The Edmonds City Council is scheduled to take action Tuesday, July 28 on one of two proposed code amendment changes covering how the mayor can appoint an acting director as a permanent employee.
Councilmembers on July 21 had discussed a proposal from Mayor Mike Nelson to modify the council confirmation process for such an employee — allowing the council to confirm someone who has served the City of Edmonds in an acting director capacity for at least six months.
That proposal has now been revised for this Tuesday night’s meeting, reducing that time period from six months to three months. The idea is that it would allow the confirmation “to occur prior to the expiration of the acting appointment,” which can last no longer than six months.
In addition to that first option, the council has a second option to consider. The meeting agenda memo said option two would “provide consistency between the possibility of acting director confirmation and the timing of the mayor’s recruiting obligation by allowing for a delay in active recruiting should the mayor be considering the permanent appointment of an acting director.”
Other action items on the July 28 council agenda:
– A joint meeting with the Edmonds Planning Board
– Approval of the 2021-2026 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
– Approval of a Sound Transit funding agreement to add new bicycle lanes citywide.
The council is also set to review the following during a study session, meaning no action will be taken on these items:
– The Council Code of Conduct
– An ordinance updating the city’s fireworks code so that violations would be a misdemeanor rather than a civil penalty. Violators would be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or jail not to exceed 90 days. The fine would be $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second offense, $150 for the third offense and $200 for each offense within a three-year period. In addition, the fee for a public display permit would be increased from $30 to $500.
The remote meeting will begin at 7 p.m. via Zoom or cable TV channel 21 or 39. You can see the complete agenda here.
Citizens who would like to participate in the audience comment portion of the meeting may connect via Zoom at any point before the conclusion of the audience comment period. Citizens will sit in a virtual waiting room until their turn to speak. When the citizen enters the live Council Meeting, their time will begin. The clerk will be the time keeper and provide a 30-second warning and a final warning when their time is up. The citizen will be removed and the next speaker will be allowed in.
Citizens may connect with a computer or smart phone at zoom.us/s/4257752525, or join the meeting by phone at: 888-475-4499 or 877-853-5257 (both numbers toll free). The Meeting ID is 425 775 2525. Citizens not wishing to participate in audience comments may continue to monitor the livestream on the City Council Meeting webpage, cable TV, or telephone by calling 712-775-7270, Access Code 583224.
A great police officer, mistakes in multiple contracts by two Mayors, and Instead of thinking of this as a rare problem, let’s forget about the Washington legal requirements for City Councilors and ask them to not hold the Executive accountable.
Have you looked at the far swing of the pendulum of the executive authority, complexity and length of the ordinance created by Mayor Mike Nelson and Attorney Taraday? Especially the ending, effectively stating, if a mistake is somewhere in this ordinance for any one in the present or future, the Mayor still gets to do what he wants. This drafted ordinance is the making for a good dark comedy.
Perhaps there is a legal way to make a one time exception ruling for Chief Lawless; Attorney Taraday seems to be good at pulling rabbits out of hats. However, it seems Mike Nelson sees an opportunity for some power, while making it appear this kind of thing is going to happen a lot, and Council you don’t need to remember you are the overseers of the salaries, and oh, there was a reason why the ordinance was the way it was.
Last week Taraday said the Mayor could do what he wanted without the Council, so then, why did he persuade the Council to vote to encourage the Mayor to go ahead, or at a minimum vote not to object to the mayor moving forward? That is a bit of a ”huh”? What just happened? The attorney who is supposed to protect me, a Council Member, isn’t necessarily telling me what is in my best interest and is putting the Mayor’s interests ahead of my legal protection?
I feel for Jim Lawless, and fellow citizens. This is messed up.
The Edmonds City Council has no duty to take action on one of two proposed code amendment changes covering how the mayor can appoint an acting director as a permanent employee. The Agenda Packet left out that City Council has a third option, to leave the laws adopted in 2014 in place. The 2014 City Council gave this topic great consideration and 3 members of the City Council are still on City Council in 2020.
