Still smells rotten

Dear Editor,

Thanks Mayor Berry -- what an exquisite explanation of why we should keep the present city manager.

I think you were trying to say the process was flawed, but then you go on to say "if council members COULD HAVE done it differently, they probably would have informed the public."

Well, Mr. Berry, the process was not flawed. The interview process required applicants to participate in a public interview, which three did. These applicants were talked about during the regular City Council sessions and the Gazette wrote an article about each one's qualifications (Applicants Face City Council, McCook Gazette 2/23/06).

I'm convinced, as are most people I talk to, that this was indeed a covert attempt to keep the public in the dark. How else do you explain the councilmen adjourning executive session with a signed contract on the 6th of March -- the same night the council voted on approving the contract?

The salary, vacation time and sick leave excuse is nothing but laughable. I'm glad you decided to stay away from the moving expense issue.

Mr. Bingham himself recommended that the position be "open until filled," so much for the deadline. As far as I'm concerned the process was not flawed. It was the people running the process that caused the process to be flawed.

And it's time the citizens of McCook stand up and fix this problem.

As far as litigation, you are probably right. Our best bet is to bite the bullet once again and pay Mr. Bingham four months' severance pay as stated in the employment contract (section 16). The situation we are presently in is not Mr. Bingham's fault. I'm sure he expected the members of the City Council to be open and honest with him also. They owe Mr. Bingham as well as the citizens of McCook an apology.

If you care about McCook, please attend the city council meeting on April 3 and let your voice be known.

Kirt Matson

McCook