| Comments | Created |
|---|---|
To clarifyJoann, I thank you for your concerns and appreciate your interest in this article, but the real question isn't whether she's the City Clerk or not (Ms. Haraksin is the City Clerk if you have ever read the agendas and have called City Hall, which you have failed to do), it is whether her salary is justified for the city's size and for her responsibilities. I don't claim to have all the answers yet, hence why I am investigating this. What you were reading is not the actual story, but a pitch. So just sit back and let me do what I can.on: Should a City Clerk Be Paid $106,988? |
August 24, 2010 |
I just checked nowObviously, you don't read public records, so if she's not the city clerk, then how come her documents, including this week's city council agenda, are signed Anne Haraksin, City Clerk? So tell me if that's not her title, then why does she sign her documents with City Clerk? Even Tom Robinson, the city manager, acknowledges she's the City Clerk. So are you saying that Tom Robinson is lying? Hmmm? Hmmm? By the way, if you're trying to do this out of antagonism, then I suggest you're not even trying to be helpful at all. It's one thing to question, but to suggest that I don't know my facts is obviously outrageous.on: Should a City Clerk Be Paid $106,988? |
August 24, 2010 |
How about yourself?Excuse me, last time I checked her title was City Clerk.on: Should a City Clerk Be Paid $106,988? |
August 24, 2010 |
