www.thelocalplanet.com/Archives/News_and_Opinion/Articl -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 11/27/2003
Last Visited: 12/29/2003
City Attorney Mike Connelly, who, being ethically bound to do so, admitted he is one of the 19 to benefit from the severance pay, said he believes there's nothing wrong with these contracts and the Council should honor them.In fact, he thinks that under a 1983 ordinance it would be illegal for the Council to void them-something Council member Rogers sought to do tonight.Council President Obvious then added, "Severance contracts are nothing new in the City of Spokane; [they're] used as an enticement" to get people to leave secure positions for at-will ones.Higgins explained this because he's been "watching the news," and there's a lot of misinformation out there about this. (Such as: life is about making choices and living with the consequences.)
Rogers cut to the chase over this "misinformation," explaining in simple terms that under the original contracts, $199,000 would have been paid out, but now, because they were given retroactive effect to the date of first original hire, these City employees will receive $550,000 if all were to be let go by the new incoming Mayor.She also pointed out the 1983 ordinance Connelly impliedly threatens the Council with was part of the City Manager form of government and no longer applicable.In the end, though, the issue was deferred so that outside legal council could be consulted.Councilman Eugster suggested that if a local attorney wasn't available, the City should use someone he knows over in Seattle.The Council agreed. (Is history that easily forgotten?Does anyone remember what happened last time, a little over three years ago, when Eugster suggested an attorney he knew from Seattle work on a City matter?