Dear Gramps
You Posted the pages from Schwab’s contract with the house "amendment" as it is addressed in the D.A's letter. Now why when Schwab is going through a divorce would the Council decide to put an amendment into his contract dated 07-13-00? They just one day said lets amend Schwab’s contract. What we will do is take any RDA house he wants and the City will buy it and we will rehab it, (if they did. They do all the others) and carry the loan on it and give it to him as a Happy Divorce surprise. His contract calls it an inducement, Vanella's letter calls it “requiring you to live within the City limits". There is no requirement for any employee to live within the City limits. Then all employees should have the same requirement. My guess is that Schwab cooked the whole deal up because he needed a house because his ex-wife got the one on Raven. How many other amendments have there been to his contracts in the middle of their time. We can't tell because there is no expatriation date. The only time they do anything on his contracts is to overpay raise him. So who do you think is lying to whom? You think Schwab lied to Vanella and said they require me to live in the City limits or Schwab and Vanella cooked up this story to cover the Council and Schwabs collective asses. Whichever it is, it is a violation of RDA law and a lie to boot to do so.
GRAMPS agrees it sniffs of being in the least not in the best interest of the Community's Ethics, and RDA Regulations being side stepped...
