I would think that the suit was iffy too. And she was correct that any legal action on her part would greatly limit her future job choices. (And that's not just a management deal, for many companies its an insurance issue also). And they gave her a fat 'golden parachute' - that's the bird in the hand that is worth more than two in the bush deal. And, lacking any sort of strong trans protection act, an 'at will' contract in a 'right to (no) work' state is almost always going to be upheld in court, much less an 'at the pleasure of' clause. She signed that contract, she can't do much about that. And, certainly a city manager would be knowledgeable as to the exact legal ramifications of such language in a contract. Matter of fact, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she had her senior executive level staff sign off on similar language when they were hired. (People who work at top jobs in the White House are asked - often, as the first thing they do - to write a letter of resignation with a blank date, just to re-enforce that 'at the pleasure of' language. i.e. "your done here as soon as I fill in today's date.)
In the DoR speech, like some of her other talks, she does demonstrate a failure of the first rule of public speaking - know who you are talking to and why. Had she gone in and said "I know this is not going to be popular, but its what I feel I must say.." (in which case she would not be surprised that she got 'booed' but would have not only expected it, but would have planned for it) she would have had my upmost respect and admiration even if I disagreed with 105% of what she said. I'm very fond of people who tell the truth as they know it, even if they are wrong. Heck, I've been there.
I wish she would have reached out and found me a few years ago when I could have at least made suggestions in the direction of 'things she might want to read, because she might want to know what others have been through - at the very least." I could have pointed her in any number of directions that might have at least made her understand something a bit different than what she thought. I've been helped Big-Time throughout the years by all the drag-queens, old queens, TS/CD/TG, GG, andro, gay, lesbian, who knows and whatevers, and all-the-others too, I've met. But to get that acceptance that leads to insight, analysis, information or even true knowledge, you have to give it first in common practice. You have to join in, be a part, participate, 'be here now,' and be on their level, in their space, and not expect them to move to yours. This I know.
And I'm not 'booing' her, though had she made some of those statements in front of me, I would have. At a public event - & giving a speech is a public event in a democratic and pluralistic nation - the audience is entitled to whatever response they feel is correct, or feel moved to express. And I'm not about to give up my right to tell a public speaker what I think of their views, no matter who I am, no matter what they are. Any good public speaker can at least defend their positions I would think (so would Plato).
I'm sure she was not accustomed to anyone ever contradicting her in any manner, as is per standard practice when dealing with your boss who has control over your job, your pay, your advancement, and your career. I'm not the only person who has ever been in an environment where the boss man or boss lady comes in and chews everyone out and does that "Yadda, Yadda, Yadda" deal where everyone is going "Yes boss, no boss, sure thing boss" only to call them some very naughty names and suggest some pretty vile, if not anatomically impossible acts, the instant they leave the room. We have ALL been there.
Though its taught in every B-School and management class she seemed to forget that 'people respect the position not the personality." (that's really important here, so I put it in bold) It never dawned on her that all those people who knew her and were nice, well when you control jobs, salary, advancement, 'plum assignments,' and $$$contracts$$$$ that can be $AWESOMELY$ ($fantastically$ - civic contracts are often absurd, as anyone who has been involved with the problem of government costs knows) lucrative$$$$$ that people might be being nice to you because they're just looking out for number one, and number one ain't you?
And, if your looking for some sympathy here in the USA, in 2007, don't cry at me because your not making $140K and can't keep up that standard of living.
(And, Kate, these things were also bothering me when I said, 'gee, I would not really want to know her." But I say again, I don't reject people in real life. Had I met her, if I met her, I would/will be very gracious as such is my nature. Still, I tend to have a lot more sympathy for people who just got the short end of the stick, and tried to work that, then people who made choices without thinking them through or investigating (like in a google age that is very hard either) what is possible given that choice.
