Military liaison’s contract raises questions

Dear editor –

This is in response to the article “council approves military liaison’s contract” dated Oct. 30. During a previous council meeting Oct. 8, the council voted 3 to 1 to not approve Marty Anderson’s contract.

The mayor then put it back on the next council meeting’s agenda. Why? Is this the way the mayor gets what he wants?

The mayor had invited Jag Prakasam via Skype and representatives from MAC and several affluent city members. Very few known to me have ever been to a council meeting.

There were no citizens recognized in the audience that used the three minutes to express any concerns. Maybe it was because they felt they had no chance of competing with Jag Prakasam’s comments before their time?

Alan Bermensolo and one MAC representative had been personally invited by the mayor to speak in his own unspecified time frame as did Prakasam before the audience’s comments.

Did the mayor invite these so-called elite citizens to manipulate and intimidate the city council? Councilman Scott Harjo appeared to struggle with his decision and ultimately changed his previous “nay” vote to “aye,” which caused a tie, giving the mayor control of the vote extending Anderson’s contract.

An alleged TORT claim dependent on ICRMP’s findings. The council asked the clerk and attorney, both denied knowing anything. Clerk said it was an HR issue, and Marty Anderson’s allegation could not be discussed in an open meeting.

Why didn’t the council table the decision pending more information and discussed in an executive session? The mayor has stated the city council runs the city… Not!

Allen H. Bump, Mountain Home