It wouldn't necessarily have saved the county money. It would probably have been a break even proposition. If we let the market dictate the price for the most qualified person, then we may have ended up paying $15,000 to $20,000 more for a great professional. On the other hand, the county has to hire a separate attorney for the superintendent every time there is legal action because the superintendent can't use the school board attorney since she is not a school board employee. Since there are at least 22 ESE lawsuits pending now, I think we'd have saved more in attorney's fees than the cost of an experienced, successful superintendents salary. Plus, 9 months out of every 48 the superintendent has to run for reelection. That's a full time job. The large administrative staff that picks up the slack is way more costly than is typical in a non-elected school system. By the way, public records request have been ignored regarding the cost to the district for the superintendent's separate attorneys' fees.