A Snohomish County Superior Court judge ruled earlier this week that the City of Edmonds broke the law when it didn’t make a statement announcing the start of a May 15 remote city council meeting executive session. But Judge Anita Faris said there wasn’t enough evidence for her decide whether councilmembers in attendance knew the meeting wasn’t announced – and that matter should be decided in a separate trial court proceeding.
Faris’ Sept. 1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit that Edmonds resident Finis Tupper filed against the city May 18. In it, he said the city violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) when it failed to provide online live streaming of the council’s May 15 executive session regarding pending or potential litigation. Tupper said he attempted the watch the meeting, which was publicized in advance on the city’s website, but only found a statement noting the meeting would begin shortly. Later that afternoon, Tupper said, he asked Edmonds City Clerk Scott Passey for a copy of the meeting video but was told the meeting had not been recorded.
He also claimed that Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas and Councilmembers Diane Buckshnis, Luke Distelhorst, Kristiana Johnson, Laura Johnson, Vivian Olson and Susan Paine had ‘knowledge of the fact” that the meeting wasn’t being recorded and so violated state law.
Tupper said in his lawsuit that he wasn’t challenging the executive session itself, which the council can legally conduct in private to discuss matters such as city personnel or litigation. Rather, Tupper pointed to his inability to watch online live streaming that showed where the meeting was called to order, a roll call, and announcement of the executive session’s purpose, estimated duration, whether any action would be required as a result, and the meeting adjournment. State law requires that these statements be made publicly during the meeting, he added.
Tupper had sought civil damages of $500 from each councilmember present during the May 15 meeting. He also requested an award for the court filing fee, postage and “reasonable attorney fees and process service fee.”
Faris also ruled on a separate motion, in which the City of Edmonds — through City Attorney Jeff Taraday — had proposed separating — or “bifurcating” the two issues raised, asking for separate trials on 1) whether the city violated the OPMA and 2) whether councilmembers had knowledge that the violation occurred. However, Faris denied the city’s request for bifurcation, noting that the city didn’t contest Tupper’s claim that the announcement of executive session did not occur in public view. The remaining issues to be determined — whether councilmembers knew the meeting wasn’t announced at the beginning of the remote session — and whether Tupper deserves monetary compensation or reimbursement — should be decided by a trial, Faris said.
A trial date has not yet been set to consider those matters, Taraday said.
In the city’s answer to Tupper’s suit, filed June 10, Taraday stated that while the city had been broadcasting its meetings remotely since March 22, the May 15 meeting marked the first time that the city council met in executive session using the Zoom platform. Taraday also cited the “subtleties” of Zoom, which “render the visual distinction between a Zoom meeting open to the public and a Zoom meeting in executive session so small as to be easily overlooked.”
Councilmembers weren’t given two separate Zoom links — one for the public portion of the meeting and one for the private’s portion — Taraday added, but simply clicked on one link for the entire meeting. He also noted that the councilmembers named in the lawsuit were not involved “in the making of meeting arrangements” for the May 15 meeting, including technological arrangements.
When the council held its second executive session, on May 26, the city had figured out how to ensure the council could move “from a public session to a private session and back to a public session,” Taraday said in the city’s answer. “The May 15, 2020 special meeting presented unique circumstances that are highly unlikely to be repeated,” he said.
After filing the lawsuit May 18, Tupper said in an email that he decided to sue the city because “council decisions should be made as a body in a public meeting. Not in closed executive sessions or by emails only sent among themselves.” In an email Friday regarding Faris’ ruling, Tupper said he has “better things to do than file lawsuits against the City of Edmonds,” but added: “It is time for the city to follow state and city law period.”
— By Teresa Wippel
I think it is Extremely important in this day and age to Follow the law. Why didn’t the attorney know this and give legal advise? Let’s face it we have had lots and lots and lots of time to figure communication out. Including zoom.. no blaming Covid..
I would like to understand this issue further; could someone please enlighten me as to why this issue is important enough to require a trial with all its inherent costs. Is it about precedence or is it related to this specific council meeting? Thank you for clarifying the issue.
