Financial picture brightens for Edmonds Center for Arts, City Council told

  1. I was just watching the video of last evening’s City Council Meeting and noticed something very strange.

    At the end of the meeting, the City Council convened in Executive Session regarding pending or potential litigation. There was no indication that Council member Mesaros would not attend the Executive Session – but Mayor Earling would later mention that Council member Mesaros was not in Executive Session.

    When the City Council reconvened, a motion was made to pass Ordinance 3992, an Interim Zoning Ordinance. As Council President Fraley-Monillas was reading the motion, the video may have been blocked right when she appeared to be about to identify the name of the case.

    Following is my attempt at a verbatim transcript of the motion made by Council President Fraley-Monillas:

    (3992) which is an Ordinance of the City of Edmonds,Washington adopting an Interim Zoning Ordinance to amend Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code by adding a new section related to deemed withdrawal of the case of irr???? (Video may have been blocked at this point for about 6 seconds) ??? section related to resubmittal and development applications after denial, declaring an emergency, necessitated immediate adoption and effectiveness of this Interim Ordinance Zoning.

    The motion passed. Council Member Mesaros abstained – Mayor Earling commented that he may abstain since he wasn’t in the Executive Session.

    Was anybody watching this live on TV last evening? Was it blocked on live TV also or was this just done on the video?

    This seems very strange. Council can pass Ordinances in emergencies, but the related discussion usually takes place in open session. I don’t know if Council can discuss such in Executive Session and it seems that a change to zoning laws, interim or otherwise, would not be an emergency. I thought emergency ordinances had to be for the protection of the public health, public safety, public property or the public peace.

    1. I stayed until after the executive session was over and received a copy of the ordinance, after the motion was made to approve it. I spoke with both Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas and City Attorney Jeff Taraday about it, as well. However, it very late as I was completing my council story and this issue is complex, so I decided to wait until today to write about it, so I could run my interpretation past the City Attorney to ensure I understood the facts. I hope to post it soon. I don’t know about any delay or blockage of the tape as I was in the audience, but as the Council President was ready to read the ordinance there was a pause while the City Clerk gave her the ordinance number.

      1. Thanks Teresa – the last Ordinance available for viewing on the City’s website is Ordinance No. 3991. Hopefully new Ordinance No. 3992 will be posted promptly so the citizens can see what it is.

      2. Teresa – did you happen to note what was said after Council President Fraley-Monillas stated: …deemed withdrawal of the case of irr????

        It would be nice to know this part. Whatever was stated took place in Open Session so the public should know what was said. I realize this is not your responsibility but any help would be appreciated.

      3. I’m very perplexed in regards to the media running this past the City of Edmonds City Attorney, Jeff Taraday???? Our City Attorney, really?? I would think THIS would really need an explanation. ……………”run my interpretation past the City Attorney to ensure I understood the facts”……..Really?? Is THIS why the Ordinance is not available now because the media is getting everything straight with town hall?…….Really?? No independent interpretation??

        1. I check the facts with people who are experts in their field. In fact, that’s why reporters do what is known as fact-checking. Mr. Taraday wasn’t available when the story was ready to post, so I spoke with Shane Hope of the city instead.

  2. Thank you, Ken, for your close attention to the council meetings. I trust that the Mayor or council will shed some light on your questions about the executive session and the emergency zoning law change.

  3. Does anybody remember when the last emergency ordinance was passed in Edmonds?

    The last I can find is the Ordinance 3938 passed on August 20, 2013. This ordinance was passed after discussion in Open Session as evidence by the August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting Minutes.

    Lots to think about here – included Open and Transparent Government issues.

  4. Yes, Mr. Reidy, you are correct and I believe and I am also wondering how there can be executive sessions with “potencial litigation” at every (and sometimes two, one at beginning, one at end) single Council meeting every week all year.? I believe our government in this big city of 39,704 needs to explain how it is possible that we have potential law suits going on or about to unfold 52 weeks of the year…..What could our government possibly be doing to have our city ALWAYS on a “potential litigation” tract.

    As ALL of this is totally behind closed doors, when is this information made available and are there that many people suing our city and why?……Government is supposed to be more transparent, not less

  5. Thanks Cliff and Tere. I do hope that the City will promptly disclose what took place last evening. If a conscious choice was made to intentionally block the video of what is supposed to be the open part of the meeting – I have a major problem with that decision and I’d like the City to tell us who made that decision and why.

    The plethora of Executive Sessions is highly alarming – it seems normal to have one at the start and at the end of many Council meetings. I hope this changes.

    One of my main concerns with Executive Sessions is that there is no public oversight of what is represented to our Council members behind closed doors. I have long expressed my concerns about the accuracy and completeness of what the Council is told behind closed doors.

