Formerly suspended Washington Township superintendent is seeking $27K merit pay
Superintendent Eric Hibbs is seeking the bonuses weeks after a judge voided his suspension and reinstated him. The school board will consider it at a meeting Tuesday.
Embattled Washington Township School Superintendent Eric Hibbs is seeking more than $27,000 in merit pay under his contract.
The matter has been placed on the agenda by Hibbs for Tuesday night’s school board meeting. It was unclear how the board would respond.
Hibbs returned to work earlier this month after a judge reinstated him, ending a five-month suspension. The board placed Hibbs on paid administrative leave in March and launched an investigation into an ethics complaint, but a Superior Court judge ruled that the board had violated the Open Public Meetings Act when it suspended him.
An attorney for Hibbs has said the complaint alleged Hibbs provided preferential treatment to a relative of a board member by changing a failing math grade in September 2023.
A resolution by the board to award Hibbs’ merit pay for the 2024-2025 has not been included in the meeting agenda. It was unclear whether the board would vote on his request.
Hibbs and his attorney did not respond to messages. Board President Julie Kozempel declined comment Monday.
Here’s what to know about Hibbs’ contract:
What are the terms of Hibbs’ contract?
Hibbs has been superintendent in the Washington Township district since 2023. His contract, with an annual salary of $215,000, runs through 2027.
According to the 16-page contract, obtained by The Inquirer under the state’s Open Public Records Act, Hibbs is eligible to receive an increase annually on July 1 of 2.5% of his base salary.
Hibbs is also entitled to an annual merit bonus of up to 14.99% of his salary, provided he meets performance goals set by the board, according to the contract.
Read his contract:
What goals must Hibbs meet for merit pay?
The board set five goals for the previous school year, each with a percentage amount and dollar value of $7,272 or $5,509. Hibbs is seeking compensation of $27,319 for four goals.
Here are the goals:
Hibbs was required to complete four professional development courses offered by the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association.
He was required to undergo Google training and become fully certified in two educator levels as the district transitions to the Google platform.
He was required to complete and present 15 Google presentations to staff to provide on-demand resources to help with the transition to Google.
He was expected to facilitate a committee to review service learning programs and make recommendations to help students become global citizens.
He was to work with the district’s chief of security to design security systems processes to improve emergency responses during incidents.
He is not seeking a $5,509 bonus for the goal related to service learning.
The goals were negotiated by Hibbs and the board and approved by the county executive superintendent. The goals are set annually by Sept. 1 by the superintendent and the board.
The goals were approved by interim Executive County Superintendent for Gloucester County Robert Bumpus and sent to Hibbs last October for completion during the school year.
The county executive superintendent must agree that the criteria has been met before payment of the merit pay.
How does the merit pay get approved?
According to the contract, a majority of the nine-member board must agree that the goals were met for the year in order for Hibbs to receive the merit pay. The determination must be made by Aug. 30.
Because the board has been bitterly divided along partisan lines over Hibbs’ employment, a resolution may face an uncertain outcome. Several board members have conflicts on matters pertaining to Hibbs and have abstained from voting. And prior to the judge voiding his suspension, several board votes to reinstate him failed.
Hibbs filed a whistleblower lawsuit in May alleging his suspension was retaliation for raising questions about a district insurance contract awarded in 2021, before he became superintendent. The lawsuit names Kozempel, unnamed board members, and the district as defendants.