Editor: I am a citizen of Edmonds and I am very concerned with the Police Chief appointment and the failure to fund the hiring of 2 police officers in 2021. So the following summary is what I think I know and then some questions for the Mayor…
In a memo dated April 9, 2020, the Mayor announced to the public the nomination of Jim Lawless. He stated ““One measure of a person’s worth is how they perform during a crisis. This has been a crisis like no other. Acting Chief Lawless has been a steady, firm hand during a time of uncertainty. I can’t imagine a person better suited for this job than Jim.” It is my understanding that after the public notice by the Mayor, Lawless removed himself from competition for the Marysville Police Chief position.
Following the April 9, 2020 memo, the City Council informed the Mayor of his responsibility to put forth more than one candidate. A boutique recruiting company was paid in excess of $28,000 for conducting a recruitment process. Only two candidates were referred for final consideration: Pruitt and Lawless. The process included two panels: a Citizen panel and a Police panel. The information the Mayor received from those panels has not been shared.
The Mayor nominated Pruitt on December 3, 2020. The City Council President appeared on King-5 on December 7, 2020. She stated in that interview “racism is a problem in Edmonds” and referred to all the racism in Edmonds. In reference to the appointment she stated that Pruitt was the “better pick to heal the racial wounds” and “person that had experienced that (racism) in their lives…I think that’s important.” Her comments imply the appointment of Pruitt is based on race and that is not legal in this state.
The nomination was scheduled to go before the Council on December 15, 2020. At 7 p.m., December 7, 2020, the City Council president moved the Police Chief agenda item to the December 8, 2020 agenda. The Council had received numerous public requests to delay the Police Chief agenda item and three Councilmembers requested the same. Four Councilmembers moved forward knowing this was an item of concern to the community and the majority of citizens were requesting a postponement and information. What agenda was behind the need to ram this through ahead of schedule and without consideration given to the public concerns?
The vetting of the nominee had not been completed at the time of confirmation. The confirmation vote was taken and passed on December 8, 2020 City Council meeting.
The qualifications of the two candidates show Lawless is the better candidate. He brings more education, more experience, higher-level experience, certification required by the position, and a proven track record in Edmonds.
Mr. Mayor…That is what I believe the majority of this community sees and feels, so please explain why you are appointing a less-qualified person in the areas of education, certification, and experience.
Your proposed appointment sends a message to police officers that even though they get the education, work hard and do a good job this city government will not support them and also says to the citizens that you don’t listen to their concerns for their community. We do not want to lose good police officers as a result of poor decisions from government. These men and women work hard and perform a tough job.
It appears the majority of the Edmonds community does not support you and unless you share information (other than race and generalities) you will not gain the support of your community. We don’t plan on going away, so please answer some questions.
What changed your mind re Lawless appointment?
How did you reach this decision?
What were the recommendations of the Citizen Panel and the Police Panel?
What has Pruitt done in his past employment that makes him the better candidate?
What has Pruitt done or proposed to bring to Edmonds to address your concerns for the Police department and community?
Is the city now going to pay for his education/certification to bring him up to the standard that Lawless already possesses?
Is the vetting of Pruitt complete and does it investigate all avenues necessary?
Why is the 2021 funding for 2 more police officers been eliminated? Plan? Have you considered the morale impact?
I’m sure others have more questions to add to this list.
Please be accountable for this very important public safety concern.
Helen Hall
Edmonds resident
Thank you for writing this Letter to the Editor. Please know the following is simply for clarification. It is not meant to diminish your excellent letter in any way.
Your letter includes: “Following the April 9, 2020 memo, the City Council informed the Mayor of his responsibility to put forth more than one candidate. A boutique recruiting company was paid in excess of $28,000 for conducting a recruitment process. Only two candidates were referred for final consideration: Pruitt and Lawless.”
