I would suggest that those trying to remove Pacific Mayor Cy Sun from office are doing so for a different reason than stated in the article (“Council, union cast vote of no confidence in Pacific mayor”, Auburn Reporter, April 27).

I ask myself: Is he simply disliked by the powers-that-be in Pacific for his intent to “clean house” there?

The reasons laid out by the Auburn Reporter for Mr. Sun’s situation in office are his “… unprofessional behavior, outbursts, slanders of citizens, organizations, business owners, other city representatives and council members …” seem to be nothing more than opinion — and most especially, the opinion of the City Council members.

A “hostile work environment” is difficult to prove. Leaders have an obligation to lead first, be “popular” second — or has that changed?

If Mr. Sun’s personal style is so abrasive, perhaps we could bear in mind that he survived Korea, where gentler souls might have perished. He deserves the respect owed a war veteran. His ouster would be marked only by the muscle of seven against one. Even in war, that’s not fair behavior.

I suspect that the City Council members are feeling good about themselves about the situation. But the outcome leaves me feeling unsettled. Why wasn’t Mr. Sun given more time to “make good?” Perhaps more important, why did Pacific citizens elect a man they did not intend to let do his job?

I come away from the article feeling that Mr. Sun’s situation was not likely executed due to Mr. Sun’s quirky behaviors, nor by the general citizenry of Pacific, but by a group of influential municipal office holders with a solid investment in avoiding the consequences of a house-cleaning mayor.

– Kathleen Hamilton