Not that I had my “underpants in a knot” but I did ask the question if the Mediation Sessions were
A) Done Legally and if they were B) Done Pro Bono
I thought that those were reasonable questions that a fair and balanced person might ask in this case.
Today the Column Blog informs us that they were in fact done Pro Bono and confirms the information Jen Myers provided on my BLOG 2 Days ago (faster than today’s Sun Column BLOG)..that The Open Meeting Law doesn’t apply to government officials such as a city manager.
So with all this information out there why is there a need for an Executive Session and why isn’t the SUN asking that question?
In the case of Walter Baylis the SUN and Chris Scott have made no attempt to hide the fact that they think he should have been gone so they are happy with the result. They seem to have adopted the don’t ask, don’t tell position.
Atty. Gallager is correct when he says in the Column BLOG post that ““If this had ended up in court, it would have been an absolute fiasco and made the city look dumb to the rest of the commonwealth,” and had the issue ended up in court it would have only “deepened the divide between the Hatfields and McCoys
Wanna know what I think should have your ” Knickers in a knot” and undies in a bunch?
The fact that BOTH the Manager and Mr. Bayliss waged PUBLIC Campaigns about his removal and now BOTH are hiding and keeping this settlement a secret.
You both played up your parts in the media, now let all of us see what you settled for.
Who exactly is hiding and what is it they are hiding?
I’d like to see BOTH sides agree to make this settlement 100% Public so the whispering campaigns on both sides get put to rest.
Is the City on the hook for Mr. Bayliss’s Atty fees?
Did Mr. Bayliss REALLY have the option to stay?
I’m hoping Mr. Bayliss attends the meeting tomorrow night and demands that this whole agreement be made public.
He like the Manager has carried on a public campaign about his removal, so now what are they apparently BOTH trying to hide?