I write with reference to the recent article regarding the outrageous remuneration paid to the principal of City College Brighton and Hove

(The Argus, February 7).

A reply given to me by the college states that the facts in the original article were not correct. But nor are the facts in its reply to me all correct either.

Concerning the method by which the principal's remuneration is decided, it is true and accepted that the college's remuneration committee is responsible for the decision - as is usually the case in large organisations.

This doesn't mean a decision to raise the principal's remuneration by ten per cent is acceptable or politic, especially when ordinary staff members only got rises of 2.8 per cent.

I know this is true because my husband is a technician at the college. The principal's payrise is just short of his entire salary.

Morale at the college is appalling enough as it is but when it states that the staff received a salary increase of between six and nine per cent, it is wrong and won't alleviate the staff feeling denigrated and undervalued.

How can 2.8 per cent possibly be equivalent to six or seven, or eight and nine per cent?

-Name and address supplied