  6. As I stated in my October, 2011 Guest Column calling for Open Government and Transparency:

    The City of Edmonds’ organizational chart clearly establishes that the Mayor, Municipal Court and City Council report directly to the citizens of Edmonds. This is a very important concept to fully comprehend. I believe it critical to the proper execution of our representative democracy, known as a republic.

    The citizens of Edmonds, in delegating authority to the Mayor, Municipal Court and City Council, do not give our public servants the right to decide what is good for the citizens of Edmonds to know and what is not good for them to know.

    The current Washington State Open Public Meetings Act, adopted in 1971, contains the following preamble:

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. RCW 42.30.010.

    The Washington Supreme Court has referred to this preamble as one of the strongest statements of legislative policy contained in any state statute. Cathcart v. Andersen, 85 Wn.2d 102, 107, 530 P.2d 313 (1975). In 1992, the Legislature added this same language to the public records law. RCW 42.17.251 (recodified as RCW 42.56.030, eff. 7/1/06).

    So, when I make a strong statement like “The citizens of Edmonds . . . do not give our public servants the right to decide what is good for the citizens of Edmonds to know and what is not good for them to know,” I am not emotionally advocating a theory. Rather, I am representing a law of the state of Washington.

  7. The concerns being expressed here this morning about the abundance of executive sessions are well founded. I did an analysis of 2014 council meetings and have determined that there were a total of 38 executive sessions actually held, To put that into perspective, I also analyzed 2009 (the last year that I was a city councilmember) and learned that there were only, a more typical, 9 executive sessions that year,

    What is even more alarming to me is that the results of only one of those sessions has been reported to the public. We do not know what took place at 37 councilmember sessions in 2014! And the trend in 2015 is no different.

  8. Thanks Ron – that is very helpful information. Are you saying that, per your research, we do not know what took place at 37 of the 38 councilmember executive sessions in 2014?
    That is amazing.

    Do our public servants think they have the right to decide what is good for the citizens of Edmonds to know and what is not good for them to know?

    I remember excellent citizen comments at the 2014 City Council retreat requesting the
    Council provide more details when making a motion to approve a settlement following an executive session. He also requested the public be informed of significant developments with regard to litigation.

    1. That’s correct; only 1 of 38 executive sessions has been reported on. The following is that report:

      Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
      July 15, 2014
      Page 17

      11A. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPLICANT FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)
      At 9:50 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to evaluate the qualifications of applicant for public employment per RCW 42.30.100(1)(g). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 10 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:05p.m.
      Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:06 p.m.

      11B. WAIVER OF THIRD INTERVIEW
      COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, FOR CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL WAIVER OF THE THIRD INTERVIEW RULE FOR THE DIRECTOR POSITION PER CODE 20.10.0.10(D). MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.

      This city council seems to think that they can decide almost anything without adequate input from the public. Those reasonable requests that you’ve referenced from a citizen at the 2014 city council retreat were requests that had been made numerous times. Still nothing has changed.

      There are other examples of major unilateral actions by this city council. They abolished the citizens compensation committee, they abolished council committees – like the finance committee, and they’ve made every other council meeting a work session at which they all sit around a table and severely impair the audience’s ability to hear what they are discussing. It seems like anything they are not capable of making work to their satisfaction they scrap – with no improved replacement.

  9. Still no response from City related to this matter. Teresa indicates above that she has the Ordinance – why don’t we all have the Ordinance? It still is not posted on City’s website.

    Sent the following to Council President Fraley-Monillas at 9:47 AM – no response or simple acknowledgment of my email yet.

    Dear Council President Fraley-Monillas,

    Please consider this a formal request by a citizen for a verbatim transcript of the discussion, etc. that took place related to last evening’s Agenda Item No. 15-Reconvene in Open Session. Thank you.

    Also, it is possible that a conscious choice was made by somebody to intentionally block a portion of the video while you were reading the Motion during the open part of the meeting. If so, please tell me who was involved in this decision.

    Thank you. Ken Reidy

    1. Ken – I do have it but I have not had time yet to scan it and share it as I’ve been in meetings all morning. I hope to have something posted later on this afternoon.

  10. Just got a response from Council President Fraley-Monillas:

    “I have passed on your formal request.”

    “Due to sone last minute confusion, Ms. Petso asked for a minute break when the meeting restarted after e-session and we had some confusion regarding to turn machine on or off during the minute break. I can say assertively that no one intentionally blocked the video.”

