Citing a budget mailer that landed in residents’ mailboxes two-and-a-half weeks prior to the general election, retired Edmonds attorney Mark Bucklin on Monday filed a complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission accusing the City of Edmonds and Mayor Mike Nelson of violating state laws that prohibit elected officials from using public resources for their campaigns. The complaint also says the mayor violated state law that prohibits elected officials from appearing in public services announcements.
However, a response from the city Tuesday said the mailer was part of the city’s efforts to reach more residents through printed publications, and the timing was intentional to send during council budget deliberations.
Bucklin’s complaint claims that Nelson — a first-term mayor running for re-election — violated several state laws related to campaign disclosures and contributions by publishing and mailing a budget message document that “appears to be promoting Mayor Nelson’s candidacy.” The four-color, four-page, 8-by-10-inch publication included a 2024 Budget Message from Nelson, his photo and a list of the mayor’s 2024 priorities.
Bucklin said the mailer “was created and mailed using public funds” and noted that it “was sent less than three weeks before the general election in November 2023. I am a resident and citizen of Edmonds and I received this mailer on October 21, 2023. To my knowledge, Mayor Nelson has not sent such a mailer with his ‘budget message’ in his past three years in office.”
In a statement sent via email Tuesday, city spokesperson Kelsey Foster said the mailer “has been sent out to all Edmonds residents after his (the mayor’s) budget address in early October for the last three years to improve outreach, engagement, and communication with the public about the city budget.”
Nelson presented his budget message via a YouTube video Oct. 2. At the same time, a link to the video and the city budget as well as a text version of his budget message appeared on the city’s website.
Foster noted that city has also been publishing a print quarterly newsletter. “Even in today’s digital age, getting something in the mail remains a very effective way of communicating with the public and we have received feedback that both the newsletter and the budget message mailings have been well received and appreciated,” she said. The budget publication includes a QR code, which provides the public with “quick access to the budget in its entirety,” she added.
The Edmonds City Council is now considering the mayor’s budget proposal. State law requires that the city have an approved budget by the end of 2023.
“As council is in the process of budget deliberations currently, the timing of this mailer is key to making sure our residents are informed,” Foster said.
Nelson is being challenged by retired public affairs executive Mike Rosen for the mayor’s job. Ballots were mailed to voters Oct. 19.
Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) Deputy Director Kim Bradford confirmed that the commission received Bucklin’s complaint Monday. “It is under initial review to determine whether we will open a case on the allegations,” Bradford said. Created in 1972, the PDC includes five commissioners who interpret and enforce the state’s campaign finance and disclosure laws.
— By Teresa Wippel
I haven’t been able to attend City Council meetings for a while. I have really appreciated that the budget priorities have been mailed out the last few years. It’s hard to keep up with all the opinions out there on social media, so I appreciate getting it straight from the city. Like other mailers from the city, I think it can help reach a broader audience and especially people who may not tune into local discussions. I don’t have to take time off work or find a sitter to read a mailer.
I agree with Alena, and I do follow city updates on social media! I’ve found the city mailers to be informative. I can kinda understand a mailer at this time coming under scrutiny, but on the other hand, is a public official then not allowed to use regular public comm channels to speak to residents around an election? Are we just supposed to skip that Nelson is still mayor and the city is still working through the city’s budget? We need a balance here and I dunno if this complaint is helpful in achieving that.
I have never had a discussion with the mayor, but I am now not anxious to do so. My reaction to receiving a campaign flyer from both Mike Rosen and the mayor on the same day and then realizing I had help pay for the mayors with my taxes….the man has no shame.
It just seems that, months ago, a fairly politically charged group was critical of Mayor Nelson’s lack of communication….
It seems to me that the mayor is trying to improve his communication to Edmonds via this newsletter….but he could’ve took the picture off of the front top of it….of himself .
I would ask the Mayor to explain the property tax ” banked assets”statement in a way that actually explains it to all of us who are not lawyers…or city council people .
I also think that there are easy remedies to the budget problem.
Put a couple of speeding cameras into the top risky spots..don’t overdue it..
Sell the totally unused land that the city purchased a few years ago…behind the marina…..it’s worth 7 million, I believe.
Sell it to someone who will do something that helps generate more revenue to the city.
