There was, inevitably, a certain amount of spin and bluster as KCC's PR machine sought to put the best possible gloss on the disclosure that KCC's former managing director Katherine Kerswell received a £420,000 payoff after less than two years in post.
It was a pretty thankless task. The efforts to portray it as all part of a well-organised and money-saving restructure will not have persuaded many taxpayers that this was an exercise in well-thought through financial prudency.
Particularly unpersuasive was the assertion that KCC was forced into making the payout because of restrictive employment legislation and because it didn't want to risk a costly employment tribunal. If both sides had mutually agreed that the role of group MD was to be abolished, why would there be a risk of an employment tribunal? If the managing director's post was made redundant, what would have been the statutory entitlement to redundancy pay for her 18 months in post?
A similar argument about restrictive employment law was made when KCC admitted it had paid £365,000 to its former highways director Adam Wilkinson, who left after a year in post. It doesn't appear many lessons were learned.
KCC's problem is that it has form in this area. And it is not a distinguished track record. Some might consider that it has at times been almost dysfunctional in dealing with executive pay - there is a suspicion that the de fault position for County Hall politicians when they are confronted by a high-profile personnel difficulty is to throw as much money at it as possible to make it go away.
The council employed Katherine Kerswell at a time when it knew full well that financial storm clouds were gathering for local government and central government was rattling a few cages about town hall fat cats.
Indeed, after the departure of Peter Gilroy - who, lest we forget, received a one-off payment of £200,000 on the day he left the job - the Conservatives actually discussed not appointing a successor to save money but eventually decided it was a step too far. (Mr Gilroy's £200k actually cost the taxpayer £408,000).
Her appointment was hailed as a "worthy successor" to Mr Gilroy but back then, even Ms Kerswell would not expecting that in less than two years she would be on her way out.
The public explanation is that her departure was a result of the restructuring operation she had masterminded with KCC leader Paul Carter to slim down the authority in the face of budget cutbacks and in particular to chop away at the top-heavy management tiers. You could say she became a victim of her own operation.
Behind the scenes, however, there was said to be growing disgruntlement (whether legitimate or not, no-one knows) among some in the Conservative group about the former MD and that came to a head during the Conservative leadership contest last October - two months before it was announced she was to leave.
It is worth remembering KCC's lamentable attempt to deny that its MD was to leave - issuing a statement flatly contradicting the reports - last November, then just a week or two later confirming that she was - events that hardly gave the impression that KCC had been engaged in a properly and carefully considered exercise.
Whatever contract KCC signed with Katherine Kerswell, it was clearly one that failed the taxpayer. So, who approved it and who signed it? When the council complains that it doesn't have the resources for some services, taxpayers should perhaps remind it of one of the reasons it may be a little short of money.
Looking ahead, Conservatives at County Hall may well find that when they come to next year's local election and - as they surely will - tell us that Conservative-run councils cost you less, voters on the doorstep may be just a tad cynical.