"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Monday 10 September 2012

Heard Right

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Here's A Couple Of Thoughts":

In the past day or so, I heard that a top by-law enforcement person was no longer doing that job & that Council was not informed. So I will stick a reluctant toe into this dangerous pond & ask just what staff employment Council is responsible for handling. Has it all been handed to top staff people with no input from Council? These are people who work for the town of Aurora. Why are other Staff given the right to deal with their disposition? Who works for whom? Is there a captain on board?

*************
Council is responsible for appointments of the Executive leadership team.
Except for  the solicitor. The CAO has authority to choose  the solicitor.
Council is not informed when people come and go.
Can't say I am satisfied with the system.
In the last term I heard of someone fired
Didn't hear why. Actually, was refused the why. .
Heard he received sufficient severance to pay off his mortgage and buy a new car and  he walked into a new job with better pay in a neighbouring municipality within a  month.
Sounded plausible. They guy was a long term employee. Never heard any complaints about him. 

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the big league Ev. The "why" is an HR issue and no matter who you are, you should not need to know. Sometimes things are private.

If he was paid severance, it must have been a "without cause" issue. So, it was nothing to do with something against the rules.

Anonymous said...

10:17 AM If I am thinking of the same individual, that severance was only paid after a legal tussle. He had simply taken too much garbage and still had to fight to get any severance. So please do not assume " a without cause ". Such an assumption rules out your conclusion and weakens your attempted put-down of Evelyn.

Anonymous said...

11:22 AM If the person that you are thinking about is indeed the case, then even your comments prove out my point. Severance is not paid if there was "cause". If there was clearly an issue of cause it would be open and shut. Regardless, why should coucillors be told why someone was dimissed if it was an HR issue? We are not living in the 1960s, there is a thing called Work Standards.

Anonymous said...

This reads as though someone took a swing at Evelyn & whopped him/herself in the nose. About time!