Green Staying On: It Doesn't Add Up

So if ANY person in the entire county would not need Green to hang around for another “week or two” it would be DA Doorley, right?  In fact, Green's presence alone offers Doorley's critics and political opponent’s ammunition to question her credentials, experience, and specifically her decision to let Green stay on the payroll.  (A silly notion in my opinion, but lots of what's said in politics far exceeds silly!)
 
Moreover, Green staying on in this role for such a temporary length of time and drawing a 6-figure salary just doesn't "look good" for Doorley.  Or at least that's what opponents or inquiring constituents can say.  For all the talk of this office not being political this could easily be perceived by some as a political favor to help Green (not Doorley) transition from one job to the next.
 
How often and how long does Green need to be at work?  He's now head of the Appeals Bureau and yet Doorley acknowledged it was essentially a placeholder position when she told me, “I believe that's the title that he was given."  If that's the case, how do taxpayers feel about paying top dollar for that post?  Moreover, how much more needs to be done?  Its been two months and it’s hard to imagine a complete and total overhaul of the office and staff is needed when throughout the campaign Doorley described her vision for the office as being much like Green’s but with “her own mark” on things.

I have a lot of questions and I'm not sure they'll all get answered, but this much I know.  At a press conference on December 19, 2011 Mike Green said a "room-convincing way" that he was leaving the DA's Office at the end of the year.  He was even specifically asked by a colleague of mine if he was going to stay on as Appeals Bureau Chief and without hesitation he said no.
 
Yet here we are wrapping up the first week in January and that's exactly the role Green is filling.  If he's part of the long-term plan for Doorley's office then why would she say he would only be here for “a week or two?”  Moreover, why wouldn't Doorley's office freely broadcast this information to the public as opposed to waiting more than a day to reluctantly confirm that Green had quietly remained on the payroll?

Last May I was correct in saying that Green’s federal confirmation process may not go as smoothly as most everyone expected.  Last July I suggested that Sandra Doorley should’ve been the Democrat’s candidate for DA all along.  Now, after bouncing this up, down, and around in my geeky political brain for two days I’m left with three rather vague conclusions:

1) This doesn't help Doorley’s public image in the first few weeks of her term.
2) This doesn't help Green’s public image either.
3) This doesn't add up.
 
So why?