Back to Rants&Raves
3 July 19
Fay court settlement that should
not have ever happened
RANTS that the county didn't litigate to defend, and didn't take more cases
against one particular public official to court, but opted, way too often, instead
to settle out of court with the supposed persecuted staff.
RANTS, because according to the spouse of one of those civil case
petitioners, that spouse claimed to have used unspecified personal or
political influence of some kind to get the spouse staff hired at the
More of interest, however, was that person's indication that, obviously, there
must have been some significant employment threat, to have felt a need to
use personal or political influence again a second time, or felt some outside
intervention, other than the staff spouse speaking for him or herself, was
needed, for theirs to continue to be a two-income family.
That spouse's recent written declaration to the world, true, was written
during a period of bitter divorce and child support issues, but friends
describe the person as an honest one.
That said, given the recently published words of an honest person, the
county should have litigated the case of the spouse staff, who really could
not have been the cat's meow claimed in civil action against the supposedly
RANTS, if what this spouse claimed is true. No wonder others in charge
moved to settle, not litigate and not hear testimony to have the case thrown
No official should have engaged in contact with a spouse, a non-employee,
not covered under privacy and employee confidentiality.
Later, no official must have wanted his private talks with the spouse to be
mentioned in court. What else can we think?
So in Fay, there was no suit litigated. Just a bit of a settlement for a county
staff, whose spouse told the world, in so many words, was a big screw up at
work, seeming to have been on an obvious brink of being terminated.
RANTS that the truth did not get to come out.
3 Jul 19