Submitted by Socialist With ... on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 11:39pm.
Why should we expect anything else?
Besides, gemini, look at it this way: once Hutchison retires, we'll finally be rid of him for only $80,000 per year. I consider that a bargain.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler
"Other than having to pay two people for the same job."
Since JJ moved out of his old job, that's not true. In fact, my guess is the pay in the Sheriff's Dept is probably the same as it was before. It was just a switch.
JJ might not have been making 99k. But, JJ might also not be making $110k which Hutchison was making (after 34 years in the KCSO). Certainly not extravagant considering the KCSO has, what, 1,000 or so employees and a budget in the millions?
Hutchison is an Assistant Chief, I believe. There are others. I would think their pay is similar, if they have similar time/experience. It will be interesting to see what Hutchison does...work on specific cases, work with the aviation unit (he flies the helicopters), work on the budget. He certainly has a ton of experience. He might enjoy not being in the spotlight.
How ironic that amid your dogged efforts to avoid substance you would place a question mark next to the sheriff's budget. I'm sure you know the crux of Moncier's legal efforts against Hutchison has been the secrecy surrounding the sheriff's budget. He has refused to disclose how much money the department takes in through drug forfeiture laws because he considers it the sheriff's money, not public money, so he won't even tell the county budgeting body how much money he controls for fear they might trim their allocation to his office in favor of other priorities like schools.
Your question mark is everyone's question mark, everyone but the sheriff.
In any case, I should probably stop hounding you to address the substance of the conversation. As a once and presumably future candidate for a judgeship, you are no doubt trying to keep your record clean of prejudicial statements on matters that could come before your bench.
Speaking of substance, I think it's petty of people to deny Hutchison his full pension. He served as sheriff for more than 16 years and in county law enforcement for longer than that, and he deserves retirement benefits. It was publicly discussed that he would likely be kept on until June to qualify for full benefits, and it's just a matter of gratitude and courtesy. If he wants to be magnanimous like Mayor Haslam and defer compensation, that is a private choice.
Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 12:23pm.
I think it's petty of people to deny Hutchison his full pension. He served as sheriff for more than 16 years and in county law enforcement for longer than that, and he deserves retirement benefits. It was publicly discussed that he would likely be kept on until June to qualify for full benefits, and it's just a matter of gratitude and courtesy.
As much as I don't like him sometimes, I have to agree.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 12:38pm.
On this Sheriff Department pension plan thread, did I read somewhere (here? N-S?) that the "low-tax" demographic of our temporary (?) Commission is expected to have difficulty raising the revenues to fund the new defined benefit plan for the Sheriff Department? What's needed, an additional $50 million? I'd like to hear more. Beanster? Anybody?
Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 12:41pm.
You may have read that here, on the live blogging thread summary. The speculation is that Ragsdale is looking at big budget problems and the pension doesn't help. That was the case before Wednesday's circus. But now there are more Hutchison people on commission, and more "no taxes" Lumpy types, which will make it even more difficult to make ends meet.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 12:57pm.
Randy: "But now there are more Hutchison people on commission, and more "no taxes" Lumpy types, which will make it even more difficult to make ends meet."
That's what I was afraid you'd tell me. And that combination of Sheriff Department devotees and low-taxers spells lower allocations for schools, 60%+ of budget, I would imagine.
FYI, Lumpy, my commissioner in the 6th, and I did lunch right after his election (yes, we drew stares)and he previewed to me his ideas for lower school construction costs. The plan involved corrugated metal facilities.
He's big on homeschoolers having access to public school facilities, too (with too little consideration for how that population might "pay into" the local school system, I fear).
They'll find the $$ to fund the pension plan; they don't have any choice. The only question is whose hide it comes out of - the library? Parks & rec? Or something else?
I believe (Betty or Sandra please correct me if I'm wrong) that state law requires spending at least as much in the current year as in the last year on the school system. So you can't actually cut the school budget, you can only not raise it (which can have the same practical effect, of course, given inflation).
Can't get enough money there to fund the new pension plan.
Why should we expect anything else?
Besides, gemini, look at it this way: once Hutchison retires, we'll finally be rid of him for only $80,000 per year. I consider that a bargain.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler
I think it's sweet those two have made up.
I bet that honeymoon last night was super sexy! Who was on top?
I just hope him/they do his/their jobs and solve the Johnia Berry case. We need to hold his/their feet to the fire until this happens.
Let me spell this out.
There has been no change in the sheriff's department.
Betty, Can Shurff Tim now fire Shurff JJ? Does JJ have to come in to work?
The sheriffette cannot fire Shurff Tim without his permission.