My attempt to clarify:
Mayor Nelson and his staff KNEW it was his responsibility to put forth more than one candidate long before his April 9, 2020 Press Release. This is clearly documented in the Agenda Packet for the February 18, 2020 City Council Meeting. Also, Mayor Nelson had participated in this appointment process while a Councilmember. On July 9, 2019, he voted to waive the three-interview rule and only interview two candidates for the vacant Human Resource Director position.
Despite Mayor Nelson’s knowledge of the law, he decided on April 9th to act contrary to the City’s Code. He would later attempt to get the City Council to change the law after he acted, as documented in the Agenda Packet for the July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting. It is the duty of the Mayor to see that our laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. City Council should not be burdened with having to inform the Mayor of what our laws and ordinances require.
I can understand why City Council did not establish a precedent of changing City law after it had been violated. I think it was prudent to not go down that path.
With regard to the “prudent path,” given the state of emergency and undisputed accolades in the Mayor’s nomination letter, there was good cause and unique circumstances to warrant making an exception. To blame the entire Council is unfair; only 4 members voted to adhere to the process (a process which still yielded only 2 candidates, not 3). Those same 4 members voted in favor of Pruitt’s nomination.
As I understand, the citizen panel was not asked to provide a recommendation for either candidate. Rather, the assumption was that candidates’ qualifications had been vetted, and the panel’s focus was on “community policing”. Not hard to imagine that the limited size of the community served by Pruitt would have exemplified that aspect of the job.
Moving forward, I will remember the 3 Council members who have consistently stood strong with Edmonds best interest at heart. I will not forget the Council president’s bias against the citizens she represents. And I will wonder when Nelson’s next big flip-flop is coming; the waterfront connector, the police chief…
Well written. An article written in the Dec. 10 Edmonds Beacon may answer some of the questions. According to the Beacon in 2008 Pruitt’s wife had a “restraining order or a military protective order, as it’s called” to keep him away from her. During Tuesday’s council this fact was not disclosed when Council member Olson asked “whether there was domestic violence in Pruitt;s background”. I would suggest Edmonds residents should read this article.
If this information is accurate, there are two disturbing elements; the restraining order and the obfuscation.
Thank you, Robert for the Beacon link. And thank you Helen for a well written letter. From the Beacon, transcript about his former wife and the restraining order issue:
Question: Now, you have also been the subject of a domestic violence investigation involving her, isn’t that true?
Pruitt: We had some verbal arguments, but not a domestic violence investigation, no.
Question: Mr. Pruitt, your first wife actually obtained a restraining order, or a military protective order, as it’s called, to keep you away from her, isn’t that right?
Pruitt: Yes.
Question: And you had to attend a 16-week men’s program because of the allegations made by your wife?
Pruitt: Yes.
At another point in the deposition, Pruitt admitted that he had a warrant out for his arrest for the alleged domestic violence incident.
Being required to attend a ‘men’s program’ , and getting a warrant for his arrest happened because it was a domestic violence incident! Apparently Mr. Pruitt doesn’t know what domestic violence is. So Mr. Mayor and council (minus three), this is the guy you want? Guess protecting women, and believing them, isn’t on your radar…
There’s also the question about why he was fired by the City of Seattle while he was still in training.
One more question: Did Pruitt take the initiative to seek the Edmonds position or was he recruited?
Ron, it’s not clear he was fired by SPD. It could be he left voluntarily. However, it seems odd he didn’t report on his application he was employed by SPD for a time. That information is clearly relevant to his range of qualifications for the Edmonds position. Having citizens uncover this information after he has been confirmed by Council causes suspicions that information has been purposely withheld from the public, which undermines public trust in our elected officials. I truly hope all questions raised can be explained soon so the city can unify around our final police chief selection, whomever that may be.
Good points, Dave; thank you.