    I will respond to Council president Fraley-Monillas and clarify that I am not talking about the turning off of the video machine during the minute break – I am talking about the turning off of the video while she was reading the motion – right after she stated ” …deemed withdrawal of the case of …”

  11. I’ve been told by Council President Fraley-Monillas that: “That was a mistake.”

    She has indicated that she will send this to staff who was running the video so she is aware.

    The public still does not know what the full motion was and what was said during the time the video was blocked.

    Hopefully this public information will be shared soon.

    1. And there has not been any explanation of the absence of Councilmember Mesaros from the executive session. Perhaps his attendance would have created a conflict of interest?

  12. Good point. Had he recused himself from the Executive Session and stated the reason why, perhaps we would know more about the related issue. Also – once recused….I believe he would not later have had to abstain from the vote.

    I hope our elected officials will recognize that issues like this point out the need for more openness and transparency.

  13. Per RCW 35a.12.130:
    No ordinance shall take effect until five days after the date of its publication unless otherwise provided by statute or charter, except that an ordinance passed by a majority plus one of the whole membership of the council, designated therein as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the public peace, may be made effective upon adoption, but such ordinance may not levy taxes, grant, renew, or extend a franchise, or authorize the borrowing of money.

    If we are ever told what this Ordinance is about, we might be able to get an idea if it was public health, public safety, public property or the public peace that needed to be protected via an emergency Ordinance.

    1. The new Ordinance specifically mentions RCW 35a.12.130. Related to whether it was the public health, public safety, public property or the public peace that needed to be protected via an EMERGENCY Ordinance – the following is stated:

      “Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, new development applications could be filed that could create ambiguity with respect to the status of previously filed applications on the same property. Therefore, this interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that the status of such previously filed applications is addressed herein.”

      I still don’t feel clear as to why this had to be an Emergency Ordinance, especially when the Ordinance itself starts off by stating that “Washington courts have stated that land use applications are subject to the legal doctrine of res judicata which affords every party one, but not more than one, fair adjudication of his or her application.”

      One of the examples of irreconcilable applications mentioned in new Ordinance No. 3992 is the following:

      “Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn.”

      I’ve lived through this situation in my own neighborhood. In that case, the City told the applicant in a letter dated February 2, 2009 that:

      “The City obviously cannot simultaneously process, much less approve, two fundamentally different subdivision proposals for the same property. Likewise, the City cannot allow construction to proceed under a right-of-way permit where the plat application upon which it is based has been abandoned or otherwise superseded by a subsequent proposal.”

      If the City was aware of these types of issues back in early 2009, why wasn’t something like Ordinance No. 3992 passed long ago if it was necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare?

  14. Everyone can put away the tinfoil hats now. Please see the new posting about the executive session and why councilmember Mesaros recused himself.

  15. The nasty and bullying comments by numerous grown up men and some women in our community do a disservice to our community as a whole, and particularly to the children and young adults that are supposed to learn from the ADULTS in a community. In fact, it is just plain mean spirited and uncalled for. This says more about the people that make them rather than the citizens that are at the TOP of our government and are asking questions that our elected officials are expected to answer as our REPRESENTATIVES. . There are many episodes in our history when we learned what can happen when government becomes secretive and behind closed doors. History is plentiful regarding countries around the world that operate in secrecy and forget they are operating FOR the people that elect them. Corruption and worse, very easily becomes a mode of operation. People simply do not TRUST secretive government ANYWHERE in our world!

  16. I apologize if I wasted anybody’s time discussing what took place Tuesday evening. However, if being associated with tin foil hats helps bring more awareness to open government and transparency issues in Edmonds….I’ll wear that hat.

    For clarity, one of the points I made was that Mr. Mesaros did not recuse himself. After he did not recuse himself, he later abstained from the related vote.

    Now that we have been provided the actual Ordinance (by My Edmonds News, not the City) and a detailed My Edmonds News article about what was going on in Executive Session Tuesday night, I would like to know the purpose of doing all of this in Executive Session. If My Edmonds News can be provided all the information necessary to write its related article, why didn’t the City just discuss this issue in Open Session in an open and transparent way? What was it that warranted conducting all of the related discussion behind closed doors? Less than 24 hours later, My Edmonds News was provided enough information to write the detailed article posted late yesterday afternoon.

    If there was a part of it that had to be discussed behind closed doors, why not discuss that part in Executive Session and then discuss the majority of the new Ordinance in Open Session so the public could know what was going on?

  17. Ken,
    Tin foil hats may become a franchise in Edmonds! You are correct that the ordinance should have been discussed in open session but there is litigation ongoing with the target of the ordinance ( the Point Edwards developer) and that may have provided the excuse for the executive session.

