Put a representative for the people at the table

Dear Editor, In response to the opinion “Sometimes less is better,” the call to possibly offer the citizens of Lewistown an option to adopt an alternative form of government was not “initiated by a faction of Lewistown citizenry who felt their voices were going unheard.” It was initiated by a majority of Lewistown citizens in an election. The writer also states a mayor could be persuaded to take the positions on behalf of a vocal minority and sway the commissioners in their decisions. I think it is a wonderful idea that the mayor would speak on behalf of the people to the Commission. I don’t view that as a problem; I view it as a representative at the table for the people, something that has been missing in the past. The writer suggests that the Chief Administrative Officer will receive $60,000 a year; nothing in the charter suggests that. The CAO will perform duties delegated by the mayor and the commission will set his/her salary, hopefully in proportion to his/her delegated responsibilities. The Commission also sets the mayor’s salary. Referencing the News-Argus article of Saturday, Oct. 1, Dan Clark was explaining the two forms of government. He made the statement that the biggest difference (between the two forms of government) is a manager that works under the direction of the commission to a mayor who is accountable to the citizens. I, for one, want the person who is executing, administering and running the city government accountable to the people. Frank Westhoff Lewistown



Where is your favorite place to go camping in Central Montana?