Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 1 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
ne question oi tne tixing or the salary of the Commissioner of Revenue has ‘been pending since the election of Mrs. Roberta K. Massie to the office in November. In previous years the Commissioner’s salary was fixed at $2000 an* nually with $1800 for an assistant. Mrs. Massie had < requested that the salary be set at $3000 for herself and helper. These salary figures did not include any expenses of the office. It was point, ed out during the meeting that these figures set'the cost of the office of Commissioner at $200 ; less than previously.
The Board of Supervisors /wished to set the salary at $2600; $2000 for the Commissioner and $600 for an assistant. This ftgu e was not approved by the Compensation Board in Richmond, which set the salary at $2800 for the Commissioner and $800 for helper, as their opinion of a fair amount. The Board’s refusal in meeting yesterday led to the appeal which now goes, within 80 > days, according to law, before a court of three judges: one to be tile Rappahannock County Circuit - Judge and the other tWiy to be appointed by the State Supreme Court. .
At tiie beginning of the discussion of tiie question, the Board voted to postpone the settling of the Commissioner’s salary until another meeting, February 12, when Chairman W. C. Campbell would be present and the membership complete in attendance. This motion was rescinded after discussion from a group of citizens present, who' insisted that five of six members present constituted a quorum. One citizen stated that , the withheld salary of the Commissioner of Revenue iwas an inconvenience, and that a number of interested citizens would have to return to the Tuesday meeting when, again, all six members may not be present.
The first motion, made by H. B. Wood and seconded by E. M. Es^ tes, was stated that the salary as set by the Compensation Board was not acceptable by the Board. J. P. Cook joined his vote with H. B. Wood and E. M. Estes, while A. C. Latham and A. H. Buckner voted in opposition.
51.9%