    The critique of Teresa W. By some was totally unwarranted. Who else could she have talked to about events that took place behind closed doors but those who were there? She has done a good job in getting the information; and if she needs time to assimilate it ( or even if she just is tired and wants to go home to her life after a Council meeting) why not?

    That the emergency ordinance is directed at one developer and was handled as an executive session issue probably won’t play well in the ongoing litigation with that developer. Without folks like you, Ken, paying close attention, issues slide into obscurity. I don’t believe what the Council did was proper. It seems that the Council improperly meets behind closed doors to avoid public scrutiny and unfortunately there is no way to know the unknowns by the public. Ron W pays very close attention to the Council and has seved on it and even Ron questions the usage of the Executive sessions that begin ( or end or both) at almost every session.

    1. It is the citizens at the top of our government that should be getting information FIRST regarding the operation of our government from our government, paticularily in regards to any meetings that our government has had behind closed doors and in secrecy. This is the responsibilty of our government. The citizens do not give up their sovereign rights to news sources or other entities that are being paid or owned and run by whoever …… the government speaks to the news source first?. With all due respect to My Edmonds News, journalism and the dissemination of news in many places has become a business rather than a calling for journalists as it used to be…….Everybody now knows how easy it is to slant the news for the benefit of certain entities, be they politicians or other business interests and Im not saying this is happening here.. This happens in our country all the time now for politicians and those of us old enough to know what the “news” used to look like and how it appears sometimes now……. While Im not necessarily saying my Edmonds News is doing this, there is a slippery slope when govt gives news sources information first before any public gets it….. This can make citizens trust THEIR government less , particularily if ANY bias happens to show up in any journalism which seems to be a standard now across our country…….

      The public and any news source should be asking WHY all the secrecy and what is all the ligation every week about?…..every week. I think litigation every week with our government is a lot of litigation.

      Again I dont think the “tin foil hat” comments are funny, particularly when they are being used to make someone look like a space cadet or something not nice along those lines. These type of remarks remind me of junior high school and I believe now that is where bullying starts. It simply is not nice and is surprising coming from adults.

  18. Thanks for your comments Diane. One nice thing about tin foil is that it is easily mold-able. I’ll be able to put it on one of my baseball hats and wear a tin foil hat around town with ease!

    As for the new Ordinance, it just isn’t sitting well with me. If such was necessary, I would think it would have worked its way into State law or other City codes long ago. Still searching, but have yet to find another Washington City that has passed an Ordinance like this. I may be wrong – maybe I will find another example soon.

    Then there is the major point that, if truly needed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, why wasn’t such an Ordinance passed years ago if the City had these types of issues in the past – like the February, 2009 issue I discussed.

  19. Congratulations Joe, PFD / ECA Board members and ECA staff. Your ongoing and successful efforts to improve the overall financial health of ECA is greatly appreciated. The community of greater Edmonds is truly fortunate to have PFD and ECA Board members in addition to ECA staff working diligently to secure grants, fundraise and create an annual program that is attracting more visitors each year. Well done!!!!!

  20. Still haven’t found an example of another City passing an emergency Ordinance like this and still have not received any response to my following email:

    Dear Council President Fraley-Monillas (remaining Council blind cc’d),

    The new Ordinance specifically mentions RCW 35a.12.130. Related to whether it was the public health, public safety, public property or the public peace that needed to be protected via an EMERGENCY Ordinance – the following is stated:

    “Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, new development applications could be filed that could create ambiguity with respect to the status of previously filed applications on the same property. Therefore, this interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that the status of such previously filed applications is addressed herein.”

    I still don’t feel clear as to why this had to be an Emergency Ordinance, especially when the Ordinance itself starts off by stating that “Washington courts have stated that land use applications are subject to the legal doctrine of res judicata which affords every party one, but not more than one, fair adjudication of his or her application.”

    One of the examples of irreconcilable applications mentioned in new Ordinance No. 3992 is the following:

    “Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn.”

    I’ve lived through this situation in my own neighborhood. In that case, the City told the applicant in a letter dated February 2, 2009 that:

    “The City obviously cannot simultaneously process, much less approve, two fundamentally different subdivision proposals for the same property. Likewise, the City cannot allow construction to proceed under a right-of-way permit where the plat application upon which it is based has been abandoned or otherwise superseded by a subsequent proposal.”

    If the City was aware of these types of issues back in early 2009, why wasn’t something like Ordinance No. 3992 passed long ago if it was necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare?

  21. The “emergency” ordinance issue is on tomorrow night’s agenda. Still haven’t found an example of another City passing an emergency Ordinance like this and still have not received any response to my email above, an email which concluded with the following question:
    If the City was aware of these types of issues back in early 2009, why wasn’t something like Ordinance No. 3992 passed long ago if it was necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.