Hi Carol. You ask a great question. Our governing body could have admitted to violating the Open Public Meetings Act and each of the 8 elected officials could have paid the civil penalty of $500. I think that would have limited the total financial cost to $4,000 plus minor costs associated with admitting to the violation.
All members of governing bodies must complete OPMA training within 90 days of taking the oath of office or assuming duties (RCW 42.30.205). A refresher OPMA training is also required every four years.
In 2016, responding, in part, to concerns that Washington State was behind many other states regarding penalty amounts for open meetings law violations and that an increased personal penalty on officials would more effectively deter OPMA violations, the State Legislature increased the existing $100 civil penalty, effective June 9, 2016, to $500 for a first violation and $1,000 for each successive violation.
I agree with Clinton that Councilmembers are very underpaid, but the State Legislature knew very well what Councilmembers are paid when they decided to increase the penalty in 2016.
The monetary penalty assessed for an OPMA violation does not go to the party that successfully sued the governing body. I think the penalty goes to the county in which the action was brought.
Instead of a simple admission of violation, a decision was made to expend resources to argue against some of the allegations. As part of this, the City even attempted to argue that Mayor Mike Nelson is not part of the governing body.
Additional information about this topic can be found by doing an internet search for: MRSC 2016 Legislature Adds to the Monetary Penalty for an OPMA Violation.
Thank you for the clarification and the link.
Thanks Ken. Citizen members of commissions are also briefed on OPMA. I know from experience that commissioners take that very seriously and always ask if a zoom session or a physical meeting of commissioners is done property not only on OPMA but with commission guidelines of quorum. It is important and EASY to do it right.
I agree Darrol – it is easy to do right. The City had from March 22nd up to the May 15th Special Meeting to figure it out and prepare. Executive Sessions take place frequently so I think they should have been prepared when the May 15th Special Meeting for the Executive Session came about. I wonder why they weren’t prepared.
In reaction to the problems of May 15th, they were able to prepare in 11 days for the May 26th Special Meeting. It would have been better for all had they been prepared before the May 15th Special Meeting.
One way to look at it is that Ken, Darrol and others are right about things like OPMA and FOIA, that law abiding compliance is important in all situations. When compliance with FOIA and OPMA is disregarded (e.g. city of Shoreline more than once) citizens should take appropriate action, especially a citizen who has legal standing related to harm.
Another way to look at it, on May 15, 2020 we were all suddenly dramatically changing our ways of life, private and public sector business people were adapting quickly to more technical/digital forms of doing work, our responsibility to mitigate risks exploded, our family and friends were suddenly out of work, and the list goes on. In the scheme of things, this civics mishap appears to be equivalent to going 46mph in a 45mph zone. A simple acknowledgment from the city and the key parties is enough remedy for me.
Imho – there is a difference between suffering real harm due to negligence or non-compliance by another party, and finding technical mistakes and exploiting mishaps that pay good cash. But this lawsuit/grift is no surprise.
I respect your right to your opinion Don. Please appreciate that my opinion is: The City Government does not like to acknowledge wrong and sadly going to Court is recommended to try and deter violations of State and/or City laws.
I have told others that I believe the City Government fails to appreciate the benefit of occasionally admitting wrong – that admitting wrong can show the government is capable of error and that the act of admitting wrong, voluntarily apologizing and voluntarily making the situation right can actually build trust.
I suspect legal advisors advise City Officials that admitting wrong is simply not an option. I think priority is given to never admitting liability, wrongdoing, or fault.
I don’t follow your grift comment. As I stated in an earlier post, the penalty money goes to the County. A citizen pursuing Pro Se legal action chooses to expend their own time and resources trying to do what they can to bring about better government.
I respect all human rights. As far as appreciating your opinion, I don’t because it sounds overly subjective to me. Admitting wrong-doing in individual or personal relationships is a normal expectation, and is productive and does build trust. Admitting wrong-doing as an entity may sound nice to you, but it’s become counter productive in a litigious society, which this claimant is part of. Acknowledging the need to do better is one thing, admitting wrong-doing is quite another.
