Last week, the Edmonds City Council started discussing a proposal for a new code of conduct. On Tuesday night, an effort to continue that conversation fell apart as decorum deteriorated. The meeting abruptly adjourned after the council couldn’t muster a supermajority vote to extend the meeting past 10:30 pm.

During the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting last week, councilmembers spent considerable time going over a proposal by Councilmember Laura Johnson to review the draft she created as a starting point for replacing the council’s current Code of Conduct, passed in 2013. Reaction last week to the new proposal was mixed, with some councilmembers supportive and others expressing concern that some of the language was restrictive or subjective.

Further consideration of the draft code was on the agenda for Tuesday night — slated as an action item. But after discussion, councilmembers agreed to designate both the proposed code of conduct and a proposal to increase the fine for fireworks violations as study items rather than action items. (Study items generally are meant to provide more time for consideration, with no action taken.)

That left just one action item on the agenda — a proposal to approve the city’s climate goals resolution. That measure, which the council passed unanimously, sets a climate target for the city that involves identifying actions the city can undertake to minimize actions that contribute to global climate change. The resolution gives the city a roadmap to follow in helping worldwide efforts to limit the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5°C — or less — above pre-industrial levels. You can learn more on the city’s Climate Action webpage.

As for the code of conduct, author Laura Johnson began the discussion Tuesday night by reiterating that her effort was a draft aimed at giving councilmembers an “opportunity to discuss improve civility and decorum, to address council interactions with staff and to clarify our roles with respect to boards and commissions.” Addressing criticisms of the effort, as expressed by some councilmembers and citizens, Johnson added that the measure is not aimed at preventing councilmembers from introducing, discussing or debating issues, “though it does require doing so with civility and respect.” She also rebutted claims that she didn’t draft the code of conduct on her own, stating “this has been my undertaking from beginning to present.”

“The continued claim that I am a cover for another’s effort is both insulting and unfounded,” Laura Johnson said. “Instead of speaking to the substance of the issue there is a focus on experience and includes attacking character and motive, which pretty much makes my point for this discussion.”

Councilmember Vivian Olson said she was concerned that the council didn’t have an opportunity at last week’s meeting to discuss the current code of conducted, and “what we were trying to fix with any updates or changes.”

But Councilmember Susan Paine called the effort to develop the new document a good step for the new council, stating it was “important for us as part of building our own culture.”

“We need to build expectations and hold each other accountable through codes of conduct, and it’s not unreasonable,” Paine continued.

Both Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Luke Distelhorst agreed that the document — like other city policies and procedures — should be reviewed on a regular basis, and that after seven years, it was time to consider revisions.

Noting that the council had a “lengthy discussion” on the code of conduct last week, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson asked Laura Johnson why none of the suggestions offered during that meeting made it into the draft presented Tuesday night. Laura Johnson replied that in her opinion, incorporating those suggestions would be difficult to do because there could be competing opinions on what to change. “In my viewpoint the best way to strengthen or clarify this (the code of conduct) is through the amendment process,” she said.

“What is the point of having a discussion if we’re just going to go to the amendment process?” Kristiana Johnson asked. “If you’re ignoring our comments it’s very hard to be a code of conduct for the whole council,” she said, adding that it needs to be “a collaborative process.”

Distelhorst said he appreciated Laura Johnson’s effort, stating that her work “is more definitive than what’s there (in the current code). I really appreciate a lot of the both specifics and procedures and guidance that’s in this proposed code.” He said he hoped that the council would have an opportunity for further collaboration and amendments “to make it a document that people are proud of and that does create a work environment that we can all not only adhere to but support.”

Buckshnis, however, reiterated her statement from last week the the new code “is extremely subjective,” and also mentioned council minutes from May 2020 when “she (Laura Johnson) criticized my behavior.” Buckshnis suggested that a committee be formed to review the code, and that effort should also include involvement from citizens. She also said the council should be focused on work related to the pandemic and city budgeting. “Instead, we’re worried about how we’re conducting each other or policing each other,” she said. “I just think it needs to go back to the drawing board.”

Later, Laura Johnson offered an apology to any councilmember who felt their concerns about the code of conduct process were ignored, reiterating that she believes doing changes by amendment “seems more straightforward and fair.”

Growing increasingly frustrated with the discussion, Fraley-Monillas stated her support and appreciation for Laura Johnson’s effort to draft the initial proposal. “To not be willing to start looking at this is a slash at Ms. Johson and all the work she has done on this,” she declared.

The council president also pointed out that even though the item was moved from an action item to a study item for discussion, “the council could still choose to pass it. If there’s four votes to move it, we move it, like it or not.”

Fraley-Monillas then asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday how to best discuss the document, and if she needed to make a motion “to put it on the floor.”

“You’ve been discussing it for the last 20 minutes without having a motion on the floor,” Taraday replied, adding that motions are required to amend the document but not to discuss it. The city attorney then suggested that the council “try to get on the same page about what the purpose of this session is and see if you can do that without motions.”

Fraley-Monillas replied that she specifically wanted to talk about changes councilmembers might have to the document, and then asked Taraday how to proceed.

“Well you have the floor right now,” the city attorney replied. “I suppose you can start talking about whatever part you want to talk about.”

“OK, I’m fine with that,” replied Fraley-Monillas, who then launched into a sentence-by-sentence reading of the document.

Within a few minutes, Buckshnis called for a point of order. “Is this a filibuster? What are you doing? she asked.

Mayor Nelson then requested that the council president “tighten it up a little bit,” asking if it was her intent to read the entire proposed code of conduct.

“I’m going through to see what we agree on,” Fraley-Monillas replied. “Otherwise we’re just talking nonsense.” That remark generated a chuckle from Kristiana Johnson, which prompted Fraley-Monillas to reference some of the other councilmembers’ body language, including “laughing and throwing our heads back and rolling our eyes.”

Nelson noted that councilmembers needed to vote whether to extend the meeting, since they had reached the end of their 30-minute extension to 10:30 p.m. Laura Johnson made a motion to extend for 10 minutes “so we can wrap up,” which was seconded by Fraley-Monillas.But the proposal failed to gain the supermajority needed, so the meeting was immediately adjourned.

Also on Tuesday night, the council heard reports on two items:

– The city’s critical areas. A critical area determination is required for all properties that have a development proposal that will include some ground disturbance and where there has not been a critical area determination within the last five years.

– A proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment that would change the designation for the Haines Wharf site from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space. Environmental Programs Manager  Kernen Lien explained that the current Haines Wharf site has not been used for commercial purposes in many years and that such a designation doesn’t fit the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. A public hearing on the matter is set for Sept. 1. You can read more about the history of Haines Wharf in our earlier story.

— By Teresa Wippel