As someone pointed out to me the Mayor did have an exec sec (executive secretary), but she was moved to a new department, not fired. I would think that if someone wasn’t doing their job they would be fired not moved. She was moved with the understanding that it would only be temporary, and before you know it, she is staying in her new job, with the same pay that she was getting as the exec sec to the Mayor. Now before all of you jump on me, yes the Mayor should have someone he can work with, but just remember he appointed an assistant to the Mayor, who I would think is someone who should be doing many of the things the exec sec was doing.
If the old exec sec were insufficient in her job, if she was lacking then it would be appropriate to fire her. Hell, they do get reviewed right, I would think that when they are hired, they are hired with the understanding in their job description, that whoever they work for that they have this, and this to do, end of subject. If you are not doing your job, out the door you go. You are the Mayor of our city; you are supposed to find a way to work with what you have? She was in your office for one year, if you found her unsatisfactory in her job, why was she not fired, why was she moved to another department. I keep saying she was not doing her job, because I just can’t think of any other reason for getting rid of someone who was there doing the job before you became the Mayor. As long as she was doing what you put in the Skills, and Duties section of the job description, I do not understand why she was moved. If she was not doing those things then why was she not fired?