I have no clue what sort of benefit the individual filing the suit derives from it. But filing law suits over very small and inconsequential mishaps is not the best way to bring about better government, in fact quite the opposite, imho.
Mr. Ackley:
You are making comments about people who are extremely knowledgeable about the government of Edmonds. Are you a resident of Edmonds?
Mr. Wambolt – your statement is coupled with a qualifying question that suggests I have to reside here if I want to continue to make comment. If true, then I think you are mistaken. For whatever reason you feel the need to know, yes I currently reside in Edmonds, although not full time. My primary residence is elsewhere.
Your assumption is incorrect; I know that commenting on this site is not exclusively for residents of Edmonds. I was only trying to determine if your knowledge of Edmonds could possibly be limited by you not being a resident.
Don, your view is fine with me but I have a different view. Lived her 46 years and when retiring in 2000, sought to fulfill my civic duty as a volunteer. Fun list of official stuff and just found the idea of good government interesting. I learned that will govt is basically good it can improve. I could give you countless examples of govt not being as open as it could be. Some depts and their leaders are great and others are less so. Again I could give supporting data.
While not questioning the motives of each the actions are different. Often getting information feel like going that that wonderful clerk in the back room Helen Hunt. Going to Hell and Hunt for it is not the best way to help citizens find the information they need to develop a trust in their govt.
Yes each time something like this happens it looks like a small “block” in the scheme of things, but that is how the pyramids were built, a block at a time.
Hopefully Council will sit back and think a bit about this and find ways to make sure govt is as open to all as possible.
Yes by itself it is not a big deal but stacked up with all the rest, it is not as good as we can be.
Good Govt takes time and energy on all of the players, council, staff, mayor and citizens.
Don, Government itself may be partly responsible for the litigious society. I’ve received an email from a former City Councilmember that stated: “Therefore, unless someone or some entity, brings a law suit to challenge our actions and proves the city council wrong in a court of law, the decision stands and is legal.”
The topic we were discussing was a Street Vacation involving Westgate Chapel. See Ordinance 4061.
On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 9:17 AM, I emailed Current City Councilmember Susan Paine an email that included the following. I blind cc’d the email trail to full council:
I hope you have the time to read the emails below. I send it to you as an example of citizens being told that: “Therefore, unless someone or some entity, brings a law suit to challenge our actions and proves the city council wrong in a court of law, the decision stands and is legal.”
Susan – this attitude is why some people think they must file legal actions to try and correct City Council conduct. My preference has always been to present the facts and the laws to the Council in the hope that City Council will volunteer to correct its conduct without the need for somebody to bring a lawsuit. Sadly, history shows my approach has not worked very well.
Don, I have been making the following request of City Council for years:
“Please simply be fair and tell all citizens the procedures that govern City Council reconsideration of prior Legislative Acts. What is the policy? How can citizens and/or others get the City Council to reconsider the Council’s Legislative Acts?”
The policies and procedures have never been provided. I think clear Reconsideration policies and procedures might be one way to reduce litigation.
Ken’s point about “reconsider” is a really good point. The Connector is a good example. Meetings, plans, open houses, lots of alternatives considered. Council was deeply involved and at least one council member was on the “team to put it all together for final recommendation”. Council voted to approve, money budgeted to begin, other grant money from State and a Pledge from Port. Off to Wash DC to seek other grant money. $30m total needed.
Council did “Reconsider” that decision but it looked like it took folks rallying outside council chambers with signs and speeches. (I recall some council members speaking?)
Ken’s point: “Please simply be fair and tell all citizens the procedures that govern City Council reconsideration of prior Legislative Acts. What is the policy? How can citizens and/or others get the City Council to reconsider the Council’s Legislative Acts?”
Answers to Ken’s question would help us all contribute to Good Government. Too bad the only thing that seems to work today involves signs, rallies, marches. We should find a better way.
