 days of unused annual leave. Tis is not in accordance wit Government policy. In August 1997, correspondence from te Minister of Education regarding overtime compensation practices stated tat te Executive Compensation Plan does not include a provision for overtime compensation; scool boards are not permitted to autorize time off in lieu of overtime or pay for overtime worked by Directors or Assistant Directors. From October 2003 to February 2004, tis individual was paid $11,424 for 235 ours of overtime wic was worked in Te amount was paid after te individual started to be paid at a iger salary on Step 33 of an incorrect salary scale (i.e. contrary to Cabinet directive). In December 2003, te individual was paid $3,435 for 70 ours above regular salary, witout any clear evidence as to wy tis amount was paid. In April 2004, tis individual was paid $2,792 for 37 ours in overtime during te public sector strike. In May 2004, te assistant director was paid $717 for 9.5 ours in overtime. Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 197

14 Recommendations Te Department of Education sould: ensure scool boards comply wit te Scools Act, 1997 and Government Policy; and apply policies and procedures related to scool board executive compensation consistently. Department s Response Te department s comments wit respect to te Auditor General s observations and recommendations are as follows: ensure tat te Scool Boards comply wit te Scools Act, 1997 and government policy. Te department acknowledges tat tere were inconsistencies in te way scool board executives were paid from 1997 to Tis was a result of te former boards believing, based on legal advice, tat tey ad te autority to place directors and assistant directors on any point on te salary scale establised by government and approved by te Lieutenant Governor in Council. Beginning in Marc, 2004 te department took te following measures to clarify te procedures to be followed and ensure tat Boards comply wit te Scools Act, 1997 and government policy by issuing te following directives: Te Minister of Education issued a policy directive dated April 19, 2004, under te Scools Act, 1997, wic terminated scool board autority to use teacing units for non-teacing positions at te board office (i.e. Associate Assistant Director positions). Te Minister of Education issued a policy directive dated Marc 30, 2004, under te Scools Act, 1997, wic directed tat te filling of vacancies, renewal or alterations of employment contracts, and extensions of contracts of employment relating to positions at scool district offices could be made only if prior written approval of te Minister of Education ad been granted. 198 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

15 Government as reduced te number of senior positions by 32 as a result of te consolidation of nine boards to tree (from 90 under te old structure, to 58 under te new structure). Draft contracts for directors ave been prepared by te department and sent to scool board cairs. Tese proposed employment contracts clearly identify te approved HAY classification and step on te salary scale. All executive, Senior Education Officer (SEO) and Regional Education Officer (REO) - Hay Levels in te new board structures ave been approved by Treasury Board. Te former Associate Assistant Director positions in te old Boards ave been eliminated commencing in September, However, in setting te salary level tey were treated in a similar and consistent manner as te Directors and Assistant Directors. Wile tese positions are considered by te Auditor General to be unapproved and unclassified tey ave existed for quite some time - 6 years. Terefore, te department ad to recognize te salaries tese individuals were receiving in placing tem on te new scale as REO s and SEO s. Te department used judgements consistent wit te NLTA Collective Agreement. apply policies and procedures related to scool board executive compensation consistently. Wit due respect, te department could accept some criticism for te past, owever, it takes issue wit te Auditor General s statement tat it as created inconsistencies in te salary scales of te newly establised boards of 2004 similar to te inconsistencies created in 1996, wic contributed to former boards contravening legislation and government policy. Te department did adjust te salaries of all executives of te former boards wo accepted positions witin te new boards to eliminate top-up. Te Auditor General s oter observation wit respect to 2004, is tat 5 Education Officers (former Associate Assistant Directors) wo accepted positions wit tree new boards were placed at a step above Step 25 of te province s salary scale, HL 28. Tese individuals ad been in Associate Assistant Director positions and paid troug a teacer allocation as previously outlined. In order to implement government s decision in 2004, te department was obligated to follow approved government policy in recognition tat te previous salary was defined in accordance wit te provisions of te NLTA collective agreement. Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador 199

16 Te Auditor General uses te example (Role of te Department of Education - New Scool Boards - bullet 1) were te department did not apply te salaries of directors of finance and directors of personnel consistently. Te department only reviewed te classification levels of te senior staff at tree new boards. In addition, government as moved to treat bot te classifications of directors of finance and directors of personnel consistent wit oter government classified positions. In response to te Auditor General s comments concerning leave associated wit an executive member of te Labrador Scool Board, a letter as been written to te board asking tat te board ensure compliance wit government policy relative to leave. Te Minister will also address te issue of car allowances by directing scool boards to comply wit government policy. In conclusion, te Department as acted appropriately wit recent scool board executive contracts troug compliance wit te following: Te Lieutenant-Governor in Council approved new Hay levels. Treasury Board as been directly involved in te implementation of Cabinet s direction regarding classification levels for all senior level positions. Te Public Service Commission was involved in all executive iring. Staff were placed on salary scales in accordance wit tose approved by Cabinet and in accordance wit policies and procedures of government. Te department set criteria to determine new base salaries - any exceptions ave been approved by Treasury Board. Te Department strongly believes it used te rigt opening base salary for new board positions and was consistent in its application. Te Department as also taken action to ensure future compliance: Te department as now assumed te payroll and benefits management of all Executive positions at te Scool districts. Treasury Board approvals ave been sougt and received for all appointments made for any upscale iring of Executive positions at te scool districts. New contracts ave been drafted for all scool board director positions. Issues of compensation and benefits ave been addressed to ensure compliance wit government s general practices as outlined in te Human Resource Policy. New contracts will be representative of te new accountability framework of government. 200 Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador