Council votes to disband Edmonds Salary Commission and instead focus on pay equity work

City Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson (bottom row – left) talks with the Edmonds City Council June 7 about issues related to the salary commission.

Voting along familiar 4-3 lines, the Edmonds City Council agreed Tuesday to disband the Edmonds Citizens Salary Commission, which sets compensation for councilmembers and the mayor. Instead, the council agreed to work with the city’s Human Resource Department to address equity issues when it comes to councilmembers’ pay, with the goal of ensuring that council compensation is high enough to encourage more community members to run for office.

The decision came a week after a proposal was introduced by city staff to change the schedule of how the city’s salary commission presents its findings — from every two years to every four years. Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson had proposed the change because there is considerable staff time involved in working with the commission, and its findings on councilmember and mayoral salaries don’t change much over time.

When the council discussed the issue last week, the conversation turned to how to ensure council pay can attract a diverse range of council candidates — something that City Attorney Jeff Taraday said was beyond the salary commission’s scope. (Councilmembers currently make $16,000 annually plus health benefits.)

In revisiting the issue this week, none of the councilmembers who spoke Tuesday night disagreed with the concept of ensuring that council salaries should be set with equity in mind. The disagreement came in how to get there. Three councilmembers — Kristiana Johnson, Diane Buckshnis and Vivian Olson — supported the idea of keeping the salary commission structure the same — with findings presented every two years. The study of salary equity could be done in tandem, they argued, and then if necessary the salary commission could be disbanded later.

But Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas proposed eliminating the commission immediately, and having the city’s human resources staff begin work right away to address the equity piece. The salary commission could always be reinstated later if necessary, she said.

“It makes it very difficult to participate in the process when they (councilmembers) may be two-people working families, they have children at home..where they may have to give up their job to come,” Fraley-Monillas said.

City Attorney Taraday pointed out the council could accomplish the same goal by simply following staff’s recommendation to have the commission issue findings on a four-year rather than a two-year cycle, which would give the council time to address how to make salaries more competitive to attract a diverse range of candidates without changing city code to disband the commission. In the end, however, Fraley-Monillas’ motion was supported by Council President Susan Paine and Councilmembers Laura Johnson and Luke Distelhorst.

“If council does have the desire to move in the direction of the equity issue, council should do that first, and then decide whether the salary commission should meet in year three or year four,” added Councilmember Laura Johnson.

This isn’t the first time the council has eliminated the all-volunteer salary commission, which reviews and sets compensation and benefits of City of Edmonds elected officials. The commission was disbanded in 2014, then reinstated in 2016.

Taraday noted that if the council does decide to set compensation itself, any salary increase would not go into effect until 2026, when all sitting councilmembers would either have been re-elected or were no longer on the council.

In other business, the council held a public hearing regarding a master permit application from New Cingular Wireless to install small-cell wireless facilities in city rights of way. Those testifying raised concerns related to potential health and environmental impacts, both topics that have been raised in past council discussions.

While New Cingular’s current plans do call for the small cells to house 4G technology, wireless representatives admitted that eventually 5G would replace 4G. The carrier is the first to request permission to place small-cell wireless facilities in the city, but it’s expected that eventually other carriers will submit their own master permit applications. The master permit is the general authority that the city grants a telecommunications provider to place facilities in the city’s right of way.

In April 2019, the city council unanimously approved an ordinance governing the aesthetics of small cell wireless facilities in the city’s right of way; however, federal regulations don’t allow local or state governments to prohibit their installation altogether. The City of Portland, along with dozens of other local governments, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding local governments’ ability to regulate 5G facilities, and that matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Concerns about asthetics were raised again Tuesday night, with some councilmembers expressing worries about potential visual pollution that could result from a proliferation of small-cell wireless facilities over time.

“This is serious stuff for our city,” Councilmember Diane Buckshnis said. “This will change the look of our city for years to come.”

Councilmembers also asked questions about the potential health impacts of the 5G technology, although Taraday again reminded them that the council can’t deny permits based on health concerns, including those related to radio frequency emissions — and that only the federal government has that authority.

Taraday agreed to provide a range of councilmember-requested background documentation on the issue for next week’s meeting, when the council is scheduled to decide whether to approve the master permit.

In other business, the council:

  • Agreed to waive rent that the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce is paying for office space in city hall for July-September, for a total of $2,136.57. The chamber has been facing financial challenges due to COVID-related event cancellations during the past year.
  • Heard an annual report from the Edmonds Diversity Commission, as well as a work plan for the coming year.