Clearly, there are huge issues. Thank you for some factual information. The HR Director was careful to state there was no criminal conviction in his background. Glossing over all that is reported above. But clearly, his background is iffy at best. And the entirety of the mess lays squarely at the feet of the Mayor, and the Councilmembers who rushed the vote through and made a conditional offer to the candidate. And yes, as a woman, this makes me very uncomfortable as the Council clearly did not act in good faith in vetting the candidate. And as a taxpayer, I am also concerned that the City has exposed itself to a lawsuit by Mr Lawless for discrimination: which will be paid for by us ( and from what I have seen and heard) he should be compensated for the treatment he has gotten. So, thank you for enlightening me.
The answers to DV charges, citizens have a right to know.
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The importance of understanding this Gun Control Act of 1968 is what was going on at the time. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy had just been assassinated causing control activist to push for action. There was a popular need to more accountability and controlling who were allowed to get guns. Minors, drunk, mentally ill people, and convicted felons were being banned from gun possession.
The Lautenberg Amendment and Misdemeanor Domestic Violence
In the fall of 1996 a new amendment was introduced and passed almost unanimously. The Lautenberg Amendment amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by including the ban of firearms by individual convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. This includes receiving or possession firearms. This is the federal law on the matter and the determining factor describing that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction makes a person ineligible to have a firearm.
Domestic Violence And Firearm Possession: Washington State Law
Search domain http://www.mollybkenny.com/library/domestic-violence-conviction-and-firearm-possession-wa-family-law-office.cfmhttps://www.mollybkenny.com/library/domestic-violence-conviction-and-firearm-possession-wa-family-law-office.cfm
It is against Washington law for a person convicted of a domestic violence crime to possess a firearm or own a gun.
Brent,
I feel a need to respond to your message. I’m not sure what you are implying, but I don’t believe Chief Pruitt has ever been convicted of a domestic violence crime, and it’s not fair to him to suggest otherwise. There are some allegations out there and history of a restraining order that deserve some explanation, but that’s it.
One more thing, the boutique recruiting company was retained in February. I do not know how much taxpayer money was actually paid to Public Sector Search & Consulting, Inc. I do not know if Public Sector Search & Consulting, Inc. played a role in finding the applicants discussed in the Mayor’s October 27, 2020 Press Release. The October 27, 2020 Press Release does not mention the recruiting company.
There is a possibility that the second recruiting process was done internally by the City itself. Hopefully, the City will be open and transparent and share this information with citizens. I wonder if the City recruited differently in August – October than the City recruited in February – April.
Again, thank you for writing this Letter to the Editor. Hopefully, the Mayor will respect the Code of Ethics and answer your questions. The Code of Ethics states that elected officials shall: Keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens.
Thank you Helen Hall for an excellent letter. The administration should have responded to questions by now per Mr. Reidy’s submitted Code of Ethics.
The Mayor comes from a law enforcement background and has supported adding officers in the past while on council. Why the change?
In my opinion, the mayor and 4 council members have chosen a selfish “me” and my agenda with this decision and refuse to listen and be part of “we” the citizens of Edmonds. Maybe they would care to explain what this agenda is.
How would anyone know what they are thinking they don’t communicate. I will let someone else write their names. I have grown weary of all of them.
If anybody is interested in more history of our City’s Appointive Offices, you might want to read my 2012 Guest Column and the related comments made. Code changes have been made subsequent to my column, but a few readers might find a window into the history to be of interest:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2012/01/guest-column-thoughts-about-city-officers-and-the-edmonds-city-code/
Great letter Helen Hall.
Citizens of Edmonds: How is this Strong Mayor / Weak (and part-time) Council city government model working for you? It isn’t working well for me, but I’m just a simple man who tries
to be a straight shooter and thinks people – especially public servants (elected and appointed) should do the right thing for their constituents at all times. In short, I’m probably a simple minded fool.
I’ve heard the argument that the problem is the man, not the system. That is not so. Nelson is the Mayor of Edmonds because over half the people in this town do not believe they have been well represented in the past. Many people in this town voted for Nelson because they believed the town has been run by a downtown elite of good ‘ol boys(mostly) and it was time for a change. Their perception was that past mayors had been arrogant and focused mainly on the idea of selling Edmonds to the highest bidder.