Thanks Ken for helping us all gain a more complete understanding of this issue.
Thanks Darrol. I will continue to seek this information. Just this week, on Thursday, September 3, 2020, I emailed the City Council an email that included:
“Please simply be fair and tell all citizens the procedures that govern City Council reconsideration of prior Legislative Acts. What are the policies? How can citizens and/or others get the City Council to reconsider the Council’s Legislative Acts? Are there policies? Can citizens submit an application for reconsideration? Or is it simply arbitrary and capricious – citizens being left to guess what it takes to motivate Council to reconsider something?”
No response yet.
I made my first Formal Request for the procedures/policies that govern City Council reconsideration of prior Legislative Acts on July 19, 2017. I continue to request such over 3 years later.
Following is my July 19, 2017 email, if anybody wants to read it:
Dear City Council,
On August 2, 2016, after a lengthy public process that included 2 open houses and discussion during seven (7) Planning Board Meetings, the 2016 City Council amended the City’s Sign Code via Ordinance No. 4039.
Upon the Council’s vote and decision, the legislative act was settled. Or was it?
My Edmonds News reported on October 12, 2016 that:
The Edmonds City Council got an earful Tuesday night from downtown Edmonds business owners who are unhappy about the new city sign code that they say has negatively affected their businesses since it was approved by the council in August.
History shows that Edmonds City Councilmember Mike Nelson stated during October 11, 2016 Council Comments that he was going to introduce a Resolution suspending the regulations for up to 90 days “while we work with the city and the businesses in finding better ways that we can implement this sign code update.” That suspension became a step toward an amendment to the newly adopted Sign Code (Ordinance No. 4039) via new Ordinance No. 4060.
What is critical is that the City Council be just and be fair and tell all citizens the procedures that govern City Council reconsideration of prior Legislative Acts. What is the policy? How can citizens and/or others get the City Council to reconsider the Council’s Legislative Acts?
Please do not ignore this reasonable request like all of you have done in the past. Please immediately be just and be fair and provide the requested information.
Thank you,
Ken Reidy
At the request of Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, on June 20, 2020, I met with her and Councilmember Olson via Zoom to discuss possible resolution and settlement of Open Public Meetings violation.
In that virtual meeting with those Councilmembers, I outlined a proposed settlement; 1.) A Superior Court approved Consent Decree, similar to the Federal government agreement with the City of Seattle regarding the Seattle Police Department violations of Constitutional Civil Rights. 2.) The City agree to training of all elected officers by a third party either Washington Coalition for Open Government or the Municipal Research Services Center of the Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act. 3.) Mayor and City Council pay the Civil Penalty of $500.00 each. 4.) No future OPMA violations for a period of 4 years. This offer was rejected by them.
I was told that the Council is bitter only they would be fined for the Mayor mistake.
I would suggest the City Council watch today’s CBS Face the Nation interview with David Rubenstein. Quoting the final question and answer;
“DICKERSON: Is it important for presidents to take responsibility as fulfilling that example function that you talked about?
RUBENSTEIN: Well, as a general rule of thumb, I think it’s a good idea for anybody to take responsibility, because if you say in any case, well, it wasn’t my fault or I didn’t do anything to deserved that bad thing happening, you know, again people hear you and they say, well, you know, who was responsible? You were in charge. And I don’t mean a president of the United States, but any position. You should take responsibility and say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake. People will admire you more if you say you take responsibility.”
Personally I think most, if not quite all, Mayors and City Council persons past and present have been really good folks with what they consider the best interests of the city their main focal point. I include all the good folks I have disagreed with and been unkind to in the past on various issues ( Earling and Wambolt for example are really great people in my book).
I have watched and attended numerous City Council meetings and for the most part I think these people all generally try their best to do their jobs as they see them. I think it is a low blow to any of them to take them to court to try to prove some nebulous point of order because some citizen feels he or she was not part of the process. If the process isn’t working, lets get together and change the process, not try to penalize folks who are just trying to do what they think is right at any given time.