You can watch the entire council meeting at this link.

34 Replies to “Council votes to disband Edmonds Salary Commission and instead focus on pay equity work”

  1. I can see us having the highest paid City Council and Mayor in the state. I doubt that it would improve the city government.

    Ignored

  2. using the same argument the teacher’s unions do ” We must raise the pay and benefits structure to get the best and brightest to teach our kids. We must compete with the private sector for talent”. Yeah, and we see how well that has worked. Nothing more “loathsome” than career politicians there for the money and perks (AKA graft ).

    Ignored

  3. Well, there they go again. Now they will vote full time pay for part time work, which is all City Council work is ever supposed to be.
    This is just like the ridiculous and very expensive nationwide search for a new police chief, with reportedly zero applicants, because no one wants to work for this dysfunctional Mayor and City Council.
    Wasting taxpayer money for what purpose?
    This Mayor and 4 City Council members just don’t get it – they spend Taxpayer funds for silly political agendas that the Citizens of Edmonds did not ask for and don’t want.
    Thankfully there is an election coming where we can throw some of these bums out.

    Ignored

  4. In 2019, the value of the benefits to the Council members was about $8700. About half of their salary. Any discussion should include the value of the total package not just the salary. So I am guessing the compensation to actually be around $30K. If memory serves the Councilmembers who have their own health insurance can take the money directly, and opt out. It is disingenuous to not include such a major portion of the compensation, or reduce it to merely and benefits.

    Ignored

    1. When I read this the including medical insurance was my first thought.
      So they are at about 30,000.$ a year now, for part time. I would like to know how many of them take the cash as they already have medical coverage from a spouse or another job….since this is part time. I do think this should be a full time job. That will get you those more educated experienced applicants. But for them…even 80,000. A year around here isn’t much. So, no to that silly idea.
      Also…I personally don’t think with the zooms I have watched ,always someone not there…has emergency…it happens almost every time. It’s either a job or volunteer position…make up your minds. The looks, the smirks, its childish often. Too bad Shane can’t just be the council all by herself…she impressed me more than any of them. She was smart, she didn’t act like a child. Tremendous patience, that woman.
      So, I say WE are very busy right now trying to protect ourselves…no time to worry about their wages….but a great way to try and switch subjects, isn’t it? Get them all up in arms, the citizens, as we do things behind their back. Yeah, that’s how much I trust them and this mayor.
      As far as the equity. Equal pay for all of them. No exceptions.. this way it doesn’t encourage special interest groups. With money the more you make the more power it seems one has…..special interests love power and money…I think we all know that.
      Equity in pay is usually used for women making less than men, and race issues.
      Now please get back to work….if this council has this much power it should be working its hardest right now…and not about your salaries please.
      I like you Diane T. You always do a great job. I have noticed.

      Ignored

      1. Great comment Deborah, we do not often agree, but you said exactly what I am thinking! This was a clear-eyed description of what is going on, no party-politics involved.

        Ignored

        1. Thanks James. You might be surprised at how much we see eye to eye on the issues. I know I am abrasive. Someone has to be the sacrificial lamb who no one likes to get them going. Someone has to say things others want to but won’t out of fear of being a social pariah. I am said lamb and could care less about most people’s opinion of me. I am not a needy or insecure woman. So maybe someday we will meet. We will talk in person and just find out how much we really do agree on.

          Ignored

  5. Until we vote in a Mayor and Council group that wants to advocate for switching to a weak mayor/strong council/city manager from of government (think Shoreline’s system) nothing is going to get better here. Shoreline is not perfect, but they have an annual survey open to all their citizens to rate how they think the city is doing. They generally rate in the 80% or better range positive results.

    You will always have Mayor/council coalitions develop with the current system. Ideally we would vote our C.P.s (should be full-time) out of districts and the Mayor should be a part-time ceremonial post of some sort or just rotated between C.P.s. The names and faces of what we have will change but the dysfunction and waste will continue. It’s just a matter of which special interest groups get what they want.

    Ignored

  6. There needs to be an explanation of what equity means. Doesn’t everyone get the same salary? Also, anyone who is a citizen of Edmonds can run for a position on the council so no one is prohibited from running. Guess that should mean equity for all. It is definitely not a full time job nor should people expect to be paid as a full time worker. It is certainly true that some have circumstances that do not permit them to be on the council. Most people apply for jobs and volunteer opportunities that they are able to manage. So they shouldn’t run for a council position if they are unable to manage their personal lives and also be on the council. If the salary and benefits add up to $30,000 – that is much more than most people earn working part time and many do not earn that working full time.

