March 20, 2013Dear Sir,I had written a letter to The Royal Gazette in regard to the story on the front page in today’s newspaper in regard to paying the Mayor, Aldermen and Councilmen of the City of Hamilton, in which I blathered on in the mistake that the above mentioned people now wanted to be paid for jobs they had volunteered for in the first place. I wrote silly things like “were these people forced to take positions that were without pay? Did the Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors wake up the morning after they were voted in, go into their new offices and then reel back in horror when they discovered there was no fat salary?”Imagine my horror to find that I had the wrong end of the stick — or rather there is a ‘fine difference’ between what I had imagined and the real facts of the case — which are that these worthy gentleman, and I quote, ‘do not believe they should be paid … [but] a report suggests they should be paid’. Well, I am glad that is now clear.But I now wonder, then why bother with the story in the first place? I take it this report was not forced on the gentlemen in question? Who paid for it? Was it the Mayor, Aldermen and Councilmen? If it was, then another question springs to mind; if they are not angling toward being paid, then why would they ask for the report or listen to the report?It seems to me that this report is the first chess move by people who took a job without pay and now want to be paid. Let us see what the near future will bring us; will I be right …. or wrong? Will they pay themselves?MARK EMMERSONPembroke