My opinion is that it’s the Landmark property that is Mike Nelson is using as a vehicle to engage the public and share lofty and pie-in-the-sky big ideas that we can’t pay for and which he won’t need to deliver upon.
With the decision to be made in December whether the city will proceed or get a refund, it’s timed perfectly to have in-person Public feedback sessions just prior to the election.
Shyster is what he is.
It appears the budget mailer was timed to arrive just before the ballots were to be mailed out on the 19th. so they would arrive at almost virtually the same time. For any hope to be re-elected; Nelson has to get most of Diane’s votes (not going to happen) and most of Brad’s votes (not going to happen) or get all his votes, plus simple D. Party loyalists’ votes, who did not already vote in primary, plus all the Hwy 99 people who he is trying to fool with this Landmark fairytale budget item. None of this is coincidental. And don’t tell me it’s a nonpartisan election. What things are supposed to be in Edmonds government and what they are two different things.
I received Nelson’s budget mailer and my ballot at precisely the same time.
These people make Fox News Gold salesmen look good in comparison.
I thought the exact same thing when it arrived at ballot mail-out time. Clearly a campaign move use city funds. This should have been mailed 2 weeks prior, at least.
Thank you Mr. Bucklin for taking action on this clear PDC violation.
Looking forward to accountable leadership with a new Mayor.
Those thick, card-stock, colored flyers filling our mailboxes can be quite useful. My personal favorite uses are: fanning my charcoal briquettes, great as dustpans, protect floors, walls etc when painting with small roller, and a personal favorite, lining the bottom of my bird’s cage.
Lol
The Public Disclosure Complaint issued by Mark Bucklin is worthy of review by the Commision. There are two other items that are noteworthy for review in the Mayor’s mailing. The return address on the mailing is shown as 700 Main Street. This address is the Francis Anderson Center Complex which is owned by the city but is not the official city address. The official address is 121 5th Avenue N. In addition, the USPS Bulk Mailing used on the mailing is Permit 1036 issued in Lynnwood, WA. The City of Edmonds official permit is issued in Edmonds. Why would these unusual conditions be used for a “city mailing” by the mayor. Perhaps the mailing was not considered “official”.
Don’t know but the post office here in the uphill is called Lynnwood I believe.
My objection to this Mike Nelson mailer is that the timing of it so close to election it does seem wrong. We have been discussing Landmark here for a very long time and there was plenty of time earlier, much earlier for this info that we already know. I received it. I read it and yeah it was an advertisement for wants we cannot afford at this time. I think Mayor Nelson knows how the general public feels about that acquisition. So, I guess we will see what happens with Mr. Bucklins complaint. I doubt we will know the outcome before out ballots are due in the boxes. I am not gonna climb all over Mayor Nelson but in retrospect I hope he realizes it might not have been the best decision. If we paid for that with taxpayer money.um. don’t like that. The other candidates paid for their mailers even those now serving on CC as did Mayoral Candidate Mr. Rosen. Correct me if I am wrong. I recycle mine. But I do read them. Not too many attended from what I read.
Why didn’t My Edmonds News ever post the outcome of this matter?
Unsure of the date when this PDC finding was posted and apologies for the lack of followup. The entire link is here:https://www.pdc.wa.gov/rules-enforcement/enforcement/enforcement-cases/143927. In summary: “Based on our findings staff has decided that, in this instance, the distribution of the proposed budget and budget message, in the form of a mailer and that included the image and messaging of the mayor, during the election cycle when the mayor was running for re-election, does not amount to a violation that calls for further investigation.
“However, because RCW 35A.33.055 is silent about if and how the mayor would distribute budget-related messaging to the public, PDC staff reminds Mike Nelson to exercise caution during election years in which he is a candidate. To avoid concerns, budget-related communications would be preferably sent to the public after the election in those years.”
From what I can tell, it was back in late January. A follow up is be warranted, though I’m absolutely skeptical that it wouldn’t be skewed to somehow make the former Mayor in the wrong even though he was cleared.. Mark Bucklin made a bunch of bogus legal claims to help influence the outcome of a mayoral election. He cited 3 laws that the PDC stated do not apply and the 4th one it doesn’t even have jurisdiction over. As a lawyer who represented cities for decades he absolutely should have known better and likely did. If the local media reported on the first part of this, they should absolutely follow up on the outcome and the why it was not found to be an issue. That is unbiased, responsible journalism.