My contention is that this Strong Mayor system is bound to attract only people who are interested in control and running the system they want, their way. This is the classic business model of board of directors for window dressing but the CEO actually holding all the real power cards.
I was once involved in a non-government activist group that attracted the attention of one of our so called “good” mayors who was quite upset we hadn’t come to him first. He basically assured us that he didn’t think we had the problem we were trying to address, but he wanted some official input and knowledge of what we were up to. Different personality, but same fundamental need to control. He was a “good” mayor by the way.
Very well put Hellen Hall. There are just too many unknowns in a very sensitive situation.
P.S. Thank you Hellen Hall for speaking out!
Correction please. Should read he was a good Mayor, meaning I think he was sincerely trying to be a good mayor and he did do a lot of good things while mayor.
Very well put Helen Hall. There are just too many unknowns in a very sensitive situation. Thank you for speaking out.
If the City Council was concerned about racism, why did they appoint Luke Distelhorst instead of Alicia Crank? Alicia actually ran a campaign and did fairly well. I believe she also had more experience in City Government. Mike Nelson and AFM are projecting.
Right on again, Matt. There is no logic, just the desire for power and influence. Alicia absolutely should have gotten that appointment, because she is smart, highly involved/invested in the community and, while I don’t know her personally, she seems like a really great human being. She definitely wouldn’t have been someone who’s forte is pretty much following the heard and dancing with the one that brought you; while giving condescending come together lectures after rubber stamping the mayor. What a turn off!
Hurd, not heard, but that might possibly be appropriate characterization too? Like, you have “heard” how I expect you to vote, haven’t you?
I voted for Alicia, but have also been hyper critical of her. It seems super ironic for Luke Distelhorst to be a deciding for Pruitt over Lawless for reasons of “race issues” , but he could have easily not of accepted an appointment to the City Council on the grounds that he is white while Alicia is black. ***Several people of color ran***
There’s a big push to change the name of Fort Bragg on the grounds that Bragg was a Confederate General. There seems to be no push to rename Yale University on the grounds that Yale was the most prolific slaver in US history.
Let’s take all the “race issues” to their logical conclusions. Luke Distelhorst… please step down considering you are appointed and there are people of color who actually ran a campaign.
Great discussion by all. I recall along the way that the mayor wanted to appoint Lawless at one point and to do that he proposed a “temporary change” in the appointment ordinance to allow that appointment to be completed. Was that “temp” change offered to council? If so why did the council not do that “fix” and get on with it all?
Great point D.H., future City Council President. If I remember right the council voted Nelson down on that proposal. I don’t remember how the vote went. You’re up to bat, K.R. Put us straight on this one.
Thanks Clinton. I will try!
If changes to the appointment ordinance were needed, I believe it logical to have requested such PRIOR to Mayor Nelson’s April 9th Appointment. I can understand why City Council did not establish a precedent of changing City law after it had been violated. I think it was prudent for Council to not go down that path.
Council was not asked to make a “temporary change” to the appointment ordinance. Council was asked to make permanent change adopting a new exception to the three-interview requirement.
Muddying up this situation was the fact that Mayor Nelson and his staff missed the June 30, 2020 expiration of the interim appointment for James Lawless as Police Chief. I recommend reading pages 22-27 of the July 21, 2020 Council Meeting Minutes which provide more detail about the expiration of the interim appointment and the request for a permanent change to the appointment ordinance.
The spirit of extending an interim appointment is to allow the recruitment process to continue. The interim appointment expired and was vacant. It could not be extended. The City Attorney recommended Council encourage the Mayor to take advantage of a “loophole” in the Code to make a new interim appointment. The related “loophole” Motion carried unanimously at a time no recruitment was taking place.
There is some incredible discussion documented in the July 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes making it well worth reading. For example, the minutes document that the City Attorney advised City Council that “…it is always the Mayor’s choice whether there are one, two or three candidates who are interviewed”. This is not true. As we all know, Council shall interview three candidates prior to the Mayor’s appointment unless Council opts to interview as few as two candidates. The video is also available online.