    Ignored

  7. As a ex member of the salary commission the reason it took a fair amount of staff time was because we wanted as much information as possible.on what other cities were paying there mayor and council. I guess doing you charge was just to much.

    Ignored

  8. Why would you want to have an objective commission with objective information set salaries, when you can have a system where the Mayor and his staff (that answers pretty much just to him) set the salaries of our seven elected officials? Suspect the Mayor position, at least, will soon get a hefty raise in pay. At least the pay can’t be raised during the current terms of the elected officials, but that is about the only safeguard in this new found approach. This city government is so broken, it can’t be fixed, short of just starting over from scratch.

    Ignored

    1. I think you are right. I doubt Nelson wins re-election. It seems a good house cleaning is in order. Plenty new to choose from. Things became much too political during this time of covid. This is not a bipartisan council or mayor. That is very clear. With a town this divided we must have I believe a more let’s say centerist mayor and council. People who can see all sides and are willing to listen and compromise in a professional way. A council and mayor who we trust not fear. We need to make decisions as citizens so we all need to talk to each other too. The council and mayor should be putting our choices to work…not their own….on the sly. It just too late to fix this. Human nature is what it is. We can’t expect our current council and mayor to change what their nature is…its impossible.

      Ignored

  9. I think we pay the mayor about $500/day. We pay council members about $60 a day. If council works more than 4 hours a day they do not even get $15/hr. A worker at Dick’s Drive In gets more per hour than a council member. They also get a uniform for work. Please resist the temptation to suggest they should switch jobs.

    Ignored

    1. The council salary is only a portion of their compensation package. They get health insurance ( doubtfully that part time fast food workers do), they get addition money for attending other meetings ( something like $50/per meeting). To access the compensation one must look to the entire package, which presumably that is what the now disbanded salary commission would consider. One has to wonder why the administration wanted to change it at this point in time. The other thing to consider is that all of our electeds know what the Compensation packages are when they run for office. By law they cannot set their own compensation, so any changes will be effective at a much later date.

      Ignored

  10. Actually the pay and benefits at Dicks are pretty interesting for a someone working 20 hours per week. Check out this link to learn more. Our city should have a similar link for us all to learn about compensation for our staff and elected.
    Employment – Dick’s Drive In (ddir.com)

    Here is a summary of the pay and benefits at Dick’s.
    $17/hr. and shirt managers +$7
    $28,000 scholarship fund for college, vocational, or self-improvement programs
    Childcare $5-9000. Scholarship money can be used for childcare.
    Health care 100% for employee 75% for child and 50% for spouse.
    Dental care 100% but 50% for smokers.

    If a council member is working only 20 hour per week they can more than double their income by working at Dick’s too.

    Maybe we want to consider adding some hours to councils schedule for specific tasks and pay them more for those tasks. Any ideas on what we would want council members to do in addition to their current “part time work”?

    Ignored

    1. Dario,
      Great comments and perspective as always. I stand on my statement, I was surprised Dick’s is such a good local employer. But for the majority of folks working in the food industry that is not the case. The Council’s compensation package should be assessed by an independent group to determine; not to the whims of the Council and the administration. The appearance that they are setting their own compensation is just bad for trust. They are actually setting it, potentially, for future Councils but it doesn’t look like that. They do get health benefits, to the tune of around $8700 annually. about half of their salary.
      I truly think that for Council not to look as though they are worried about their own compensation, it is really important that an independent body do the research and work to determine what fair is. Higher, lower or whatever. Not to include the benefits in any discussion of compensation is disingenuous.

      Ignored

  11. Leave it to D.H. to quantify this whole discussion to make it more understandable. Good job my friend.

    I have a plan (broken record here). Can the self serving Mayoral position, hire a City Manager who answers to the Council as a whole, elect the C.P.s full time out of the seven current housing districts or smaller number of neighborhoods and put each one in liaison with a city department head on a rotating basis, so everyone knows and interacts with everyone personally over time. Have an annual random survey of citizens to rate how the city is being run ( conducted by an outside objective source of information). Cost more? Probably. Be more business like; efficient and less political? Most likely. Can’t be much worse, anyway.

