Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Or is it more likely everybody agrees to no freeze because they can use one set of numbers to make it look like they'd be getting slight reduction in pay. But then they can use the other numbers that everyone knew were just as applicable as the first set to get themselves a decent raise. Happy accident. We actually get a raise!
Either way, Nenshi et al look dumb. They weren't seeing anything through the trees in this matter.
|
They only look dumb if you don't actual follow what happened.
Sutherland talks about a 2.6% potential increase and proposes a pay freeze. Not Farkas.
Someone else says that they may be looking at a reduction anyways (ergo a payfreeze would be beneficial, this appears to be a mistake by the CFO), they defeat the motion. Pretty much everyone agrees that they won't take a pay increase, but will wait for actual numbers. Extremely reasonable.
There's really three sides of the debate:
- Those who don't think that the council should have any right to adjust their pay, good or bad and leave it out of their hand. (Perfectly reasonable position)
- Those who don't want to get a payraise. (Perfectly reasonable position)
- And Farkas' side which is being a dingle.
Some of the council members already donate a bunch of their salary back anyways.