Letter: City Council failing public
I read the (Feb. 1) article, "Colusa councilman won't run again; blasts consultant."
As an honorably retired law enforcement officer, I found the article very disturbing. In the article, Mark Mayuga made a statement confirming he met in "closed session" with the Colusa City Council. If this was the Jan. 16, 2012, meeting on the Martin Luther King holiday, it was legally posted as a "closed session" meeting for the specific purpose of discussing the city manager's performance evaluation and only for that reason.
If Mark Mayuga was there and had a confrontation with council member (Kirk) Kelleher, it was not a closed session meeting, and the public had a right to be there. If that was the same date as the city manager's performance evaluation on Jan. 16, this is a violation of the Brown Act.
The public should not have been misinformed and had the right to attend. There was no mention of either Mark Mayuga or Calmetha on the public posting for the closed session agenda on Jan. 16, 2012, or any other closed session since March 2011. This definitely tends to indicate this action of misleading the public and its untruthfulness was done on purpose. This should not have occurred.
I attended the Jan. 17, 2012, City Council meeting. The council did not report out on the "closed session" meeting and it was not listed on the Jan. 17, 2012, agenda. There was no disclosure at all.
Whoever scheduled this "closed session" meeting, allowing Mark Mayuga in attendance, is not worthy of the public's trust and confidence and should not be part of Colusa city government. That government belongs to the people.
Based on the information in the article, it establishes where the loyalties are of some of the council members who support Mark Mayuga. The money being paid for his contract is not city money, it is the people's money.
Two questions need to be asked and the public has a right to know the answers. First, who established the agenda for the "closed session" meeting? Second, who allowed Mark Mayuga to enter the "closed session " meeting, for the purpose of discussing the city manager's performance evaluation?
Elected and appointed public officials have to be held to a higher standard of conduct and performance. The public has an expectation of good government, using sound professional judgment and good decision making for the good of the people, not a select few.
This incident casts a shadow of doubt on that ability to consistently perform in the best interest of the people's business.
Gary M. Teragawa, Colusa