The centerpiece of the meeting was a public hearing pursuant to section 18 of the city’s charter concerning the removal of Camo from her position. This followed a preliminary resolution adopted on May 7, where reasons for her removal were cited. The hearing allowed Camo and her representative one hour to refute the removal, but the process was mired in confusion regarding the format and timing of their presentation, which was limited to a letter and a PowerPoint without any audiovisual aids.

Camo’s representative highlighted the difficulties faced due to the requirement to submit materials three days in advance, which they argued was not standard practice for council presentations. A specific email from May 24 was referenced.

The city attorney underscored the importance of reviewing materials in advance to ensure their relevance and appropriateness for the commission, stating that such a review was a normal and necessary part of a fair process. However, Camo’s representative contended they were initially informed that no such specific rules or procedures would apply to the hearing, questioning the need for requirements.

Amidst these discussions, there were calls to open public comments while the council awaited the documents. A council member expressed frustration with the extraordinary circumstances of the case and the perceived lack of clear guidance from the city attorney.

Members of the public voiced their disappointment with the council’s approach to the hearing. One individual lamented the missed opportunity to hear a formal presentation from Camo, expressing their expectation to hear her defense in person. Another echoed this sentiment, expressing their disillusionment with the council and its decisions that seemingly ignored the overwhelming public support for Camo witnessed during the May 7 meeting.

As the council moved to approve the dismissal of Mrs. Kamo, the lack of access to the full set of documents continued to be a point of contention. A council member expressed disappointment at being at a “supreme disadvantage” for not having seen the full documentation, referencing confusion about a USB drive that was mentioned but not clarified during the proceedings.

Despite the procedural issues and public outcry, the motion to dismiss Camo was approved with a majority vote. The council then promptly moved to adjourn the meeting, with the motion passing unanimously.