If something is just too over the top we can always resort to peaceful demonstration as occurred with the connector, which did not seem that bad until the shortfalls became so apparent deep into the process. What occurred was grass roots democracy, which is a beautiful thing I think. I applaud Nelson for seeing that and doing something about it. That’s basically why he is now Mayor.
Thank you for making my day, Clinton!
Clinton, I have made many good faith efforts to try and initiate change to various processes. I have had some success but many of my efforts have been ignored or worse. For example, I made a major multiyear effort to improve policies related to the release of Executive Session Meeting minutes:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2011/10/guest-column-a-call-for-open-government-and-transparency/
Instead, Council voted in 2016 to stop keeping Executive Session Meeting minutes altogether. Now what is said in Executive Session is left to the individual memories of those who attend the Executive Session. Citizens no longer can gain access to Executive Session minutes after the fact as citizens were able to in the past.
Resolution 853, a great Resolution passed by the 1996 City Council was repealed by the 2016 City Council.
Sometimes things that are just too over the top impact only a small percentage of people. Council has legislative authority that can impact as few as one citizen or one family. In those situations, it is very difficult to motivate others to peacefully demonstrate on your behalf. People are often too busy with their own lives to get involved on issues that only impact a small number of others.
This is one reason I have asked for years how citizens and/or others get the City Council to reconsider the Council’s prior Legislative Acts. Even if the Council’s Legislative Act only impacts one person, I think there should be policies and procedures that allow that one person to get Reconsideration similar to what other larger groups of people have been able to get.
Regarding getting City Council to “reconsider the Council’s prior Legislative Acts,” the surest and best way, under our system of representative government, is to convince one or more City Council members to propose an amendment, a new or different Legislative Act, that cures the alleged problem.
City Council is the legislative body, the policy-making folks in City Hall. They represent the people, the citizens of Edmonds. They adopt budgets and laws on behalf of the people. If a citizen has a beef with a prior Legislative Act (not sure why that gets capitalized…), hopefully one or more City Council members will hear them out and offer an opinion regarding the need for an amendment or new legislation.
This is part of politics. Citizens who want change need to work with their elected representatives to make it happen. If nobody on Council will support your ideas, then maybe your ideas need reworking, or maybe you work to elect different people to Council.
Been there and done that Roger. I once was able to get a Reconsideration item on the Agenda (11/2/2009). On the night of the related Council Meeting, over 50 people showed up at Council Chambers to support my Reconsideration Request. Council went into Executive Session for 55 minutes, exited Executive Session and voted my Reconsideration item off the agenda without providing any explanation for why they were doing so. Sometime later, I was provided an email via public record request that showed 2 elected officials were using yahoo.com email addresses on 10/29/09 to discuss rallying three other votes to remove my item from the agenda. Happy to meet with you anytime and any place to show you the 10/29/09 email. The 11/2/2009 City Council Meeting Minutes are on the City’s website. I encourage you to read the public comments starting on Page 10 of those Meeting Minutes.
This is one reason I have pushed for policies and procedures. When there are no policies and procedures, citizens are exposed to arbitrary and capricious government. Citizens who want change can work hard to get an item on the Agenda, and have it voted off the Agenda with no explanation – all decisions and discussion done in secret away from the public eye.
Hopefully one day I will get a response to the following request:
“Please simply be fair and tell all citizens the procedures that govern City Council reconsideration of prior Legislative Acts. What are the policies? How can citizens and/or others get the City Council to reconsider the Council’s Legislative Acts? Are there policies? Can citizens submit an application for reconsideration? Or is it simply arbitrary and capricious – citizens being left to guess what it takes to motivate Council to reconsider something?”
Ken, I think you are trying to take the politics out of politics, trying to reduce legislative policy-making to a type of bureaucratic process. You made your proposal to City Council back in 2011, and Council chose to not follow your advice. You battled and lost.
