The Trib's Jeremy Boren reports, "Cassidy offered parking authority post". Whereas salaries and job titles were uncertain before, 23-year old O'Connor loyalist-now interim mayoral spokesperson Joanna Doven released the info on salaries and position titles for Dobkin and Cassidy. One point, however, I don't get in Boren's report:
Cassidy, 51, shares a Point Breeze home with Ravenstahl's former Director of Operations Dennis Regan, a close O'Connor friend. Regan resigned Dec. 1 after Ravenstahl suspended him in October amid accusations that he meddled in a disciplinary matter involving Cassidy's brother, Frank Rende, a city police officer.How about this from Judge Ambrose's preliminary injunction ruling on the McNeilly-Regan-Ravenstahl case (h/t to The Burgher for the originally posting of the poignant quote):
The accusations weren't proven.
"Furthermore, let me make something very clear. Contrary to how some may perceive this case, this case is not about corruption in the Police Department. It is about allegations of wrongdoing and improper and undue influence by officials within the Mayor's office in Police Department matters."Is there some semantic difference I am missing that allows Boren to write, "The accusations weren't proven"? Haven't we been through this already? Doesn't reporting like this give the public the impression that the issue was just about some accusations that were later proven untrue. Those accusations only cost $85,000 in taxpayer money, right? The cost of the lawyer's fees, additional details that follow, and the story, altogether, is then sunk, not because it describes corruption within the mayor's office but because it no longer is a sexy story? Am I off here?