    Ignored

  12. As a former member of the Salary Commission (that was disbanded by the council in 2014), I would strongly encourage the council members to give much thought to whatever decision they come to. As referenced above, the commission is ALL VOLUNTEER and quietly spends hundreds of hours and many meetings researching and considering all factors that determine salary and benefits for council member positions and the position of mayor. I use that description for a reason; the commission’s role is to maintain competitive compensation for the POSITIONS. None of the considerations have anything to do with the individuals currently occupying the positions. In our situation, our commission (included 3 former HR executives) presented findings to the council that while the council member positions did not (then) warrant any increase to compensation, the position of mayor did require a slight increase. The findings of the Salary Commission cannot be overturned. Some members of the (then) city council objected to our findings and searched for a way to kill their implementation. After probing various legal avenues with the city attorney, the council identified an angle. The commission, at no fault of its own, had apparently been operating one member shy of the required quorum due to the inability to attract qualified participants. That was a sufficient technicality for the council majority to disband the Salary Commission, and therefore kill the compensation findings. A side product of this decision was the total waste of time spent by the ALL volunteer commission. I don’t know about the other commission members, but I now encourage everyone I know to think very carefully before being tempted to volunteer for city government entities. We should also think about volunteers when debating equity. It takes many people to come forward and donate their valuable time and unique talents to help Edmonds function.

    Ignored

  13. I remember parts of that 2014 situation. I also know that former Mayor Dave Earling did not approve Ordinance No. 3975 with his signature. Ordinance No. 3975 repealed ECC Chapter 10.80 regarding the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials. I’m not sure the legal significance of the Mayor not signing the Ordinance.

    I am pretty sure that it is too late for the 2021 City Council to disband the Salary Commission. Nobody has yet made a motion to repeal Ordinance 4057 which created the Salary Commission. Assuming somebody does make such a Motion at a future Council Meeting, that the Motion is seconded and that such Motion passes, an Ordinance to repeal Ordinance 4057 will be subject to referendum and cannot be effective for 30 days.

    Ordinance 4057 clearly states that the the commission SHALL have the duty to meet between July 1st and September 30th of each odd-numbered year commencing the year 2017, to review the salaries paid by the city to each elected city official, except that the salary of the municipal court judge shall be determined in accordance with ECC 2.15.040.

    Shall means mandatory, so I think the Salary Commission needs to be in place so it can start meeting July 1st.

    There is an item titled Ordinance to Repeal Salary Commission on the Consent Agenda for the June 15th Meeting. I do not know if it should be on the Consent Agenda because nobody has made a Motion to repeal Ordinance 4057 yet. The Consent Agenda item says to “Please see attached ordinance”, but I can’t find any such thing in the 1,143 page agenda packet.

    Ignored

    1. Ken, just wanted to say thanks for always thoroughly researching these issues. You do an amazing job.

      Ignored

  14. Wow, 1,143 pgs, Time to read?

    Here is what I think I know from the above.
    1. Salary commission did a good job comparing mayor and council positions to keep our jobs competitive. The concluded a raise for mayor position by pay and benefits ok for council. Good starting point.
    2. Council disbands SC? Did they do it correctly? Many feel that was a poor decision or not done correctly.
    3. Benefits and salary were part of the SC work.
    4. Based on the salary of $16k council gets paid $307/wk or $61/day. So using $15/hr as a min wage, council would be expected to work 4hrs a day. Dick’s workers with their $17 min wage only need to work 3.5 hrs to make as much! And they get education benefits and childcare assistance as well! Lots of joke remarks could be made here but I will leave that to your creative imaginations.

    Questions?
    A. Did the SC look at any data for time our council works, or any other council works? Probably beyond scope of work.
    B. Did the SC look at what tasks our council does vs the other councils examined for the comparisons? Probably beyond scope of work.

    What we should be thinking about is what do we want the council to do for its citizens, help frame that work and be willing to pay for it. One of the most pressing issues is always is the citizens outside the bowl do you feel they have a voice. All candidates say they will represent them, but it never quit seems to work out.
    We created the 7 zones for the Housing work but never really used it. Some would like elections to be zone driven but maybe we could at least ask council to start working on gathering ideas from the zones they were assigned for Housing. Require meetings and full reports back to council. Paying them $100/hr would be worth it. Rotate the assignments on a regular basis and who know, we may actually start presenting folks other than those in the bowl.

    Other ideas?

    Ignored

  15. Thanks Mike.

    I wonder why the concept of equity was brought into this discussion and allowed to muddy up the decision-making process. All the administration was asking for was a change from a 2-year to a 4-year cycle. It seems reasonable to think that could have been a decision made efficiently. Instead, we see another long discussion over multiple Council Meetings and another 4-3 vote.

