The editorial written by Jacinda Howard (Oct. 7) chastising the city council for passing a resolution opposing the elected mayor proposition is wrong, shortsighted and a disservice to the citizens of the city, the way I see it.

Who knows better the potential impact of this major change than the people involved in actually governing the city? As a voter, I want to know their opinion. That’s why we elected them. They were elected to do what is best for the city. If this change is going to have a positive or negative effect on the city in their judgement, it is their obligation to provide that information to us. They deal with this day in and day out. They probably know how it will affect us more than either the proponents or opponents who have their own interests to serve.

As far as I can tell, the council met the legal and ethical requirements to hold the meeting and they gave both sides the chance to present their opinions. The council then gave each council member time to explain their position. At the end, the vote was six to one. It seems to me six minds who independently come to a decision is better than one who has a personal interest in the result by previously announcing he wants to be the mayor.

For The Mirror to imply there was something wrong by rendering a collective opinion at the conclusion of a properly called meeting is questionable, in my opinion. We have a right to know what our elected officials think in their role as elected representatives, and I’m glad I now know. In this matter, I think it would have been wrong to recuse themselves from a vote. It helps me make up my mind.

Loren Colwell, Federal Way