.. is that the bill was intended to clamp McIntyre's salary ($220K?). Since the bill states that the mayor can't make less, supposedly the writers intended to force Knox Co to cut McIntyre's salary, which they saw as too high.

What the truth is, I'm not 100% sure, but from what I know of Tim, $160K is plenty for him, and I think he'd rather avoid the bad PR that would inhibit say, I dunno, a future run for U.S. Senate vs. having another $40K in his pocket after taxes.

The Focus piece strikes me as a hit piece. Given that page 3 falsely claims that "Fee Office Takeover Is Attempt to Overturn Election", it calls the veracity of the page 1 piece into question.

(Sandy, if you want people to take you seriously on your issue, you might need to distance yourself from the Focus).

That article seems to be a good bit of hackery. It doesn't even explain anywhere what bill is being referenced, much less examine what's actually in it. I was just reading some commentary on it over at Knox Blab. If there were actually a there there, then I would hope the press would go after this, but the Focus article reads more like axe-grinding than actual journalism to me.

It is complete and total crap.

The bill is sponsored by Knoxville Republican Sen. Stacey Campfield.
...
"This is a much a do about nothing. It's not a bill that either of us are planning on moving," Sen. Campfield said.

Need more be said?

I think I'd be more concerned about the move to elect school superintendents. And judges.

The article is a hit piece. I saw Stacey on tee vee talking about it last night. He said a) it was designed to LOWER McIntyre's salary, and b) he knew he wouldn't pass. (Guess he just submitted it to get the kind of attention he's now getting).

The Mayor had nothing to do with this bill, and is in no way "seeking" a huge raise. Hunley's just mad at him over the fee offices thing.

I also get a sense that the Fiscal Review Committee is having a little fun at Campfield's expense in their fiscal note for the bill.

Hunley's just mad at him over the fee offices thing.

LVG

I read that some states like, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania if I remember correctly set a maximum limit on superintendent salaries during the past 6 months of $175K. Several other states are moving in the same direction.

McIntyre's $240K is too high. A mayor's or governor's job is much more complex. Frankly, the superintendent's compensation should be 30-40% incentive, based upon him/her raising the district's ACT score or not, and how much he raised it within some reasonable guide line, like 1% maximum increase expected in consolidated county average ACT score. The majority of the last Board of Education made a mistake as usual, but so did their predecessors. The results are very poor, central Administration is very fat and happy, and teacher morale is poor. We are facing another tough year everywhere, but the superintendent, central management and the Board is already crying about all the cuts they have to make, and proposes a HIGHER BUDGET THAN THIS YEAR'S for 2011-2012.

(link...)

I don't know if I'd say a Mayor's job is that much more or more critical than a school supe. Our county survived a really shi**y mayor for 8 years and is doing pretty well. I don't think the schools recover as quickly from a sh**y supe, because kids get one shot at their public education.

Who generates all these cut-and-paste bills? When was the secret brainwashing convention held where they handed out all this crap?

... New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania...

And to date, Broad has placed the majority of its supers in the New England states, where you're recalling that legislatures have recently placed these salary caps.

i blogged about this bs back in mid-march when it was just a footnote and not a lot of details were out.

(link...)

niceley and campfield are sponsoring it, and from my experience talking with burchett, i believed him when he said he wasn't aware of it. he made a joke about how his wife would like it, etc.

but i'm pretty sure the guy is happy with what he's making right now. not that anyone would complain about an extra $80k, but i'll take the mayor at his word on this one.

on a side note, i agree with the hippie. people should be more concerned about the proposal to elect the school supes.

it comes up every so often, and i doubt it will pass but . . .

Randy's right that the Focus is wrong on this one, Mary.

And furthermore, the Focus is also wrong in suggesting that the proposal before commission to run fee office budgets through first the mayor, then the commission, would somehow result in a "power power grab to take over all fee offices WITHOUT any review by Commission."

If passed, that proposal would simply allow the mayor, working with the fee officers, to suggest a budget for each, after which time the eleven commissioners would have an opportunity to approve or amend the mayor's suggestion.

The process would be one in which twelve people (beyond just a given fee officer) would collaborate in establishing any fee officer's budget--and in the process, the mayor's solitary opinion could very likely be overruled.

I just don't see any "power grab" on the mayor's part in either proposal.

And why is Stacey now saying he won't push this bill and it will go nowhere? Why bother to waste time, effort and paper with a bill that you knew would fail?

To my knowledge, Campfield has only had one bill pass among all those he's ever sponsored, over all those how many years. He's made a career of wasting time.

And I might remind y'all that Superintendent McIntyre wrote and presented Tennessee's proposal that WON this State one-half a BILLION dollars in Race To The Top funding? And that he has found creative ways to open two new schools here in Knox County without one new dime in tax increases.

Mary, you must drop by more often. Meanwhile, please catch up here.