1 On Aug 3, 08:28 pm, Davey Jones wrote:

Good ole Nick, whose ass are you trying to save now.

Maybe you can raise the rest of the dead from the bowls of misdeeds that sank this county to economic ruin when you and Bakkensen ran it dry.

Good one Nick. Our old friend Tommy is rolling in his grave over this one.

You must be close to the edge, ole friend. Lets waist some more money.

From the Locker

3 On Aug 5, 10:45 am, THartill wrote:

Well the line after that says:

But there’s a larger issue involved, and that is the outdated system that makes such reductions possible. This system has resulted in nonsensical disparities among the salaries of district attorneys across the state.

And then the conclusion:

.....the idea of eliminating county subsidies and making district attorneys reliant on a higher level of state compensation makes sense. A better alternative would be to set the pay for district attorneys from all counties at the same level as the pay for trial judges, who make the same amount regardless of which county they serve.

These seem like the main points they were trying to get across in the editorial in my mind…...But if you think you can sum it up better in one sentence, I’ll erase mine and post yours.

his wife made an unsuccessful run in the last election against one of the commissioners who approved the final decision to eliminate the district attorney’s supplement

If Cindy didn’t run….most likely it would have happened the same way. If Cindy had won, then again, most likely it would have happened the same way (3-1 vote instead of 4-1)

I think Josh does have a “legitimate gripe” about the way it was brought up, but saying “politics played a key role”.....I mean come on, it’s all politics…Duh…