A California Department Of Education Official Earns Six Figures While Living In Philadelphia
Does anyone wonder how stupid California voters are to put up with this liberal academia largesse? Six-figure income for an out-of-state position of Superintendent of Equity? Huh?
Daniel Lee, according to Politico, is one of the highest-paid officials in California’s Department of Education, where he serves as the state’s first-ever “superintendent of equity,” according to the publication. It seems he may violate the law by residing in Philadelphia and working a second job there while still receiving reimbursement from California taxpayers.
Dr. Daniel Lee is a psychologist, life coach, and self-help author who has his practice in Pennsylvania and serves as the president of the executive board of the New Jersey Psychological Association. As a deputy superintendent for the California Department of Education, he has been in this position since July 2020. Initially sponsored by a foundation grant, the state taxpayers now pay for this position. Tony Thurmond, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, has known Lee for more than two decades and included him in his wedding party, making him an essential part of the hiring process. At first, Lee was employed by the nonprofit affiliate of the U.S. Department of Education without making the position’s current salary range of $179,832 public. Lee’s 18-page resume also reveals no experience in California or connections to local school systems.
They didn’t even bother to put the job on the internet before giving it to Lee. Kevin Kiley, a California state representative, has officially requested that the validity of Lee’s out-of-state residency be investigated.
Many questions are being raised on the pay given to the superintendent of Equity living in California, working as a life coach. There ought to be voices raised when it comes to American taxpayer’s money paying for such people.
Ineptocracy
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.