[markbarbera]

Equally truthful is that she was paid less than her two predecessors in her first year in the position.

Those who are committed (committable?) Bratina detractors will categorize this as a 30% pay raise, when in fact it is an adjustment to more accurately reflect the pay she should receive for the duties she performs. When I tweeted former mayor Larry DiIanni for his comment on how the new salary compares to the salaries of staff in previous mayors' offices, he tweeted back that he thought "the salary is very much in line", but added "It's the sudden jump that jolts". I tend to agree with that summary.

If we can set the record straight, DiIanni's chief of staff made roughly $105,000 in 2005, seven years prior to the year Chapman will be making $120,000, so, after adjusting for inflation, you can see how this is in line with what former staff were paid several years ago. As far as Eisenberger's chief of staff goes, he may have been under the 100K sunshine cut-off, but if memory serves, he also had additional salaried staff supporting that role, whereas Chapman is assuming all responsibilities on her own for Bratina.

When Bratina first came to office, he deliberately went lean with his staff in an effort to minimize his office budget. At the time, he was criticized by his detractors for under-staffing his office. Now, a year later, he is fine-tuning the staffing (while still maintaining a tight budget) and the detractors are up in arms over that.