When the matter of dismissing a 17-year veteran employee can take place without the knowledge of members of the City Council, there is an inherent problem with local government that must be addressed (“Quiet exit for Poulsbo’s planning director,” page A1, Sept. 2 Herald).

As a relative new resident/member of the Poulsbo community, I have admired Mayor Erickson for her efforts in listening to her constituents during her Saturday morning sessions, which is refreshing and which I have participated more than once.

However, as a former mayor of a small city which was incorporated under the City Manager/Mayor/Council form of local government, I suggest there are danger signs in a system which allows unilateral action by an individual of government, in this case our mayor, the absolute authority of making a decision as mentioned herein.

The question immediately arises: What other actions might our mayor make without council approval?

Can the mayor make unilateral and unchecked decisions on new development submissions by builders and developers?

Can the mayor approve changes and alterations to existing previously approved subdivision designs, densities or other issues pertaining to city growth?

I raise these issues because the basic premise of America’s democratic form of government calls for checks and balances in the manner in which government is conducted.

Where then are the checks and balances in Poulsbo’s government? Why do we have a City Council, if not to speak for its citizens? How is it that a key employee can be dismissed without the knowledge of even one member of the council?

After all, our government is designed to work for us, its citizens, and as such we are entitled to answers from the mayor and City Council on all such matters, and not after the fact.

Without those answers, we have government akin to a monarchy.

Bill Effinger
Poulsbo

Editor’s note: Bill Effinger is a former mayor of Buena Park, California.