Ran out of my 300 words so a second post is necessary to discuss what happened when the request for a permanent change came before Council during the July 28, 2020 City Council Meeting.
There are over 10 pages of Meeting Minutes documenting this process so best to read the actual meeting minutes. Instead of the draft Ordinance shown to Council on July 21st being brought forward for action, two new draft ordinances were brought before Council on July 28th. Again, there is incredible discussion documented in the July 28, 2020 Meeting Minutes making it well worth reading. The video is available also and is well worth watching.
One of the two new proposed Ordinances was amended twice and then failed 3-4 on July 28, 2020.
The second new proposed Ordinance was tabled and moved to the August 4, 2020 Council Meeting.
Once again, two draft ordinances were brought before Council on August 4th. Again, great to read those minutes and/or watch the video. Once again, a vote on a proposed Ordinance failed 3-4.
I wonder how this would have played out had Council been simply asked to make a “temporary change” to the appointment ordinance. Reading all the minutes discussed above makes me wonder if the City and its taxpayers have now been exposed to liability. The Meeting Minutes and Videos document a process that was a mess in many ways.
Hi Ken, thanks for the details on timing and temporary ordinances. I do recall that a “temp ordinance” could have been a way out of the problem we faced at that time. At that time if I recall their was council support and mayor support to appoint Lawless and get on with running the city. But I also recall that the temp ordinances were really not temporary. They set into motion giving the mayor more power over appointments for a longer period of time than was needed to deal with the police chief vacancy.
I have not read or viewed all the things Ken has mentioned but do recall some on council not willing to change the process for such a long period of time. That seems to be when council pushed back and said lets post the job, seek candidates and use the existing ordinance.
Ken, I will go back an review what you have cited but is the above about right?
The intense dialog regarding the selection of a new police chief prompts me to add my perspective to those who have already offered their opinions and emotions to this subject. While race has been mentioned as a factor in the relatively sudden change in candidates, I believe the correct expression should be – RACE!
Our society is beginning (just barely) to come to grips with the enormous cultural effects of racism on every single aspect of our lives. For many there seems to be no obvious effect or personal awareness. For others it overtly and inescapably invades every single element of theirs. While it may be possible to bring about a smooth reconciliation in this disparity of perception and effect, it will certainly require leadership that is much wiser than I am. I believe that attempting a genuine balance in how each of us perceives every other person without some of the biases imposed by long cultural heritage, will inevitably create a time when serious dislocations occur. Such as the one which Mr. Lawless (as well as the rest of us) now faces. Perhaps in time our society will learn and teach all of us how to deal with making decisions in a bias free manner, but probably not very soon. I think it will remain a clumsy, but well-intentioned (hopefully) process for a long time. We can only hope that the heat generated thereby does not overwhelm the intended light.
The path to freedom from racial (and many other) bias will be long and difficult. But let it begin here and let it begin now!
Excellent points, well said. Thank you, Ernie.
Dave,
Maybe you are on a different thread.
There are many comments on here regarding a RESTRAINING ORDER, which an also be a TRO, which are issued for DV. There are several comments, I did not bring it up Dave. Maybe you should read them.
I was just citing what the Federal Law is, maybe you should read and understand that, rather than attacking me.
Brent, I believe what Dave was pointing out is that, to our knowledge, Mr. Pruitt has not been CONVICTED of a charge related to domestic violence. The information you presented is important, but it doesn’t relate to the situation with Mr. Pruitt, that we know of at this point at least.
I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that if any charges were filed against Mr. Pruitt for this or any other incident of domestic violence he was allowed to take diversion, meaning if he completed the “men’s program” and didn’t have any other incidents, this incident would not be on his permanent record. Don’t know that for sure, but it would explain why there isn’t an easily found record of it. The fact that Mr. Pruitt is not forthcoming about this, and about his time with SPD, is disturbing.