There’s no “policy” that governs what a legislative body decides to do in matters of legislative policy-making. Councilmembers are free to decide one way in January and change their minds in February. A couple years ago, Council was all-in on the Waterfront Connector. Then members began changing their minds until 4 were against it, and the project died. Citizens spoke their minds, and councilmembers changed theirs. That’s politics. You win some, you lose some. (I know how that works, having lost a good many battles myself!)
Like I said in my earlier comment, you need to come up with more convincing evidence and arguments in support of your cause, ones strong enough to convince Councilmembers to agree with you. Another option of course is to help elect different people to City Council, ones that agree with your viewpoint.
Hi Roger. City government (not politics) has many procedures and policies. Some result in items ending up on a City Council Agenda. For example, Type V decisions such as Development Code Amendments (Handout #P23). As an alternative to playing “politics”, one can apply for a Development Code Amendment. If the application is complete, it will end up on a future Agenda to be discussed by City Council in an Open Public Meeting.
I think a similar process should be available to citizens who desire Reconsideration of a Legislative Act. I think this especially important when citizens can show that City Council was provided false or incomplete information prior to its vote.
I am surprised that you think I “lost” in 2009. There was no Reconsideration vote. Council voted the Council President’s Reconsideration Agenda item about possible “improper” City Council action off the 11/02/2009 Agenda. Council did so rather than debating the topic in an Open Public Meeting and before listening to citizens in attendance make public comments.
Others who have requested Reconsideration have not had the Reconsideration item voted off the agenda at the last second with no explanation. This is what I mean by arbitrary and capricious. When the City does not have procedures and policies, the City opens the door to Different Rules for Different People. Those who figure out which political button to push have success while others are left to guess what it takes to motivate Council to reconsider something.
Another thing I hope to show you in the 10/29/09 yahoo.com “rally three other votes” email is the expression that one elected official found it “odd” that somebody who had been “financially supported” by another citizen was helping me.
I prefer a scrupulously just City government with fair procedures and policies over “politics” any day.
We are trying to make the city government of the 1950’s work for the almost quarter century 2000’s in Edmonds. This is similar to the issue of trying to make the government of the 1700’s work for modern times at the national level. Think of it as trying to drive model T’s on Freeways. Just doesn’t work very well for the Model T’s or the 600+ H.P Hellcats and Bentleys (Forgive me, I’m a car guy).
What if every Edmonds citizen in every individual district (based on the housing study parameters already in place) had one city council person they could absolutely depend on to listen to their ideas and grievances? What if the current Strong Mayor disappeared and the seven city council folks voted for one of their number to be the ceremonial Mayor of the City. What if the Council was solely responsible for hiring a City Manager answerable to them as a whole, rather than the Mayor?
Granted this system would probably cost more. Council members would need to be full time, probably earning in the high 5 figures. The city manager would probably have to earn in the low 6 figures. Personally, I think this would be worth the higher tax costs for more efficient and fair government. The citizen would certainly have more access to the elected officials under this system and you would do away with the tendency toward one person having too much authority and power over the whole process. Not to mention, the possibility of the Mayoral position being used as a means to get to higher office or promote one political party viewpoint over another.
Excellent conversation Clinton. I agree that Council should periodically review our form of City government and deeply consider what form of government is best for our citizens and City.
Roger, as an option to meeting in person so I can show you the email, you can read the 10/29/09 yahoo.com “rally three other votes” email in its entirety on page 33 of the Approved City Council Meeting Minutes for the August 4, 2020 City Council Meeting.
Regarding what you consider to be “politics” and what I prefer to think of as a City government subject to procedures, policies and laws, I believe I have made a good effort to participate in City Government as a citizen.
You witnessed that last year when I spoke at multiple Planning Board Meetings regarding the City’s proposed update to our Street Vacation laws. Thankfully, Planning Board did not vote that item off Planning Board’s Agenda prior to the public having the opportunity to participate and make public comment. The Street Vacation Code update item eventually resulted in a Planning Board vote. I felt a sense of victory after that battle when Planning Board voted to put forth its recommendation to keep the Either:Or law. The satisfaction of that victory was short lived however when the City Attorney and City Staff decided to make their own recommendation to City Council instead of simply respecting Planning Board’s recommendation. I can find no City law that allows the City Attorney and City staff to do so – yet they did it anyway.
