Norwalk City Schools to employ 'retired' Sue Goodsite for 2nd year

Assistant superintendent and curriculum/grants director to earn another $99,900.
Cary Ashby
Dec 12, 2013


The Norwalk City Schools board of education has agreed to bring back administrator Sue Goodsite for yet another year.

The board, at Tuesday’s meeting, approved hiring her as assistant superintendent/curriculum and grants director for an additional year at her current salary, $99,900.

Earlier this year, Goodsite retired from the school district after 35 years of service. A teacher for 11 years and an assistant principal for four, she was the Pleasant Elementary principal from 1993 through 2006.

In August, Goodsite was re-hired as the assistant superintendent and curriculum and grants director — a position she’s held for the last three years. She accepted a reduced rate of $99,900 on a one-year, 240-day contract; that’s the same terms of her current contract.

“There are a lot of things happening this year with curriculum, so she is going to come back and help us for one year,” Superintendent Dennis Doughty said in August.

Now, three months into the school year, the board has opted to lengthen Goodsite’s stay. The new deal takes her through the 2014-2015 academic year.

This week, Doughty said this is a challenging time for the school system because of the many changes required by the legislature. Those changes include new teacher evaluations. Doughty also mentioned “the creation of internal documents,” such as student learning objectives.

“All that has to be created by the district. That will be Sue’s responsibility,” the superintendent said.

Doughty said Goodsite’s experience will be a smooth transition for the district and help implement all the changes required by the state and is better than bringing in a new administrator who would need to be trained.

“That’s the board’s rationale,” Doughty said, referring to Goodsite’s contract extension.


swiss family

how can this happen?? on the same day that the newspaper announces that the meeting of the school's sad economic condition is so bad, that the Superintendent announces that there will be drastic cuts, because that bad, bad, citizens are not doing as they are told, and passing levies, and then on the same day,, announce that they are bringing back someone who was retired and is now going to work as a "Assistant Superintendent" at $99,000.00 a year????

Does this mean that we now have a Superintendent, and a Vice Superintendent, and an Assistant Superintendent????? I am sorry, but I think we are Very Top Heavy..Look at the amount of money going out to do the top job. I have always felt that if the Top person was doing the job required by the position they are in, there would never be a need for a "Vice" position, and certainly NOT an "Assistant position to back that up as well.Somewhere things got twisted around. It used to be, that a community only had so much money to run their education program...and the school system did what they needed to do to stay within those means. Now it seems as if the schools do as they please,hiring more and more staff, and telling the community that they need more money to operate??? I say go back to the old system, where you only have so much money to work with,which I think was about 24 MILLION dollars...why can't we expect to have a great educational system within those means????

One more observation, well I guess a question, when you say that you m"laid off" or Let go" XX amount of employees, didn't you actually "let go" several of those people, and then rehire them to another position??...Please stop lying to the citizens, and stop demanding more and more, or you will cut us where it hurts, which is always busing, and sports,and learn to live within your means, like everyone else has had to do.


Swiss, I agree with you that we are very top heavy in the Central office. However, we do not have titles of Supt., Asst. Supt, and Vice Supt. There is a supt, asst. supt. and director of student services.

If you recall, the position of director of student services was a created position for the admin presently in that position. Before that, the school psychologist was in charge of testing students, iep's, special needs students, etc. That psychologist was not making anywhere near what the present admin is making.

The are 2 psychologists under this admin. This admin is not qualified to do testing. Therefore, I do not see the need for this admin. This position could be cut reducung the admin in the cental office from 3 to 2 and also saving the district 100,000 plus benefits. This would also save 2 - 3 teachers their jobs.

Don't be surprised if the supt tries to pull a retire and rehire. He will claim that he will be saving the district money by being rehired at a lower salary than they could hire another supt. He is eligible to retire don't be surprised by this.

Again, the board does not make the cuts. They only act on the recommendation of the supt. Many were against Broz and her cronies but at least they kept the supt in check. Now that you have a new board member the 3- 2 vote has gone the opposite way, resulting in a rubber stamp of the supt. I predict that citizens who didn't want Broz are going to wish she was back.

Really are you ...

Maybe she will be able to write a grant to cover her salary and the other $100k plus a year positions in theNorwalk School System. But if she knows how to write grants for the school system, she knows how to apply for grants for other things.


Dr. Goodsite has already found grants that has saved NCS.

Central office needs to cut an administrator but it is not Dr. Goodsite. There is another administrator at central office that is in charge of testing that is not certified to test the students. They also have 2 psychologists under that admin that does the testing. Cutting this position could save the district 100,000 plus benefits.

I might also add that it might look like the school board makes the cuts but they only do so on the recommendation of the supt.

Also, if we are only one teacher above state min how can they cut 6 - 8 teachers. Won't that put us below state min and affect our funding.

believe it

I don't live in Norwalk and don't care what happens either way, but all of you that are against it...Let's just say you were in her shoes, would you turn down almost $100,000 a year plus your retirement? Probably not.


Did Jim Ward turn down his old job. I know military people that retire and go to work at their same job for twice the pay, Civil Service as well.

former local

First of all, that is the most slanted headline I have ever seen from a "journalist". second of all, if you people who complain all the time would have furthered your education instead of counting on overpaid factory work, you wouldn't be so angry and jealous of those who did further their education!!


Re: "counting on overpaid factory work,"

YIKES! Slamming the hard workin' taxpayers! Sweet.


I wonder if Dennis addressed that at the meeting at FTMC ?Another double dipper.If she was making $99k she is getting 66% of that for retirement also !Levy,go away to sleep !


I hate how the system forces all these public employees to game the system. I don't fail her for doing it, and most likely she is the most qualified for the role and doesn't need training. What irks me is you are either retired, or not retired...pick one. I'm not in public service. when I retire, if ever, I don't get rehired to my old job and get paid twice for the same work.


Amen-hookedonnews. What criteria are people using to justify this action? How do you know how well this person performs, or that the position is needed at all? I suspect many of the comments on this subject are from people defending it because they are, or will be in the same "double dipping" position themselves. Can't blame her for doing it-you have to blame the system for allowing it in the first place. It is a joke.


You really don't always get what you pay for, and I see nothing wrong with the headline. I don't get where you think it is slanted-it is actually factual.

Dr. Information

Double dipping is a term that really doesn't apply anymore. She paid into retirement and her collecting it, has nothing to do with being rehired. If the position is going to be filled either way, her or someone else, its not double dipping. Its called filling in the spot. School districts rehire like this because they don't have to pay into retirement, nor have them on their insurance plans (sometimes).

Now the argument of does this position really need to be there or terminated is a whole different topic.