    One can argue that the equity discussion was not germane to the Agenda item. After equity was brought up, the HR Director made it perfectly clear that an equity discussion could take place with the Salary Commission in place.

    The Salary Commission is required to file a written salary schedule with the City Clerk. The Salary Commission’s 3-month meeting period ends September 30th. Prior to the filing of any salary schedule, the commission shall hold no fewer than two public hearings thereon within the two months immediately preceding the filing of its salary schedule.

    Therefore, it is crucial that the Salary Commission be ready to start on July 1st so it can get the process rolling and be ready for the first public hearing.

    Hopefully the Mayor will be able to move quickly to appoint any members needed. Council needs to approve the Mayor’s appointments. The last June City Council meeting is scheduled for June 22nd. If needed, Council can decide to make an exception and meet on the 5th Tuesday of June, June 29th.

    On April 2, 2021, I emailed Council: Please make sure what is and isn’t subject to referendum is explained in detail to City Council and the public. I told Council: This can be a confusing area and it would help all if a solid, detailed explanation is provided.

    My request for a detailed explanation about the subject of referendum was not acted on.

    Ordinance 3975, approved as to form by City Attorney Jeff Taraday, indicates that a repeal of the City Code for the Salary Commission (Chapter 10.80 ECC) is subject to referendum.

    Ignored

  16. So am I understanding this right? If the Mayor and Council want to repeal the Salary Commission they are supposed to have a public vote on the matter? I assume referendum means a referral to the voters (citizens) for a vote? This is starting to look like pretty serious business to me. Who does this city attorney work for, the Mayor or the citizens? Is there some mechanism to ask the state Attorney Generals office to do an independent investigation of how this city is being run?

    I just joined something called the Edmonds Roundtable that is supposed to be a non-political problem solving group of citizens. So far I’ve heard nothing from anyone in this group privately or publicly, but they haven’t returned my check, so there must be some activism contemplated by them. Seems like this is something a group like this would be pretty vocal about. Where are the questions and public outcry about what is happening here?

    Ignored

  17. Hi Clint,

    The City adopted the power of initiative and referendum via Ordinance 2516 in 1985. As such, certain types of Ordinances may be enacted by citizen Initiative or repealed by citizen Referendum. Citizen Petitions are required. The 1985 City Council chose to establish some limits to the broad powers of our City government!

    Ordinance 3975, repealing Chapter 10.80 ECC, indicated that such repeal was subject to Referendum. Ordinance 3975 was passed on August 19, 2014, and effective on September 18, 2014.

    If Council were to repeal Ordinance 4057 on June 15, 2021, I imagine it would be effective July 14, 2021. Citizens are provided 30 days to decide whether to repeal by Referendum or not. As such, I think it too late to disband the Salary Commission this year as it has a duty to meet between July 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021.

    I became more aware of Ordinance 2516 when I was researching the current council’s habit of calling ordinances “emergencies” and voting on such with little to no opportunity for public comment. Our City Council was told repeatedly that it only took a “Super Majority” (majority plus one) vote to pass an Emergency Ordinance. During this research, I found the following: To enact an emergency ordinance the vote must be unanimous and include a statement of urgency. RCW 35A.11.090(2).
    The following is taken directly from MRSC’s publication: Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties – see bottom of page 21, top of page 22:
    A legislative body may also need to follow special procedures to enact an emergency ordinance. For example, passage of a “public emergency ordinance” in a code city requires a vote of a majority plus one of the whole city council. (If the code city has adopted the powers of initiative and referendum, the vote must be unanimous and include a statement of urgency.) RCW 35A.11.090(2)

    The City has refused to answer my questions about all the so called Emergency Ordinances that did not receive a unanimous vote.

    Ignored

  18. So for the citizens to stop this move by the Mayor and Council there would have to be a petition drive for a referendum on the matter started within 30 days of the passing of the new ordinance or passage of the repeal of the ordinance authorizing the Salary Commission, if we were doing this correctly? It also sounds like anything but a unanimous vote on any emergency ordinance would be an illegal and invalid action by the Council. Who would investigate what has occurred to date for compliance and enforcement of the law? How would you start a petition and how would it be certified or not? What jurisdiction or office would over see the referendum or initiative process? Seems like our city government is a Model T in design and speed when it should be a Tesla to meet our current needs.

    Ignored

  19. Clint, MRSC.org provides a great Initiative and Referendum Guide for Washington Cities and Charter Counties. The guide should answer most questions.

    In general, the number of registered voters needed to sign a petition for initiative or referendum shall be fifteen percent of the total number of names of persons listed as registered voters within the city on the day of the last preceding city general election. There are far more details, so it is helpful to refer to MRSC’s Guide.

