If the primary role of the manager is to make the facility available to outside groups, that's a cost of using the facility, and those groups should be funding it.

Is there a need for two auditoriums? Does the demand warrant keeping two facilities operating?

So Gelbrich, the slick salesman from Oregon is cutting the young, energetic, non-tenured teachers. Yet he is working really hard to keep an auditorium manager? I always knew that he didn't care about education. You need good teachers, particularly those young ones who's families are still on food stamps and that administration hasn't beaten all the life out of yet.

What Gelbrich cares about is getting his $155,000 dollars plus a district paid car and jet-setting between here and Oregon where he lives and votes. He won't disclose the amount of money in his new contract. I wonder why? Could it have something to do with negotiations?

yesterdays article regarding a .5% COLA for the teachers now this, give us a (moderated word) break. Enough of this bs already

The annual salary of a theater manager can't possibly be $82,000... Are you kidding me?

That salary figure is more than a starting teacher makes. Seems an odd thing to be asking for in a year when teaching positions are being cut. Also, would it really be that difficult for one person to coordinate the use of two auditoriums?

When I first heard that the school district wanted to hire an "auditorium manager" at $82,000 a year for salary and benefits I was kind of shocked. If that person worked year around, fifty two weeks a year, the cost would be over $1,500 a week. When I sent an e mail questioning the cost, I was told that such a person has to be technically advanced or something.
That may be so, but it sure seems expensive, especially at a time the district is cutting actual, classroom teaching positions.
If the renting of the auditoria brings in revenue from those renting them, then perhaps that salary of the manager should come out of the revenue.
I am glad to see that others question the wisdom of the school district's request.

Once again, the education industry shows that it cannot possibly manage its function within a budget. Why should it, if the taxpayer just gives it more money? This is standard operating procedure across America: we have to increase class size, increase the student/teacher ratio, cut summer school, cut new teachers, etc. This goes on ad nauseum until they get their way.

BTW, why does the JSD have one employee for every 6 students???? Lots of overhead.

OK I never wanted the second high school just because redundant programs would be needed. If there is ample need for two facilities I agree with a prior poster that user fees should fund the positions. One facility could close if adequate use isn't present.
This is exactly what I thought would happen. Suddenly we have two facilities to manage without adequate funds to do so properly.

And yes...most us us get the point that 82 grand funds benifits and retirement along with the take home salary.

But now that we have the facility...how can we turn it into a true community or educational asset?

When I went to HS we had a teacher/manager that ran the tec/craft/AV class from the theatre and students performed most of the daily facility tasks as the class content.

Today...the classes could be tied to the business department teaching facility management and sales, a little real life experience for some lucky students.

The school board (AASB) could hold their meetings or events there...possibly saving a penny or two and putting the facility to a higher use?

Lets get creative.