Why the lone “no”?

Did Brue vote “no” for the hire only because of the discrepancies on the resume (a few job descriptions/dates) or some other reason, such as the litigation or the hire cost. Suppose some answers will have to wait until the newspaper or somebody reviews and reports on the Executive Session for us. Paicos was very upfront about the litigation against himself and other Easton officials by a developer that the insurance company ended up settling; they thought it would be cheaper in the long run to do that than to continue litigation. Not knowing the specifics, it’s difficult to determine if that’s a plus or minus. It was a surprise that Mortenson, who had initially voted against the job offer, voted for the hire- looking at the records and talking to-getting answers from Paicos obviously satisfied the questions and reservations he had about the candidate. All five welcomed him and shook his hand. I don’t see Brue’s no vote as something that will hinder the two working together.

It was good to see Harrington defend Brue’s request for Executive Session even if he didn’t fully agree with the text included in the minutes. Also good to see DeVellis drop the proposed Gag Rule and Mortenson clarify what was and wasn’t said about Walsh. Maybe they’ll all be a happy board now.

Is Scollins sticking around?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s