On January 7, 2014, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas stated that “if the Council is to affirm the appointment, there should be a sufficient number to interview”. She also commented that “if it is a true confirmation process, it would be better to have more choices than less”. She stated that in her 30+ years of experience in government, the appointing authority consistently had a choice of three top candidates. She supported the Council interviewing three candidates.
We seem to have a systemic problem in city government in keeping track of timing of contract renewals and Director appointments. The lack of adherence to city code reflects poorly on city leadership and undermines confidence in those representing us. The responsibility for adherence to code in governance rests with our mayor. After the latest episode with the police chief appointment, further lapses should not be tolerated. A simple abeyance system should be established whereby the mayor’s executive assistant keeps close track of key dates when renewals or appointments must be initiated so this and future mayors are made aware of when action is needed.
Thanks for pointing this out Dave. This has been an issue for years and it is extremely hard to understand how it keeps happening.
Using the Acting Police Chief situation as an example, the December 17, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes document that former Mayor Dave Earling and Mayor-elect Mike Nelson agreed that with Chief Compaan leaving at the end of year, Assistant Chief Lawless would be appointed Acting Chief.
At that time, a note should have been placed on Mayor-elect Nelson’s and others’ calendars that the term of that acting appointment would expire on June 30, 2020. This should have been a simple, basic administrative step.
On April 23, 2020, I emailed HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson a detailed email about Mayor Nelson’s April 9, 2020 announcement that Mayor Nelson had picked Mr. Lawless as the City’s next permanent police chief. Included in my April 23rd email was:
“Does the City Administration intend to ask City Council to consider amending the Code so that Council may opt to interview as few as one candidate? If so, why was Mayor Nelson’s April 9th press release issued before City Council considered and voted to amend the Code? Is Mayor Nelson assuming that the Council will amend the Code to allow for interviewing only one candidate? What if Council does not approve such a Code Amendment and makes the same decision that was made in 2014? I imagine this is a strong possibility as Ms. Fraley-Monillas is now Council President. There may not even be a desire to put this on the Agenda as this was looked at in detail in 2014 and we have many other Code Amendments that need Council’s attention.”
My email was NOT responded to.
On May 29, 2020, Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 20-28.4 and all knew that there were no longer restrictions on the type of actions the City could take. With the appointment of Acting Police Chief Lawless set to expire 32 days later, why wasn’t this situation addressed immediately? Council met on June 2nd, June 9th, June 16th and June 23rd. Council could have met on the 5th Tuesday, June 30th, if necessary.
Instead, City Council has now been burdened with dealing with this mess starting on July 21st, 3 weeks after the acting appointment expired.
Will there be any accountability? The Mayor is supposed to make sure our laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. Instead, Mayor Nelson took action not allowed by our laws on April 9th as detailed in my April 23rd email to the HR Director. My April 23rd email was cc’d to Mayor Nelson and the full City Council.
I just want to know if ANYONE is working on straightening out the mess at Public Works Storm Water billing statements. They billed last half of 2019 at new 2020 rates IN ERROR for those of us that are billed annually as they have in my case, New rate eff in Jan 2020. They billed for last half 2019 in Feb so computer picked up rate that was NOT in effect in 2019. I contacted them and received NO response. I paid the 2019 Rate. Now, bill for 1st half 2020 had unpaid @ of increase that should not have been on bill & not paid. I still can get no response. I have corrected this bill and will pay new increase for 1sr half of 2020, as it is due in 2020. They have in our case been doing this, as near as i can tell since annexation in 2006. It’s only in error, apparently for those of us billed annually. I cannot find out why they have not fixed it. 2019 should be billed IN 2019 at that years rate and 2020 IN 2020 at that years rate. Not because we mailed the bill in 2020!! so even though NOT in effect, in year of billing, it was mailed 2 months into new year. So billed at that years rate. How crazy is that. To justify billing higher rate because THEY mail billing late!! And individually not a lot, but put totals together those billed annually are really getting socked & probably an overall sizable amount for the City!!! I do understand Finance Dept & City Attorney working on it. However, it appears trying to justify because they mail late they can bill higher rate because within their “mailing” dating. I cannot believe these are adults.