    Another thing to consider is that the 30-day Referendum time period also allows City Council more time to reconsider its vote prior to a new Ordinance being effective as law.

    Regarding the Emergency Ordinance situation, one would hope the city government would address its conduct once a citizen makes them aware of act not allowed under the RCW or City law. One would hope the Mayor would address all previous Ordinances treated as if they were Emergency Ordinances that did not receive a Unanimous Vote. Sadly, I have not witnessed much willpower to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced.

    Our City Code is Crystal Clear:
    The mayor shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the city, in charge of all departments and employees, with authority to designate assistants and department heads. The mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city, and shall have general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interest. [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983].

    As such, I think it reasonable for citizens to believe that they are supposed to be able to rely on our Mayors to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced.

    Ignored

  20. Basically, the Mayor in our current system is, for all practical purposes, a one man show, if he or she chooses to be. Citizens here really don’t have much actual say in what goes on in the end. We have these advisory citizens’ commissions and panels but they are pretty much just window dressing as to what the Mayor and those aligned with him/her on the council want to see happen in the city. Council has power of the purse and that’s about it. Council has no investigative powers (as the national deliberative bodies have) and no administrative powers to try to correct abuses in the administrative arena. Elections are not going to change any of this or make it much better. Welcome to Edmonds past, present and future.

    Ignored

  21. Isn’t it the responsibility, if not the outright duty of the city attorney to weigh in on matters such as procedures and processes used by the the City Council, Mayor and city staff which are not in line with current laws, ordinances and/or codes? I would expect that all the procedural points made in this thread should be easily addressed by him along with corrective action taken to bring everyone into compliance. It will be interesting to see what happens at the council meeting this week.

    Ignored

  22. Hi Jim. The City Attorney approved as to form all the so called “emergency ordinances” that the City Council treated as emergency ordinances even when they did not receive a unanimous vote.

    City Council has voted in the past under the false representation that a super majority was required.

    On April 20, 2021, I sent an email to Council that concluded as follows:
    Please figure out how to properly pass Emergency Ordinances and what is and isn’t subject to referendum.

    I asked City Council to please go back and address all Ordinances voted on in the past under the false representation take they could take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council.

    I am unaware of anything being done.

    You can see additional information documented in my Public Comments submitted for the April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting. Such can be found in the April 27, 2021 Meeting Minutes on the City’s website.

    The City changed the June 15, 2021 City Council Meeting Agenda yesterday. It is now 1,145 pages long. The Agenda packet now contains a proposed ordinance related to disbanding the Salary Commission. The proposed ordinance contains the following:

    This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.

    As such, Ordinance 4057 will still require the Salary Commission to be in place and ready to work on July 1st. This is required by Ordinance 4057 and there is no way that law can be changed prior to July 1st.

    Let’s hope Council doesn’t take the attitude exhibited on June 2, 2015 when the City Council held a Public Hearing on an Interim Ordinance on Day 77 when State Law requires such be done within 60 days.

    Council President Fraley-Monillas stated right before her vote on the 77th day that:

    “Seeing that it serves no purpose to vote against, I’m going to vote for it.”

    The purpose of voting against it would have been because the motion clearly violated State law. I believe State and City laws should be followed and respected.

    Ignored

  23. Thanks Ken for your response . I really like your insight and thorough analysis on these subjects.

    Based on your latest note, I can only assume that your message was heard by City Council or the City Attorney and indeed acted upon. Some of this goes on behind the scenes once a legitimate issue is raised. So I’m going to give you an attaboy for keeping them honest – thanks. Let’s hope they follow through now and reconcile some past ordinances as well.

    Ignored

  24. Thanks Jim. Tonight’s Council Meeting will be interesting. Based on my experiences with City legislative issues over the years, it is hard for me to get my hopes up as a citizen providing public input. Nevertheless, I hope it makes a difference this time. Council just reinstated the Salary Commission in 2017 and I think they have performed their responsibilities at a high level. Plus, after equity was brought up, the HR Director made it perfectly clear that an equity discussion can take place with the Salary Commission in place.

    I do know that when July 1st rolls around, the following will still be the law in Edmonds:

    The commission shall have the duty to meet between July 1st and September 30th of each odd-numbered year commencing the year 2017, to review the salaries paid by the city to each elected city official, except that the salary of the municipal court judge shall be determined in accordance with ECC 2.15.040.

    Ignored

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identify before approving your comment.