Oops, that's not what you asked is it?
:-)
"sheriffette "
Heh.
Let me spell this out.
There has been no change in the sheriff's department.
Other than having to pay two people for the same job.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
That arrangement almost always results in damage to someone or something. Unless everyone is very, very clear about the pecking order.....
"Other than having to pay two people for the same job."
Since JJ moved out of his old job, that's not true. In fact, my guess is the pay in the Sheriff's Dept is probably the same as it was before. It was just a switch.
I doubt JJ was making $99,000. remember, he was not the chief deputy -- that was and still is Tom Spangler.
Betty,
are you going to publish the complete family tree in the Halls News?
JJ might not have been making 99k. But, JJ might also not be making $110k which Hutchison was making (after 34 years in the KCSO). Certainly not extravagant considering the KCSO has, what, 1,000 or so employees and a budget in the millions?
Hutchison is an Assistant Chief, I believe. There are others. I would think their pay is similar, if they have similar time/experience. It will be interesting to see what Hutchison does...work on specific cases, work with the aviation unit (he flies the helicopters), work on the budget. He certainly has a ton of experience. He might enjoy not being in the spotlight.
we get it, Chad. you really like these people.
a budget in the millions?
How ironic that amid your dogged efforts to avoid substance you would place a question mark next to the sheriff's budget. I'm sure you know the crux of Moncier's legal efforts against Hutchison has been the secrecy surrounding the sheriff's budget. He has refused to disclose how much money the department takes in through drug forfeiture laws because he considers it the sheriff's money, not public money, so he won't even tell the county budgeting body how much money he controls for fear they might trim their allocation to his office in favor of other priorities like schools.
Your question mark is everyone's question mark, everyone but the sheriff.
In any case, I should probably stop hounding you to address the substance of the conversation. As a once and presumably future candidate for a judgeship, you are no doubt trying to keep your record clean of prejudicial statements on matters that could come before your bench.
Speaking of substance, I think it's petty of people to deny Hutchison his full pension. He served as sheriff for more than 16 years and in county law enforcement for longer than that, and he deserves retirement benefits. It was publicly discussed that he would likely be kept on until June to qualify for full benefits, and it's just a matter of gratitude and courtesy. If he wants to be magnanimous like Mayor Haslam and defer compensation, that is a private choice.
I think it's petty of people to deny Hutchison his full pension. He served as sheriff for more than 16 years and in county law enforcement for longer than that, and he deserves retirement benefits. It was publicly discussed that he would likely be kept on until June to qualify for full benefits, and it's just a matter of gratitude and courtesy.
As much as I don't like him sometimes, I have to agree.
On this Sheriff Department pension plan thread, did I read somewhere (here? N-S?) that the "low-tax" demographic of our temporary (?) Commission is expected to have difficulty raising the revenues to fund the new defined benefit plan for the Sheriff Department? What's needed, an additional $50 million? I'd like to hear more. Beanster? Anybody?
You may have read that here, on the live blogging thread summary. The speculation is that Ragsdale is looking at big budget problems and the pension doesn't help. That was the case before Wednesday's circus. But now there are more Hutchison people on commission, and more "no taxes" Lumpy types, which will make it even more difficult to make ends meet.
The speculation is that Ragsdale is looking at big budget problems and the pension doesn't help.
KILL the Midway Industrial Park. Vote it down Knox County Commission.
Or raise property taxes. The choice is obvious.
Randy: "But now there are more Hutchison people on commission, and more "no taxes" Lumpy types, which will make it even more difficult to make ends meet."
That's what I was afraid you'd tell me. And that combination of Sheriff Department devotees and low-taxers spells lower allocations for schools, 60%+ of budget, I would imagine.
FYI, Lumpy, my commissioner in the 6th, and I did lunch right after his election (yes, we drew stares)and he previewed to me his ideas for lower school construction costs. The plan involved corrugated metal facilities.
He's big on homeschoolers having access to public school facilities, too (with too little consideration for how that population might "pay into" the local school system, I fear).
They'll find the $$ to fund the pension plan; they don't have any choice. The only question is whose hide it comes out of - the library? Parks & rec? Or something else?
I thought it was usually schools?
I believe (Betty or Sandra please correct me if I'm wrong) that state law requires spending at least as much in the current year as in the last year on the school system. So you can't actually cut the school budget, you can only not raise it (which can have the same practical effect, of course, given inflation).
Can't get enough money there to fund the new pension plan.
Carnac the Magnificent Says: Knox County Private School Enrollments, Homeschool Opt-Outs Up in 2007-2008!
Knox County doesn't count the number of students not publicly enrolled anyway.
Post new comment