How do you justify giving your administration raises of more than $700,000 since 2004 - most of which were at least 5 percent annually - when your school district is facing an unprecedented financial crisis?

You can't.

And what may be worse for the future of the Rapid City school district is that Superintendent Dr. Peter Wharton appears defiantly committed to sacrificing the school's educational programs in exchange for pay raises for his staff.

If this sounds harsh, it stems from the frustration of Rapid City parents, who were blindsided this spring by a district that admitted it had overspent its budget and explained that millions of dollars would have to be cut in order for the school system to avoid depleting its entire fund balance.

The district gambled with its students' future by spending feverishly on adding teachers and administrators, only to find out that it had (presumably) overestimated the amount of state money it would receive from the 2008 Legislature.

Either that, or this district was determined to spend as it saw fit, and then use the dire consequences to bolster their claim that city taxpayers needed to opt out of its capped state property-tax levy.

It was a gamble and a subsequent admission that, in some businesses, would have cost a controller/business manager and chief executive officer their jobs.

But in Rapid City, they receive raises.

And therein lies the frustration for many in the community, that there still seems to exist that disconnect between the public and private business sectors. When times are tight, local businesses don't increase spending, add staff nor give out larger "market adjustment" raises to its employees.

But that is what has happened in Rapid City.

Wharton has said there is no need to cut or freeze administrator salaries because they won't be working any less next year. If that were the standard for a raise, then many us would be entitled to a pay hike every year, but that's not the way successful businesses operate in the private sector. Raises are often based on job performance, company performance, the economy - a whole host of factors.

It is equally disconcerting to listen to such a fine administrator as North Middle School Principal Jeanne Burckhard state that she is essentially working for free after May 1, because her contract only calls for her to work 215 days. Her salary has jumped 32 percent since 2003 to $85,434. It is extremely difficult for many of the working families in the Black Hills to find sympathy for someone who makes that salary for working less than two-thirds of the year.

It is a thankless job with long hours, and Burckhard and other Rapid City administrators should be admired for their extra effort, but there are plenty of thankless jobs with long hours in the Black Hills that aren't paid close to that salary. And fewer still that have received a 32 percent pay increase over the past five years.

Although the school system may be charged with preparing our children for the real world, let's hope the administration's brand of fiscal responsibility isn't one of the lessons.

Since 2004, nearly three-quarters of a million dollars have been given out in raises to administrators, many of those in 6, 8, and 12 percent increments. Wharton defends the raises - arguing that he is trying to create a more competitive wage for his administration staff.

But Wharton, Rapid City teachers, administrators and the school board need to get past the tired argument that salaries must be increased in order to keep good staff members from leaving.

South Dakota cannot compare itself to neighboring states, especially one (Wyoming) experiencing a gas boom. Nor can Rapid City compare itself to Sioux Falls, a city that is far larger and loaded with more resources. Rapid City must use its own market economy as a barometer, and administrators are paid exceptionally well in the Black Hills market. (As many have pointed out, Rapid City administrators are paid better than full professors at Black Hills State University.)

Besides, shouldn't Rapid City schools be as concerned that their families may leave - leave the public schools to enroll their student in private schools, or leave Rapid City in favor of a city with more educational and extracurricular opportunities?

The superintendent has decided that investing in his administration - and to a lesser degree, the teachers - is a priority. But that decision, in a time when the district is in a financial crisis and requires extraordinary belt-tightening, will be at the expense of the students and their families. This year's cuts may pale in comparison to those in subsequent years.

The superintendent may need to be reminded that the quality of education cannot be measured by the size of one's paycheck.

Coming tomorrow: The school district mishandled its financial mess.