To set the salary of the Associate Superintendent of Schools.
Summary
HB2932 amends West Virginia law governing the Department of Education to reduce the maximum number of associate state superintendent of schools positions from two to one. The bill revises §18-3-9 to state that the state superintendent may employ assistants and other necessary employees, but that there may be no more than one associate state superintendent of schools position.
The measure is administrative in nature and focuses on the organizational structure of the state Department of Education rather than curriculum, school funding, or student services. By limiting the number of associate superintendent positions, it would narrow the number of high-level leadership posts available within the state education bureaucracy and could affect how duties are assigned within the department.
Impact
If enacted, HB2932 would amend §18-3-9 of the West Virginia Code to cap the number of associate state superintendent of schools positions at one instead of two. This would directly affect the staffing authority of the state superintendent and the internal management structure of the Department of Education, potentially changing hiring, delegation, and salary obligations associated with that leadership role.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be a straightforward administrative restructuring proposal with no recorded committee debate or vote history provided. The caption suggests a focus on the salary and number of the associate superintendent position, indicating an interest in reducing or consolidating upper-level education administration. With no transcripts or votes available, there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention, if any, would likely be whether the Department of Education needs two associate state superintendent positions or whether one is sufficient. Supporters may view the change as a way to streamline administration and reduce costs, while opponents could argue that limiting the position could reduce leadership capacity or flexibility within the agency. No specific lawmakers, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified in the available discussion materials.