Michael Plunkett says he’s resigning from Edmonds City Council in ‘about a month’

Michael Plunkett

Long-time Edmonds City Councilmember Michael Plunkett confirmed in an email Wednesday morning that he will be resigning from the City Council ‘in about a month.’

Plunkett, a real estate agent who has lived in Edmonds for more than 30 years, was elected to his fourth City Council term in 2009. He served as Council president in 2004 and 2008.

“It’s true,” Plunkett said in response to a question asking whether he would be resigning. “I’ll have a statement and time-frame out in about a month.”

My Edmonds News is awaiting confirmation from City Council President Strom Peterson about the process for replacing Plunkett, but generally a Council seat left open due to resignation is filled by council appointment, following council interviews with interested Edmonds residents who apply.




  1. My question is, why is Mr. Plunkett further delaying his resignation? There are circumstances that indicate that he likely moved out of Edmonds at least 10 months ago. In April 2011 when his wife’s name was added to his Edmonds condominium, the mailing address for her, and for Mr. Plunkett, was stated as Mrs Plunkett’s home in Magolia. Additionally, sometime last year Mr. Plunkett started working out of the Magolia office of his employer rather than his employer’s Lynnwood office where he had worked for many years.Those circumstances have caused many reasonable people to believe that although Mr. Plunkett still owns property in Edmonds, he no longer resides in Edmonds.

  2. Thank you Mr. Plunkett for you fine work in my neighborhood. Your efforts and opinions will be missed.

    You should be thankful for getting out before turning cranky and spiteful.

    Best wishes to you and yours, and thank you for your hard work!

    Tom Howell

  3. I am saddened to hear the news as Michael has been a wonderful representative for the citizens of Edmonds. I will miss him as a mentor and friend but I know he will still take my calls and provide me guidance, conversations, and laughter.

    I am happy for him that he has now decided that family is far more important than Edmonds “politics” (etc.) and wish him (and Patty) the best.

    I appreciate that he was thoughtful enough to be willing to stay so we have time to complete the appointment process.

    I know this has been weighing on his mind for months as he truly loves Edmonds and protecting its treasures.

    Happy Trails MP, I wish you the best!

  4. The uncertainty about Michael Plunkett’s place of residence is obviously not related to Mr. Plunkett not being employed in Edmonds, as conjured up by Dave Orvis (#2 above), and it is not an issue that’s related to his performance as a city council member. This is an issue revolving around whether, under the circumstances that I stated above, it is likely that Mr. Plunkett is still a resident of Edmonds. The law says that you must be a registered Edmonds voter in order to be an elected Edmonds official. You cannot be a registered Edmonds voter if Edmonds is not your place of residence.

  5. Ron,
    Stop pretending. You’re just rumor mongering because you’re angry at Plunkett’s policies.

    Plunkett put a stop to your plan to block the public from appealing land-use decisions to the council.

    Plunkett halted the taller buildings that you and your Edmonds Shopping Center friends were pushing on downtown.

    Plunkett was supported by 60 percent of Edmonds voters in his last election; whereas you couldn’t even get a third of the vote.

    Plunkett also showed some grace when you left the council; while you are whining bitterly about him getting married and working in Magnolia.

    C’mon Ron, you can do better.

  6. You have served your city in an outstanding manner for a long time. I’m sorry to hear news of your potential departure from the Council.

    May you and yours prosper and together enjoy your bright future,

    (And Ron and Don, please cool it, you’re clearly embarassing yourselves)

    Ray Martin

  7. Michael has ALWAYS had the best interests of Edmonds in mind and voted per the thoughts of the majority.
    His many years of service are very much appreciated.
    I wish him and his family the very best.
    You will be missed.
    Jack Hall

  8. The issue raised by Mr. Wambolt, and apparently confirmed by Councilwoman Buckshnis in post #5 here, is a very simple one. If Mr. Plunkett no longer resides in Edmonds, then he has vacated his position as Council person (see RCW 42.12.010 subsection 4, as I read it). If he is not qualified for the position by virtue of no longer residing in Edmonds, then he should not be sitting on the Council, nor attending “executive sessions”. Ms. Buckshnis makes it sound like Mr. Plunkett ceased residing in Edmonds months ago.
    It is up to Mr. Plunkett to explain his current residency or lack thereof. He either qualifies to hold the position on the Council or he doesn’t. It has little to do with the partisan politics, nothing to do with rumor mongering, and certainly nothing to do with building heights. If Mr. Plunkett doesn’t meet the qualification for office, and the Council is and has been aware of that and has done nothing, that is an issue worth exploring.
    “The Revised Code of Washington states:
    RCW 42.12.010 Causes of Vacancy
    Every elective office shall become vacant on the happening of any of the following events:
    (4) Except as provided in RCW *3.47.067 and 3.50.057, his or her ceasing to be a legally registered voter of the district, county, city, town, or other municipal or quasi municipal corporation from which he or she shall have been elected or appointed, including where applicable the council district, commissioner district, or ward from which he or she shall have been elected or appointed.”
    Mr. Plunkett’s service and politics are not the issue. He has worked as a Council person for many years, and been elected many times.
    Is he legally qualified to sit on the Council or not? That is really the only question. One which is due an answer either way. There certainly isn’t enough information presented here to know which way it is, but it is either one or the other.

