A mayoral-control bill is still being hammered out in Albany, and presumably one could be announced any day. (Unknown factor: Governor Paterson's personal distractions. And I haven't seen any sign of enthusiasm among Upstate senators.)

But I wouldn't place a bet right now on whether Rochester mayors will control the Rochester school district in the future.

Even without a bill, lobbying has been going on in Albany against even the concept of mayoral control. And the opponents include one of the state's most powerful lobbying groups, NYSUT, the state teachers union.

In Rochester, opponents are dominating the discussion. Mayor Bob Duffy managed to get a little attention last week when the presidents of 19 area colleges and universities endorsed his desire for control. But that simply fueled the opponents' fire. Their elitism charge was no surprise.

I still support the concept of mayoral control, but the details in legislation matter. And the opponents have been raising some important - and completely justifiable - concerns.

Duffy seems enamored with New York City's version of control, where the mayor and his superintendent initially had almost complete control. There was a citizens' advisory group, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed all of its members. He could remove any of them anytime he wanted to, and he did exactly that when he thought they wouldn't give him what he wanted.

Advocates of that kind of control insist that it's the only way to bring about major change. The lethargy, the pulls and tugs of vocal activist groups, and the influence of unions, they say, will smother reform efforts.

But the Bloomberg model included minimal citizen participation and no checks and balances at all. Parents, teachers, and others in New York City were furious, and when the New York bill was up for reauthorization last year, the legislature weakened it a bit.

As we reported a couple of weeks ago, Assembly member Joe Morelle, who is pushing for mayoral control, says Duffy won't get the amount of control he wants. While the details are still being discussed in Albany, some things have been settled, apparently: the school district would become a department of city government, the superintendent would report directly to the mayor, and an appointed citizens' group would replace the elected School Board. The citizens' group would have nine members, five appointed by the mayor, four by members of City Council.

Also settled, apparently: members of the citizens' board must be city residents, and they can't be employees of the City of Rochester.

But would the mayor be able to remove members of the citizens' board at will? And how much power would the citizens' group have? Would it be able to approve and disapprove the superintendents' proposals, for example, or would it be only an advisory group?

How much input would parents have? In a letter to the governor, Rochester City Council members asked that there be "a mechanism for parents to participate in the hiring and disciplinary process of teachers, principals, and administrators." Morelle said he thinks parents should be guaranteed a role on school-based planning committees. But, he said, "I'm a little uneasy about having parents have veto power over principals or teachers."

The debate will ramp up when the Assembly produces a bill - not only over whether we get mayoral control, but over its shape. The mayor - and the business community, I'd bet - will push for total control. The opponents will push for the status quo. The rest of us can wrestle with these questions: How much power does the mayor need in order to bring about real change? And how much power is too much?