Yes, his request is to receive it by that date, according to the contract.

"But Knox County would be well served by cleaning out the McIntyre administration and providing the community a fresh start"

I couldn't agree MORE, Elwood. Cleaning out all those spiderwebs would be quite an undertaking, however. So many parts of McIntyre's agenda have been "assimilated", Borg-like, into the operations of KCS - from the AJ building all the way down to individual schools.

McIntyre has loaded the AJ building with outsiders brought in to specifically implement the Broad / Corporate Reform agenda, trained either by the Broad Foundation directly or affiliated with a related corporate reform group and granted newly-created, fancifully-titled positions carrying six-figure salaries.

The schools are run by a corps of Principals who have, after years of negative pressure from McIntyre (at who's pleasure they serve, they are reminded) have been cowed into subservience with implicit threats of being suddenly terminated, transferred, demoted, or replaced by McIntyre's hand-picked "Leadership Academy Fellows" (Political Kommisars) churned out year after year by his pet project, Broad-backed Leadership Academy.

Over 50 percent of Knox County's classrooms are now staffed with teachers with UNDER 5 years of experience, teachers without due-process protections, 50% of whom - according to research - will leave the profession within the next few years. Much has already been said about the mass exodus / early retirements of experienced teachers under McIntyre's administration, leaving these teachers mentorless aside from their "instructional coaches", (also Political Kommisars) who indoctrinate them into the data-worshipping, test-score-obsessed, demonstrate-alignment-with-the-"vision" -or-you'll-be-non-renewed" fear-based mindset. Relationships between teachers and principals are no longer based on trust, and for all McIntyre's crowing about "collaboration", most teachers hold their cards very close to their chests as far as planning and practices due to the arbitrary and punitive "gotcha" TEAM evaluations.

Many of our students have been so beaten down and discouraged by the test-and-punish, rank-and-rate, sort-and-separate culture of KCS that they have lost the true joy of learning - their formative educational experiences having been distilled into filling in bubbles or practicing HOW to fill in bubbles. Also -student behavior is OUT OF CONTROL in many of our schools, a predictable consequence of our children NOT being treated in a developmentally appropriate manner.

In short, our school system has been damaged and corrupted from top-to-bottom. Where can the cleanup even BEGIN? How can TRUST be rebuilt? Transparency restored? Faith in the system renewed?

After all, not ONE KCS principal stood up against Mc's policies, actions, initiatives, or agenda. YES, I know it was fear. It would have ended their careers, but had THEY stood up, the damage would have stopped IN A WEEK. Instead, TEACHERS and PARENTS did the heavy lifting - accepting the risk AND consequences (Christina Graham) of speaking out for students. The principals HAD to see the negative effects of Mc's agenda - THEY were the ones tasked with it's implementation, but they either stayed silent or left the district quietly after the few that dared question the "Vision" were handily sent to the Gulag. Continuing the Soviet-era metaphor, at the first Principal's meeting after McIntyre's recent contract renewal / extension, they gave McIntyre a STANDING OVATION on his extension - a bizarre spectacle right out of the Stalin School of Political Suck-Uppery. Can these "followers" now be trusted to become "leaders"? To TRULY put the needs of STUDENTS over their own security?

Mayor Burchett said the school system needed a "healer", and indeed it does. But where can a "healer" begin his or her work when the damage is this extensive and systemic?

Do our teachers, administrators, parents, and larger community need a "Truth and Reconciliation" Commission to begin the process of restoration?

I've wondered if the BOE could be sued if it *DID NOT* abide by the contract? Sued by taxpayers, I mean?

I have found this discussion of "sick leave" to be confusing, since none of McIntyre's seven total contracts has ever indicated he gets "sick leave," per se?

His most recent contract from November 2015 (which was never signed, I should clarify, although I had mistakenly thought at one point that it had been) attempted the change indicated in italics below:

10. VACATION AND ANNUAL LEAVE

The Superintendent shall be entitled to twenty-four (24) annual leave days each year.The Superintendent shall be eligible to receive the maximum leave benefits provided to employees as set forth in Knox County Schools Human Resources policies. The Superintendent may carry over unused vacation days annually, as provided for other administrative personnel.

Upon termination of his employment, the Superintendent may elect to be compensated for all annual leave, as is allowed other administrative personnel under policy.

However, because that November 2015 contract was never signed and its change noted above was never therefore adopted, my *assumption* is that McIntyre's prior contract adopted January 2014 and running January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017 guides?

If so, this same section of the contract then read:

10. VACATION AND ANNUAL LEAVE

The Superintendent shall be entitled to twenty-four (24) annual leave days each year. The Superintendent shall be eligible to receive the maximum leave benefits provided to employees as set forth in Knox County Schools Human Resources policies. The Superintendent may carry over up to twenty-four (24) unused vacation days annually, with a maximum of forty-eight (48) days to be accumulated.

Annually on June 30, at the Superintendent's option, the Board shall compensate the Superintendent in cash in exchange for up to 10 annual leave days to be computed at 1/227 of the Superintendent's aggregate annual salary for each annual leave day. In addition, upon termination of his employment, the Superintendent may elect to be compensated for all unused annual leave.

Note that this is the complete text for Item 10 in both contracts and that, again, no other section of any contract references "sick leave," per se.

I also searched the Knox County Schools website for any sick leave policy that might clarify this. Under the Board of Education tab, where policies may be read, I skimmed the list of policies categorized under the Human Resources tab and found just one, policy GBRHB entitled "Sick Leave" and last revised April 2015, but it appears to apply only to teachers?

Finally, noting on the above Sick Leave policy a footnote referencing TCA 49-5-710, I also looked that up at Lexis Nexis, but that reference, too, appears to apply only to teachers?

So I do not understand by what contractual or policy device the Superintendent is entitled to "sick leave" under any circumstances, irrespective of how that benefit might be paid out in various termination scenarios?

I don't mean to suggest that he is not entitled to the benefit, just that I don't understand where this guidance lies?