Well.. which do you believe?  Who's number is more accurate?  Have either of them laid out the cold hard bottom line numbers that shows theirs is?
 
Ms. Carmichael..  where does your $100,000 mark come from.  Is it the combination of the savings we are getting from the 75% rate of these four retire-rehire positions?  How does it go from a cost savings of $80,000 last year to a cost of over $100,000 this year? 

Let's take a look.  A quick glance says 4 people willing to work for $20,000 a year less than the position pays is $80,000.  This assumes that these 4 people took jobs that pay $80,000 a year each at 75%, or $60,000, to meet this number (4x$20,000 = $80,000). 

That's fine and dandy...  except where did $100,000 come from?  Are the retire-rehire positions given a 20% raise rate?  Because they would have to be for it to be $100,000.  I doubt it, so I am guessing this $100,000 was a top of the head rounding "shock value" number.

Ok, now I'm gonna do some math and forgive me if I am wrong because I graduated from Massillon and my math book wasn't the newest edition printed...

How accurate are the savings numbers?  On paper sure, 25%, but in reality we know better.  In reality, as many of us have seen our teachers become principals and even superintendents, most of these hires come from within and come from positions we are already paying people to do...  We also know the reality of teacher's pay being higher the longer the teacher has been there.  I have spoken with a few teachers that, while having no problem with the people in these positions per say, don't like that retire-rehire works to actually prevent people from being able to move up the ranks by keeping the retired administrator in their position.  With that in mind, I wonder how much retire-rehire is costing us as well.

Theoretically if someone is going to be promoted from teacher to admin, they are not going to be the newest teacher in the school and have probably been there a while. (going based on the past)  Also an experienced teacher is typically replaced by a new teacher with less experience (or the shuffle ends at a new teacher being hired or the position eliminated which is even more cost savings)

So let's see...

Admin position $80,000
Retire-rehire $60,000
Savings $20,000 (based on assumed wages)

or

Admin position $80,000
Hire from within $80,000
Hired teachers wage ($48,000)
Replacement teacher's wage $36,000
Savings $12,000 (based on assumed wages)

Total savings for retire-rehire $8,000

So that covers three of the positions, now let's look at the athletic director position.

I will try to keep my personal bias out of this, but to be 100% honest I believe that even paying Tim Ridgely only $1 a year is a waste of $1 a year. 

However, let's get back to realistic numbers

Here there may not be much in the way of savings, you're moving Hall up a position to A.D. and bringing in a new Assistant A.D. who will also coach to replace Hall.  Pretty much an even swap. 

However, I question the need to have the higher pay rate that Asst. A.D. has right now.  Realistically we know why Hall is paid more than Ridgely even without retire-rehire.  Hall does a lot more work than Ridgely and because the stooges on our board in 2005 decided to break up the A.D. and Head Coach positions and wedged Tom Stacy into a vacant assistant principal position (renamed dean of students because Stacy wasn't qualified to be a principal) we had to create an attractive position to attract a coach.  Well, this position does not need to be as attractive anymore and does not need to pay as well... none-the-less it does so I will make an extra conclusion for it.

Here's the brass tacks...

For the $100,000

Numerical savings...  $80,000
Realistic savings...    $44,000 (accounting for the shuffle of wages)

Now take from that whatever you adjust the assistant A.D. position to and you have a more realistic number that is less than half of what Ms. Carmichael went to the press with.

As for the $1,000 presented by Mr. Elum.  I have no idea whatsoever what this number is based on and the news outlets have provided no data towards it either.  for the sake of argument I will give it the same weight as Ms. Carmichael's numbers... very little.  From the information I have been given by those in the teaching profession and the media accounts of these salaries I am going to have to say it sure doesn't look like $100,000 and I can't figure how it would be $1,000 without more data so I guess the real question is... why these numbers with no data to really show how they came up with it and what is the real cost? 

A bigger question may be this...  based on the press given to this situation, how is it we have books from 1977 that are such a problem when so many levies have been passed and so much money has been poured out by the taxpayer.  Why is it just now an issue?  I think there are too many agendas and not enough real solutions in the buildings downtown and I am not willing to throw the blame on those who just got there.  Who's fault is it and if they are still there why are they not gone?