Willie Williams

* Did anyone else notice the line in the April 3 story on the City Council’s refusal to pay Chief Willie Williams to leave early that stated: “It reflected an unusual coalition of Williams’ opponents, who wanted to deny him any payout, and supporters, who wanted to take an action that would preserve the chief’s ability to sue the city but who lacked the votes to give him a substantial severance package.”

I could be wrong, but I’m sure somewhere in a City Council member’s job description, there must be some mention of being responsible to act in the best interest of the city. It’s unfortunate that their friend’s contract didn’t get renewed, but an open-ended lawsuit is hardly the forum to address such an issue. Taxpayers are liable for whatever a jury could decide is fair.

Maybe someone could explain why the original contract never addressed a specific buyout clause in case it wasn’t renewed for any reason, to avoid just this sort of predicament. Is it the council’s practice to resort to attorneys only after the fact to clean up their messes instead of just consulting with one first? I’m sure we have at least one on the payroll.

FRED DOBROWITSKY

Valencia

* I am compelled to admit wonder and astonishment regarding Williams’ future and the severance issue. The basis for this discussion has broad implications. Think of the impact it will have on the publishing industry. Now they will have to change or perhaps enhance the definition of the word “contract.”

Have I missed some grievous matter inflicted upon Williams that would warrant anything beyond what is called for in his employment agreement with Los Angeles?

JOHN EVERETT

Agoura Hills