Annon.
I understand that.
RO’s & TRO’s are not handed out for opening the wrong end of an icecream container.
“The fact that Mr. Pruitt is not forthcoming about this, and about his time with SPD, is disturbing.”
100%
“It is against Washington law for a person convicted of a domestic violence crime to possess a firearm or own a gun.”
He does not, for whatever reason, have a domestic violence conviction on his record (at least that we know of at this point), and, therefore, would be allowed to carry and own a firearm.
Don’t have a clue what opening the wrong end of an ice cream container has to do with any of this.
Let me first preface by saying, I am a woman of color &
I have 6 children who are mixed with black. The pandering to black people HAS to stop. Appointing someone based on his skin color is discriminatory & racist. Yes, racist. Imagine a far greater qualified black man being passed over for a position because a lesser qualified white man was thought to be able to better address issues within the white community.
Let me also say this, the so-called systemic racism social justice cries is a whole trash can of trash. Yes, racism exists but to the extent they claim? Absolutely not. The term ‘racist’ is used so loosely now and people are being accused of being racist for any and everything they say and do, to the extent that real, true racism claims will not be taken seriously. It is beyond ridiculous. I am tired of seeing blacks being put into positions solely based on their skin color. Absolutely discriminatory. As for me and my children, we will work hard to rightfully earn any and everything we want in life. Keep your virtue signaling away from us. Thanks.
Thank you for the best post of the day Giannine Commodore. As a person of light color who grew up in a dark color neighborhood, I also cringe when I see so much inappropriate and insulting race pandering language being tossed around so freely without any consideration of how damaging and polarizing it is. I too am having a hard time teaching my daughter that this social justice victim ideology is beyond false and culturally harmful as is evidenced once again by this discussion thread. Thank you again for reminding us to separate right from wrong.
David, I’d like to understand what you mean when you say “I too am having a hard time teaching my daughter that this social justice victim ideology is beyond false and culturally harmful as is evidenced once again by this discussion thread.”. The part I don’t understand is the “….as is evidenced once again by this discussion thread.”. What is the evidence you’re hearing/reading in this discussion thread? I’m not being confrontational, I just want to understand your thoughts and message. Thank you in advance.
Giannine,
Excellent Post
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. A.E.
“Discrimination in employment based on Race or Color is a violation of RCW 49.60 and of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Washington Department of Labor and Industries
“Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management, U.S. Department of Labor.
The above statements are very clear—and both laws have been used effectively to right wrongs.
It is illegal to discriminate against someone in employment based on their race and/or color no matter what that race and/or color is. If Mayor Nelson instructed the retained search firm and/or the HR Director and/or other staff members to put forward candidates of color, it would be clear that Mayor Nelson has violated both of the above statutes in his choice of the new Edmonds Police Chief. Because we may not be able to find the answer to this question, we are left with the question of why the person who is clearly the most qualified candidate was rejected and the less qualified candidate chosen.
The big question is what we, the citizens of Edmonds, can do about this situation. It is clear that the Mayor does not give a damn what we think. I am not a lawyer and so don’t know how hard it would be to prove that Mayor Nelson illegally discriminated against Acting Chief Lawless but I am going to try to find out…
Thank you for posting this law. I am tired of the pandering to black people. It is actually embarrassing. I have 6 children mixed with black and there is always a slight concern that we may be lumped in with the social justice warriors screaming “racist!” at every turn. The majority of the black people I know 100% denounce the narrative of the BLM organization and the idea that racism is so pervasive in our country that blacks don’t have the same opportunities as whites do. Never mind the fact that we’ve had a black president and the numerous millionaires and billionaires who are black…or the numerous blacks who hold prestigious positions in state and national government, as well as very successful corporations. I cannot express enough how disgraceful this pandering to blacks has become. How can anyone truly feel good about himself knowing he got a job because of his skin color and not his skills and qualifications? How demeaning.
