Editor:
Let it be known I did not choose to retire from serving on the Edmonds Citizens Planning Board. A vote by city council happened before I received official notice. Work remained yet my city email was deleted on Dec. 17, before my term ended on the 31st of December or until a replacement is appointed in 2021.
Here’s some background: The Dec. 15, 2020 Edmonds City Council agenda included a document for council consideration titled, “Retirements.” This was a list of those volunteer members of city boards or commissions not returning in 2021. This document was fraught with errors.
First, though I cannot speak to the other 11 people listed, I can say I did not retire. Instead, when asked by the Planning Department, I expressed interest in serving another Planning Board term for Position 7.
Second, there is no “Professional” position on the Planning Board, something that was noted in the council document. This is an error and its inclusion is suspect.
Third, when City Councilmember Kristiana Johnson entertained the motion of removing the ‘Retirement” page from the Council’s Consent Agenda for further discussion on Dec. 15, the city attorney did not provide accurate information. As was the situation with Ms. Johnson’s appointment to the Planning Board 10 years ago, precedence was established that it is the purview of the city council to confirm appointments. Mistakenly, the city attorney implied differently and stated the mayor has the authority to appoint or unappoint citizen volunteers serving on a board, commission, and/or a committee.
Fourth, there were four appointments of the Planning Board open for review when there should have been three. The Edmonds City Code (ECC) provides a structured approach for the appointment process — ECC Section 10.40.020{B}. At no time on the Planning Board are there to be more than three positions up for expiration and in alternating years there are only two. Roger Pence’s term in the Alternate position is set for expiration December 2021. Review of his appointment is scheduled for the end of next year.
As to the authority of placing a citizen volunteer onto the planning board — that is the responsibility of the city council as referenced in —
ECC Section 10.40.020 Planning board
Appointment. There is created the planning board, consisting of seven members. Each member shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council.
The city council confirms appointments, and their decision is final — the legislative branch can overrule the executive branch. The mayor’s nomination is not the final say as confirmed in the ECC. The city attorney wrongly advised city council that the mayor has the right to hire and fire its citizen volunteers. No, that is city council’s responsibility when they confirm or don’t confirm a nominee as they have done in the past.
Examples when city council exercised their authority to confirm appointments differing from the mayor’s nominee to the Planning Board— and with which City Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas is familiar — include:
– 2017 Alex Witenberg was Mayor Earling’s nominee and under the authority of Council President Nelson, city council rejected the nomination. Mike Rosen’s subsequent nomination by the mayor was later confirmed by city council.
– 2010 Kristiana Johnson was confirmed after city council first rejected the mayor’s initial nominee.Our city council and citizen volunteers are to be non-partisan, yet this recent council action appears politically driven. The city council should take action to further review the “Retirement” list, asking citizen volunteers if they offered to continue their service to the city. Given that information the city council should then exercise their legislative authority and take a roll call vote on the mayor’s nomination choices.
Our city council and citizen volunteers are to be non-partisan, yet this recent council action appears politically driven.
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Edmonds
I dont know how many times I have to say it, there are no more non-partisan roles in local government. The last 8 years, local government has become a farm league.
You are correct Matt, there are no longer any “non-partisan” roles and especially on the city council and Mayor. Worse, is that they are all varying degrees of “liberal thought” ( sorry, I know liberal thought is an oxymoron ) and there is not nor has there been an opposing voice at city hall for some time. The voters are responsible for this and they can correct the situation if they can see that one party rule no matter which one leads to bad results. All one need do is look to Seattle to see what decade after decade of liberal groupthink ( exacerbated by “wokeness” ) does to a once beautiful and thriving city. Is this what we want for Edmonds?
“( sorry, I know liberal thought is an oxymoron )”
There is much need, as you point out, for representation from both sides – we need thoughtful conservative voices to provide balanced, effective government. But the moment we start insisting that the other side can’t think, the whole idea of balanced democracy goes out the door.
One-party rule is always a disaster. But “liberal thought is an oxymoron” seems pretty much like advocating one-party rule – only from the other side.
Please keep the conversation civil. Saying things like “liberal thought is an oxymoron” in not productive.
Nathaniel, you don’t understand. “Their” views aren’t group think because “they” are absolutely right about everything and every politician (partisan or non-partisan) that “they” support and elect. “You”, on the other hand are brainwashed by the left, “liberal universities and collages and probably MSNBC into Socialistic and obvious Un American ideas. In other words Senator McCarthy in the 50’s was right all along.
My current thinking is that only about 10 to 15% of voting U.S. citizens are actually capable of and using independent thought processes to try to find our best leaders and ways to protect our democracy and the majority of our people. Both parties have pretty much run to their bases and are courting the increasingly shrinking pool of independent and open minded people who just want to facilitate the best life possible for the most people possible. (Granted, that type of Pol. is hard to come by now days in either Party).
Independent thinking “Swing” voters certainly pick all our Presidents, as evidenced by Biden winning this election. The only way the now extreme right can turn this around is by either proving that the election was a fraud, or creating a bloodless Coup. The right has, and never has had, much problem with one party rule, but only if it’s their party. The problem the Republicans (current version, not the past progressive version of Lincoln and T. R.) now have is that the majority of Trump supporters don’t have much concept of what “Party” is all about. They just love Trump, think he represents them, and have no concept of independent thinking or judging if someone is really out to help them or just out for himself.
Wow, so sorry Carreen that this was handled so poorly. Get it together Edmonds!
Ms. Nordling Rubenkonig. You mention that you held Position #7. If true, that term doesn’t expire until December 31, 2021. Page 161 of the December 15, 2020 Council Packet says you held Position #5. Please let us know which Position you held or you still hold. I have been unable to find a complete list of who holds each of the 8 Planning Board Positions. If you or anybody else knows, I’d appreciate that information.
It is clear that false information was provided to City Council for the December 15, 2020 Council meeting, as follows:
1. Packet page 161 indicates Roger Pence’s Alternate Position on the Planning Board expired 12/31/2020. That is not true. Per ECC 10.40.020.B, the alternate position is also a four-year term and such term clearly does not expire until December 31, 2021.
2. Packet page 163 indicates Planning Board Positions #1 and #6 both expired 12/31/2020. That is impossible as ECC 10.40.020.B staggers the terms of Planning Board membership to provide for continuity of membership. Position #1 does not expire until December 31, 2022. Position #1 cannot have the same term as positions #5 and #6. Such would impair the Code’s attempt to provide for continuity of membership.
As Council was provided false information for the December 15, 2020 City Council Meeting, I believe Council has a duty to now address the fact Council voted under the provision of false information.
There was an error in the headline. It should have said Position 5. It has been corrected.
Dear Carreen,
Thank you for your dedication to our planning board all these years. Your contribution to the planning board along with your education, maturity and expertise was always evident by your questions and comments. I will miss reading your views, recommendations and opinions. I have asked for information from the Administration to correct these concerns.
Dear Diane,
Thank you for your kind words of support.
As the Alternate position was not up for term expiration- and should not have been on any list for re-appointment- it is my belief he continues to serve on the Planning Board. I do hope this is one of the items you seek to correct.
Please do review my most recent post in response to Mr. Reidy which details the Board appointments according to City Code.
Link is provided here.