  9. Right Diane. Has nothing to do with Mr. Wambolt, Ms. Sterns or Mr. Wilcox’s desire to gain a seat on council without an election. All 3 of these willing souls have already been rejected by the voting citizens of Edmonds.

    This appointment thing w/o voter approval must be changed now! If we cannot afford the expense of a special election, leave the seat vacant until the next election when the citizens can choose their representative.

    City council members should consider very carefully appointing anyone of these 3, whom have already been rejected for election by the voting citizens of Edmonds, for council.

    Mr. Plunkett, it’s your life and your call, but you would make many citizens (many more than you may realize) in Edmonds very happy by staying through term, or at least long enough to make them earn the seat through election.

    Either way, Thank you Mr Plunkett!

  10. Diane T… I made no statement about where MP resides as I never inquired and he has never told me …. I only know that I have a bicoastal marriage and this issue of moving has weighed heavily on my mind for over a year.

    Further, I guess according to RW’s standards, my husband is no longer a resident of Edmonds since he is here 30 percent of the time and we have a second home and he works in a different city. Fortunate for me and the citizens of Edmonds, he pays all the taxes and bills and we frequent all the local haunts in Edmonds and volunteers for a number of festivals and park clean-ups.

    Rather than continue this drama and speculation, why not just be kind and thankful to someone who has lived in Edmonds his entire life and has been a wonderful representative for the citizens of Edmonds.

  11. Diane B.,
    Nothing dramatic about it. Either Mr. Plunkett legally resides in Edmonds currently or he doesn’t.
    He has, as far as I know, not publicly stated any reason. On the Edmonds Patch (http://edmonds.patch.com/articles/michael-plunkett-to-resign-from-edmonds-city-council ) blog you stated:
    “Having said that, I am elated that he has decided that living in Seattle with his new family is far more important than Edmonds politics, this can be a thankless job.”
    As I clearly stated before, either Mr. Plunkett is legally qualified currently to sit on the Council or he isn’t. That is an issue that needs to be resolved. If he is, then he has the perfect right to pick when and if he wants to resign and for whatever reason. If he is not, then he, by law, vacated the office when he changed his legal residence.

  12. Michael,
    I wish you well with your new endeavors. I respect your record of service in the city and willingness to go beyond the call of duty to listen to the citizens of Edmonds. I hope we’ve all learned something about civic engagement watching you take time to understand the issues. While we have disagreed on significant issues in the past, we have agreed on many others. Thanks for taking time teach me a little about what it means to care for the city you live in and work with the people who share it. Blessings.

  13. For the critics of Michael’s residency, I respectfully suggest that you tyoe “tempest in a teapot” on Google to properly measure the importance of your criticism; that is in the event you actually have a valid though totally insignificant (and probably unprovable)criticism.

  14. Sad news. Mr. Plunkett has always been an honest and diligent public servant. Thanks for your service Mr. Plunkett. You will be missed.

  15. This morning’s Everett Herald reports that Michael Plunkett will be resigning, and he’ll have a statement and time-frame out in about a month. The Herald also reports that Mr. Plunkett referred to an item in executive session that he has been working on for a few years that he would like to try to have input into before he resigns.

    Specific details related to the item in executive session are not provided in the Herald article.

  16. So, although some may consider Mr. Plunkett’s eligibility (which is what it is) for office “insignificant” , it is not. If he is a legal resident of Edmonds who plans to move, then he should just announce that and clear it up. If he has already moved, as announced applicant for Mr. Plunkett’s position Mr. Wambolt is alleging, then he doesn’t qualify for office and vacated it when became no longer a legal resident of Edmonds. Should he be sitting in on executive sessions? Should he be casting votes on the Council? Depends on where he legally resides.
    This is a matter of State Law. I have no idea which it is, but do feel that we are entitled to an answer since it is a very simple question. It is also a question I would be asking of any Council Person or Mayor regardless of how I feel about the job they have done. (Mr. Plunkett has served Edmonds for years, been elected many times and devoted many hours to Edmonds issues).

  17. Another element of this is that under Washington State Law, when a Resignation of Office takes place and the Resignation is stated to become effective on a future date, such Resignation can be withdrawn at any time prior to that future effective date.

    This places the City Council in the difficult position of deciding whether or not to start the time-consuming process of interviewing and appointing a replacement before the future effective resignation date. If the City Council chooses to do so, the Council runs the risk that the resignation will be withdrawn, and the time spent will have been for not.

  18. It goes without saying that the State Law also places challenges on citizens interested in the potential vacant City Council position. Do they want to announce their interest in the position and prepare for their interviews, etc. while the resignation can still be withdrawn?

  19. Councilmember Bloom assures me that Councilman Plunkett is indeed a legal resident of Edmonds currently. That being said, Mr. Plunkett is indeed qualified to sit on the Council, resign or not if and when he sees fit. Good enough for me. It was a very basic and simple question, and the answer is simple as well. Reasonable people will accept a reasonable, truthful answer.
    Thanks again, Joan.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here