Do you consider the City Attorney and City Staff’s conduct acceptable and a reasonable part of some type of political process? My opinion is that they should have respected the legislative process and simply forwarded the Planning Board’s Recommendation to City Council.
So like more government to me…less is more.
Solid point Joy. As part of this, do we have more laws than City government has the ability to enforce? If so, why? Laws on the books create an expectation by citizens that our laws will be faithfully enforced.
When the laws are not faithfully enforced, trust in City government breaks down. I believe lack of trust increases the resources needed to govern.
As part of a review of our form of government, maybe we can consider if we have too many laws in addition to who would do a better job of faithfully enforcing our laws, a City Manager or a Mayor.
Regarding Development Code Updates, I am thankful that I participated in the legislative process that resulted in the passage of Ordinance 3901, an Ordinance that expands the content of notice requirements for street vacations. Ordinance 3901 requires the City Clerk to prepare a public notice containing a description of any easement under consideration to be RETAINED by the city.
Ordinance 3901 starts out as follows:
WHEREAS, in response to a citizen request, the City Council tasked the Planning Board with considering an amendment to Chapter 20.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code entitled “Street Vacations” to expand the content of notice requirements for street vacations;
I consider myself fortunate to be the citizen that made that request.
Sadly, even when a battle is won after a citizen provides convincing evidence and arguments to Planning Board and Councilmembers in support of a cause, that does not mean the laws and ordinances will be faithfully enforced by our Mayors.
For example, long after Ordinance 3901 was passed, the City Council resolved as follows in Resolution 1375:
Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to all entities from the underlying fee owner as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities.
Saying that utilities may exist and if they do easements shall be provided to all entities is not the same as preparing a public notice containing a description of any easement under consideration to be retained by the City.
This speaks to Clinton’s conversation: “What if the Council was solely responsible for hiring a City Manager answerable to them as a whole, rather than the Mayor?”
This may be what is needed if we want our laws and ordinances to be faithfully enforced.
A couple of comments on “reform” ideas for Edmonds city government as expressed above. First, re district elections for city council– “What if every Edmonds citizen in every individual district…had one city council person they could absolutely depend on to listen to their ideas and grievances?” That’s expecting too much from district elections; just ask the citizens of Kshama Sawant’s district in Seattle. She routinely blows off constituents with issues not part of her personal agenda.
And for having a city manager, just ask people in Mill Creek how their government has been operating the last few years under a succession of city managers. In short, there’s no magic pill out there, some different system of government somehow guaranteed to be better than what we have now.
Fortunately Kshama Sawant is not typical of all city council members, and the city manager situation in Mill Creek is not typical of all city managers.
Roger, KS got elected by the majority in her district. I would hazard a guess that the voters new what her agenda was. We have council persons with agendas. Look at who supported whom. It the folks in Medowdale want to support a district council person that will “fight for sidewalks” why not. All council say what they support but often do not work to get it. Zone voting would be cheaper for a candidate to convince their neighbors they deserve the vote.
Govt should try to be responsive to the people. Every now and then we should step back and see if we can make government better. We have commission for everything that sounds good, why not have one that looks at forms of govt. At least when it is all done, people will feel we at least evaluated the options.
I think Ken is not asking for much. I see this completely differently. We the people have every right to be able to watch the councils sessions. Why do you think the law was put into effect in the beginning? To keep our elected officials honest. Everyone had attended a meeting stating the laws. You really think all of them forgot about a $500 fine if meeting wasn’t announced? Possible? What about our legal city attorney? If you had any questions wouldn’t one of them ask? One?
No, we create laws for a reason. It’s not to unreasonable to ask. It’s not that easy if you have a issue to go to the council with your questions and problems. I too have been there and done that in the past.