Well said Giannine!! Your words echo many people and their views.
Close Darrol, but I would not say the Council pushed back. I think it was the Administration doing the pushing because the Mayor and his staff knew the Mayor’s April 9th Appointment violated our Code.
The Mayor and his staff did not bring forth a draft of a “temporary” Ordinance for Council to consider. The subject did come up at the last minute as described in further detail below:
I just searched the July 21, July 28, and August 4th Meeting Minutes for the word “temporary” and found nothing. I did a quick speed read and found discussion of using a “sunset” clause to effect change in a less permanent way came up in the August 4th Meeting. That discussion starts in the third paragraph down on page 20 of the August 4th Meeting Minutes.
The August 4th Meeting Minutes are a fascinating section of Council Meeting Minutes that include a Councilmember asking who is responsible for enforcing the Code and the HR Director representing that recruitment is a broad term and recruitment to fill the Police Chief vacancy had begun in January, 2020.
The Meeting Minutes indicate that no Councilmembers ever made a motion to amend either of the two draft Ordinances proposed by the Administration on August 4, 2020. Because no Motion to amend one of the two draft Ordinances was ever made, the use of a “sunset” clause was never voted on by the City Council.
One can speculate that this situation may have turned out differently had the Administration started off by requesting a temporary Ordinance, one that sunsetted after a short period of time had passed. Instead, the Administration proposed Permanent changes to our City Code related to what one could argue was a Temporary need.
Thanks Ken, it is disappointing that our leaders could not create a “short term fix” to the appointment process. With lockdowns and local govt constrained on what it was allow to do during the early stages it is clear that some unusual things could have happened. Without passing around blame, I would have hoped our “elected and appointed” folks could have just worked out a solution that made sense.
Thanks Ken.
Darrol:
“I would have hoped our “elected and appointed” folks could have just worked out a solution that made sense.” You’re obviously asking for much too much from the gang of five.
Ron, always hopeful. Life is better trying to be optimistic! I recall a great story my folks told at Christmas about the large farm family that had run out of money for gifts so the filled a room with horse manure and that was the gift for the youngest boy. He went in the room and began to dig as fast as he possibly could. The parents were taken back a bit and asked the boy what he was doing? The boy answered, “if there is this much horse manure here there must be a pony! ”
So for Edmonds we should be looking for the pony, but maybe all we will find is ……. ….
The Fight for the Soul of Seattle is heartbreaking to watch and really resonates in light of Edmonds’ own sudden struggle involving its city leaders and their impact on our police force. In the past decade, the SPD has seen a 50% increase in priority calls, 47% increase in assault calls, 47% increase in burglary calls, and 80% increase in domestic violence calls. This is a story worth watching – and certainly worth discussing – https://komonews.com/news/local/fight-for-the-soul-of-seattle-program-looks-at-effects-of-citys-permissive-posture
Scary!
Hey folks, if I am not mistaken, the Council President gets elected tomorrow night (please correct me if I am wrong) – let’s encourage them to bring a new “unique and fresh” perspective to that role. It might be prudent to select an experienced person who has shown their willingness to cooperate in every matter. It is one thing to push the rules to get a point across, it is another thing to follow the rules in the spirit of cooperative and transparent government without showing a disregard for all viewpoints.
Correct me if I am wrong, but let’s get a new Council President, and see if we can get more cooperation on the Council
George,
You are correct. Tomorrow (12/15) at the Council Meeting which begins at 7 pm, selection of a new Council President is listed under New Business; 1. Selection of Council President for 2021 (20 min)
Link to the agenda – http://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=2751&Inline=True
All Audience Comments are early in the meeting – right after Approval of the Agenda. Typically it’s at about 7:05 pm.
Last week at the Thursday’s Council Meeting (special meeting called to discuss the Budget) only two people spoke. The Council was asked reconsider its vote to approve the Police Chief recommendation. This could have been done by two of the four who approved the nominee by one Council member making a motion to “Move to reconsider” and another seconding the motion. They did not.
