Unnamed Sources Say Chip Forrester Is All About The Dollars
Posted on February 13, 2009 at 7:12 amJeff Woods asserts that there is controversy afoot concerning Chip Forrester’s salary as chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party:
He wants to depose Cheek as head of the party’s finance committee. Cheek voted for Charles Robert Bone for party chairman. Cheek’s would-be replacement? Jerry Maynard, who voted for Forrester for chairman. (This is all according to Pith’s stable of smug anonymous Democratic insiders, so we know it’s true.)
Forrester’s predecessor as chairman, Gray Sasser, made $115,000 a year. Cheek is trying to cut Forrester’s pay to $75,000. Cheek thinks Forrester doesn’t deserve $115,000 because the party expects to raise only about $500,000 this year–and that’s if Democrats are lucky. That’s about half as much as the party raised and spent each year under Sasser. We’re told Forrester tried to oust Cheek but couldn’t because Cheek’s term doesn’t end for another year. Forrester apparently didn’t know that. Now he does.
First of all, I don’t know where these people are getting their figures. This meme that Sasser made in the $120,000 range has been going around (especially in the comments on this site) but the only reports I find regarding his pay are much less than that ($87,504 a year).
Second, with all the problems Forrester has already are we really expected to believe he is gonna have his first beef be about his pay. He doesn’t have any staff. As far as anyone can tell, the Democratic party is being run by Chip and several volunteer veterans of the Obama campaign and the English Only effort. They don’t seem to be living high on the hog and I sincerely doubt these volunteers would be all about Chip if they thought he was trying to fatten his pockets.
Also, why would it be all that controversial for Forrester to start out at what Sasser made? That is the job he is taking after all, yes? I mean if the job is seen as one that is dependent on money raised are these folks proposing the chairman be put on some sort of commission based salary?
UPDATE: In the comments, both Braisted and Vibinc explain that the $87,504 figure is a net one rather than a gross one which would make the $115,000 number just about right.
Comments
15 Responses to “Unnamed Sources Say Chip Forrester Is All About The Dollars”
I believe that $87K figure is net, after taxes, insurance are taken out (see the Paychex disbursements).
What no one seems to understand is why should Mr Forrester keep his full salary when the overall budget is certainly going to go down. Maybe Mr. Forrester is the miracle worker all his friends claim he is, but I doubt it. 3 facts he will have to overcome: 1 Economy aint so good, people don’t donate as much when they have less. 2 We as a party have less power than before in TN, I don’t like it but this always means less money. 3 Forrester just pissed off those in the party who have the best record of donating large sums of Money. All I think is that his salery should be a percentage of the budget.
What does Forrester have to say about all of this? He’s been in hiding for the first month of his tenure, except for two vapid videos and a fluffball interview on a friendly radio show. Why doesn’t he tell everyone why he deserves $120,000 a year when he’s destroying his party?
Better yet, why doesn’t Chipper tell everyone how much money he has raised so far. Not how much others have raised for him. How much has he raised himself?
Braisted is correct. Latest disclosure here. Payroll starts on p. 32.
For every group of checks there is are individual disbursements to the US Treasury.
You’re no one to lecture anyone about hiding, “Heatseeker.”
This is my problem with Jeff Woods: he habitually prints information from ‘unnamed sources.’ As a former journalist, I was always told to stay away from this sort of thing: It’s called gossip.
The proof in the pudding is whether or not Jeff’s information is good. As a former journalist myself, I can tell you that you often cannot get the best information without allowing sources to be off the record, not for attribution, or vaguely identified (i.e., “a senior advisor to…”). That’s not gossip; that’s just goold reporting. I’m sure Jeff would rather identify the sources, but he sure as hell wants to get the story — that’s a higher priority.
I have had my beefs with Woods, but time and time again, his information is good.
So vibinc and Braisted have both verified factual information in the article. Hmmmm, sounds like an accurate piece, huh?
Why don’t one of you bloggers ask Chipper? You’re all cozy with him. Is he now trying to run off his finance chairman? Is this part of his purge? Is his finance chair trying to cut his salary? Is he expected to only raise half of what the party used to raise?
I still say the Tennessee Democrat Party is going down in flames and all these bloggers can do is worry about who’s talking to who. Fine with me. Between Chipper and Robin Smith, maybe Tennessee can soon be free of political parties.
“Heatseeker”,
We verified what Sasser got paid, not what Forrester is getting paid. Won’t have that information until the Feb. disclosure comes out at the end of March.
The question to be asked here is why should Forrester make any less than Sasser? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a lot of money, but the argument that Forrester can’t raise as much money as Sasser has yet to be proved. Until it is, crying foul sounds a lot more like crying wolf.
vibinc, I recommend that someone ask Chipper. He has been there a month. Tell us how much you’ve raised, Chipperoski. Have him tell us how much he has actually taken in. Not commitments. Commitments don’t mean shit.
And, frankly, after his first month on the job, I’m not sure Chipper should be paid anything. Unless you guys actually hired him to destroy your party.
Why don’t you ask him yourself, Heatseeker?
[...] Why don’t you ask him yourself,… [...]
Regarding the issue of unnamed sources: In a truly journalistic world, if sources aren’t named for publication, the sources’ identities should be known to the reporter’s bosses/editors, and the sources’ possible motives and credibility evaluated by same.
And usually a reporter should contact for comment/response all people named in a story. The reporter may not be able to reach everyone, or the subjects may not respond by press or show time.
Sometimes, depending on the potential damage a story may cause, the reporter and editors should hold a story until response is obtained and included. They might get beaten on the story, but they’ll still be journalists. True journalists.
I don’t know that The Scene doesn’t adhere to such principles. I rarely read the thing. As alternative papers go, I got spoiled by Atlanta’s Creative Loafing, which knows, or knew, how to do actual, fair, balanced journalism.
If Skipper was “truly” all about the DOLLAR he would be more concerned that currently he does not have enough money in the bank to cover his annual subscription to “Campaigns & Elections” magazine, much less the salaries of the TNDP “Staff”.
I am sure that will come as quite a blow to “Julia Buck Lewis” when she finds out that she will not be compensated for all of her hard hours spent blogging on behalf of the Skipper.
I mean really…… this guy couldn’t manage a night shift at Wendys, yet he is “in charge” of the party’s statewide organization. Awesome (sarcasm implied)!