Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Malin Thing

Malin to get cost-of-living increase -QCTimes

In my view either:

A. Malin pulled the world's greatest bluff, daring the council to go to court over whether his raise was legit, and if it was, for him to get $600,000.

B. His raise WAS legit, and the council made a mistake earlier


I'd suspect the answer is B. Malin really isn't the thief type, despite what various disgruntled employees say about him. I always thought it was humorous that the same types of people who always railed against the city legal department on the blogs suddenly took Thee's word as gospel when it was against someone they hate even more, Craig Malin.

As people have said before, this whole thing came down to some aldermen wanting Malin gone. Also, the QCTimes played the part of instigator instead of investigator, throwing fuel on the fire and selling papers like hotcakes. Hamerlinck and Company don't like the fact that our administrator isn't a drone who takes no initiative. There's an argument to be made that a city administrator is only supposed to do what the council says. That said, our city could elect a council full of people who can't read a sentence, much less come up with an original idea. (At least one ward already has.) In that scenario, do we want an automaton that can only do what he's told, or an innovative city administrator that can come up with new ideas on his own? We have a professional run our city to keep our amateur city councils from doing too much damage, so I'm pretty opposed to the council taking power away from the pros and giving it to themselves.

I wonder if he'll still give the raises to charity...

6 Comments:

At 10/10/2006 12:39 PM, Blogger WindingHills said...

More pics. of hot chicks.

JK

 
At 10/10/2006 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you, I believe the answer is B. I think that Craig Malin was the brunt of malicious politics from the against everything crew on the council. The QC Times did an injustice to Mr. Malin with their vicious reporting.

 
At 10/10/2006 1:39 PM, Blogger Huck Finn said...

QCI, I suspect you are correct with answer B. Not surprisingly enough, the answer from council seems to be, "It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong...I am not a big man." [Name the movie!]

I also would have thought we'd see more insight from the QCT. Instead, they smelled something foul and didn't look to see what stunk.

 
At 10/10/2006 3:06 PM, Blogger QuadCityImages said...

It seems to me that THEY (the QCT) should have found some old judges or hired a lawyer to look things over, instead of just saying that the city said one thing and Malin another.

Also, Malin shouldn't have done the whole charity thing, which only enraged people and made it look more like he had done something wrong.

 
At 10/10/2006 4:05 PM, Blogger Huck Finn said...

Escrow would have been a better place to put the money. Donating it is taking ownership of the money. If it wasn't his money, then it was the city's money. And donating the city's money is making a financial decision with the city's money without council's approval.

 
At 10/10/2006 8:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winding Hills you're a pig.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home