Originally Posted by markbarbera
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.
I agree that Dreschel seems out to get Bratina, but I have no problem reading through his opinion and putting the facts into context . Dreschel, much like a Bill Kelly, opines, and that's fine. Knowing that, it's easy enough to expect it (whether you agree with the poinion or not) , and to cut through the bull when necessary.
So, while I get what people like Dreschel and Kelly are paid to do, and I disagree with both of them often enough, the story here is the mayor and his actions and words. He has a completely different standard to uphold.
BTW, IIRC I think I read somewhere that the receptionist was the recipient of a legal settlement, specifics of which were not divulged for confidentiality reasons.