Old Timer, you have the advantage on me of anonymity, and the ability to print speculation as if it was fact (not to mention that I have to operate under certain confidentiality obligations that prevent me from revealing everything that went into the investigation). But I can correct some errors in your post above. We did not "let the union make a decision"; we reacted to the reality of the heavy pro-union bias of the State's grievance system. Your "suspicion" is wrong; the head of the union made clear it WOULD support the employee all the way up the appeal chain to the State. The lawyer who advised us, Tom Mooney, is one of the best-respected school system lawyers in the State, with 35 years experience negotiating with unions (he represented us in our victory over the union in the recent contract arbitration). So they key statements in the post above are demonstrably false. View Comment

Accepting a resignation when not doing so, due to union rules, would have cost us far more money in pay and legal fees, was the right (if uncomfortable) thing to do. Restitution was made. It's easy to stay on the moral 'high horse' when you don't have the responsibility to deal with tough situations, and can haughtily comment on them from the sidelines. View Comment

Regarding this statement in the article: "Three Democratic members, Matt Miklave, John Igneri and Warren Peña all abstained, because they and other council members said they were disappointed that city department heads were not present at the hearing to answer spending request questions." Just for the record, the Board of Education's department head (Interim Superintendent Daddona), and our COO (Elio Longo) WERE there and answered an extensive set of questions from the Council members. View Comment