Council does not have opportunity to speak to any Audience Comments until close to the end of the meeting during Council Comments which is right before the meeting adjourns.
How to participate in the meeting tomorrow:
Log on via Zoom:
https://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261
WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
Persons wishing to provide audience comments using a computer or smart phone can raise a virtual hand to be called on. It’s on the bottom of the screen.
Or
Join by phone: 1 253 215 8782
Persons wishing to provide audience comments using the phone number are instructed to press *9 to “raise a hand”. When called to speak, press *6 to unmute.
The meeting is also streamed on the Council meeting webpage, Comcast Channel 21, and Ziply Channel 39.
It kind of comes down to whether it was the “permanent” nature of the change that stopped the council from doing the “fix” of Nelson’s self inflicted problem. Or, was it a concerted effort by the Democratic Party five to make this a more racially motivated choice for our supposedly “racist” city. I’m really disappointed in Laura Johnson because I know she is a smart and good person with an independent mind, or a potentially independent mind anyway.
Since Nelson and AFM have pretty much totally clammed up as to their thinking on the matter, we will probably never know what the real reasoning was behind Nelson’s changed choice or if there were hidden meetings between the mayor and some of the council. This relates back to Earling and Tibbot (I believe), going behind the council’s back, which K.J. brought out so well in the debates.
I don’t know why I can’t seem to make the point here, but it is definitely a system that doesn’t work right in terms of really representing the people that live here and, maybe more to the point, where they live here. The last administration couldn’t pull it off and the new one can’t either. To my chagrin the new admin. is even worse than the old ones were; I think because of my own political parties interference. Personally, this has thrown me into perceiving myself as an Independent now, rather than a Dem.
Clinton, I agree. The system needs improving. And as you know, these positions are established to be “non-partisan” so that those who serve in them will operate in the best interest of the city and its citizens and not a political party. I think we all witnessed what happens when that goes unchecked. Truly unfortunate. Perhaps it is time to go to districts. And welcome to the independent club –
Anyone who uses the word “race” or “racist” as often as the democrat do gooders in this town do, are by definition racists. To say Edmonds has these issues is outright laughable
You might reflect that very many Democrats, myself included, do not brandish these words, though some conservatives do blindly use the phrase “Democratic do gooders” with considerable frequency (not “democrat,” which is partisan, incorrect, and denigrating) To imply that all Democrats do this is laughable. All the Democratic friends I have spoken to are appalled by the “woke” goings-on of the council and the sheer idiocy of the appointment under discussion.
We work so much better if we put away our broad brushes and show each other a modicum of respect. Nor is there much wrong with trying to do some good, come to that.
Thank you, Nathaniel.
These points are from a longer letter to Mayor Nelson and City Council members:
HR director Jessica Neill Hoyson repeatedly said Sherman Pruitt has not been CONVICTED of any crimes, but that does not tell the entire story of the life and choices of the man you are naming as our highest law enforcement officer- the Chief of Police!
After being in charge of the community outreach efforts of a nearby law enforcement agency for twenty years, I know it takes a long time for a new police chief to become comfortable and effective in his position. Only then can he begin successful outreach efforts to involve the community. Jim Lawless already had firm plans to offer a police citizens academy for Edmonds residents, and he was considering other programs to engage citizens in their law enforcement agency. Realistically, a new chief of police will be unable to conduct such outreach for a long time, no matter what he says he intends to do.
I also call out council president Adrienne Fralay Monillas for labeling Edmonds a racist city. She justified this statement by saying the television interview was long and they just used that one part. That is no excuse! It does not matter how long her interaction was with the media, she did great damage by her quote, “With all the racism in Edmonds…” Her statement came as unwelcome and untrue news to Edmonds citizens of all colors who live side by side and have been good neighbors for years. Someone in Monillas’ position, who speaks for the city, should certainly have more wisdom and understanding when interacting with the media. She has done great damage by her ineptitude and false statements.