View Single Post
  #132  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 2:39 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKirk View Post
Council directed staff to explain the $8,000 vacation payout, not Dreschel.

This payout is not a dead horse. Bratina, only recently revealed the reason himself, in his recent email to the Spec, which raised concerns.
I am not disputing whether or not council asked in camera for the review. I am saying that Dreschel's article is exploiting the rumblings he hears through anonymous sources to try to get more legs to what is essentially a non-story.

Last November, Council asked for an explanation on the legality of Chapman's $30,000 raise, and they were told it was legal. In March they have directed staff for an explanation of the pay in lieu of vacation time (allegedly - if the request is made in camera it is not supposed to be discussed publicly), and there is absolutely no reason to believe the outcome will be any different. In the unlikely event that staff come back next week saying the payment in lieu of vacation was improper, then there may be a story.

Personally, I would be more comfortable if council was directing staff in a manner that would be more productive than simply conducting pointless political witch hunts. I for one would love to know how a receptionist ended up on the $100,000 sunshine list, and how it came to be that over 700 employees of the City came to be on this list.
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote