The City of Edmonds issued a response Wednesday to a formal complaint filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging that the city is using public resources to influence voters to approve regional fire authority (RFA) annexation during an April 22 special election.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 24 by Edmonds resident and RFA opponent Theresa Hutchison, takes issue with the $64,000 contract between the City of Edmonds and Liz Loomis Public Affairs (LLPA) signed on Aug. 23, 2024. (Read the full complaint here).

According to the scope of work, Loomis was to provide “strategic communication consulting services” including “messaging for the City about annexing to South County Fire; and communication materials or correspondence to educate on the proposed annexation.” (Read the full contract including the scope of work here).

In her complaint, Hutchison alleges that city funds “may have been used improperly” to pay for the Loomis contract. The complaint alleges that LLPA was “hired not for neutral communication but to actively support and promote RFA annexation,” and that their work for the City of Edmonds crosses the line between education and advocacy.

Voters will decide during the April 22 special election whether the city should obtain fire protection and emergency medical services by annexing to the South County Fire RFA or pursue other options.

Under Washington State law, RCW 42.17A.555, use of public funds, facilities or resources to influence an election is illegal. However, the law is specific in noting that this does not apply in certain situations, including the following:

1. “Actions taken at open public meetings…to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;
2. “A statement by an elected official…in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition;
3. “Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.”

(Read the full text of the law here)

Additional details on what is and is not allowed under the law and what these mean in practice, are explained in the PDC publication Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns.

Hutchison’s complaint points to statements on LLPA’s website saying that the organization “specializes in securing voter approval for revenue measures, boasting a high success rate in passing ballot initiatives,” and that their previous work for other jurisdictions included “drafting text for direct mail pieces, news releases and website content that presented annexation in a favorable light.” Additional supporting evidence cited in the complaint includes statements taken from emails and excerpts from draft working documents – including a direct mail piece — obtained through a City of Edmonds public disclosure request.

On March 10, in advance of the city’s March 14 deadline to file a response, the Everett Herald broke the story about Hutchison’s PDC complaint. The story details several email threads obtained through public disclosure between Edmonds city officials and Loomis. It has been widely circulated by those favoring a no vote on annexation.

Among these was a reported email exchange between Mayor Mike Rosen and Liz Loomis in which Rosen asked Loomis to mention additional services [beyond fire and EMS response] that South County Fire provides. Loomis responded, “Let me do my job. We have won five of these projects in the state,” and went on to add that “we have experience with opposition and will correct inaccurate assumptions…”

Hutchison’s complaint alleges that these and similar statements are part of a larger pattern, suggesting that the city and Loomis knowingly colluded in effort to manipulate public opinion to support annexation. (Read the Herald story here).

The complaint concludes with the following:

“I respectfully request that the PDC investigate whether the City of Edmonds violated state law by using public funds for advocacy related to the RFA annexation ballot measure. Specifically:

1. Did LLPA’s activities constitute advocacy rather than neutral education?
2. Were public funds used improperly to influence voter opinion?
3. Did City officials knowingly authorize or participate in these activities?”

The city’s response

In an advance excerpt from the city’s response to the PDC complaint, sent to My Edmonds News on Wednesday, the city maintains that all communication materials developed by LLPA and paid for with city funds provide facts associated with the ballot measure and use communication channels that the city has used previously as a regular part of doing business.

Responding to allegations that draft wording for a planned direct mail piece obtained through public disclosure is crafted to “present annexation in a favorable light,” the city maintains that the mail piece follows PDC guidelines. Specifically: “[t]he PDC will presume that every agency may distribute throughout its jurisdiction an objective and fair presentation of the facts for each ballot measure,” typically a jurisdiction-wide “fact sheet” mailing. The city also states “that the mere use of a jurisdiction-wide factual mail piece does not constitute a PDC violation.”

In addition, the city notes that the complaint “does not question the truthfulness of any particular language,” and maintains that, by contrast, “the content offered by those opposed to the ballot measure is subjective and factually inaccurate, making it not appropriate for the city to present.”

The city’s response concludes with the following: “Instead of taking issue with the city’s actual communications to the electorate (the product of the public funds), the overall tenor of the complaint appears to derive from contract documents and communications to/from Ms. Loomis that were not intended as public-facing educational materials. As such, the PDC guidelines don’t apply to these communications. All content from the city involving the annexation ballot measure is based on facts.”

In summary, the city said its main arguments are as follows:

• “Cities have a duty to inform the public of the nature of ballot measures. Education does not equate to advocacy.
• PDC complaints are a common tool for parties opposed to ballot measures to inject uncertainty into a ballot measure.
• We are confident that our communication with the public has been educational and in compliance with law.”

Next steps

According to PDC spokesperson Natalie Johnson, the complaint will first be subject to PDC staff review, which can take up to 90 days. During this internal review, the PDC will decide whether to:

• Dismiss the complaint as frivolous or unfounded due to lack of evidence;
• Deem it appropriate for resolution as a minor violation, which generally entails a warning letter;
• Address it as a remedial violation resolvable through technical correction;
• Resolve it by agreement through stipulation or statement of understanding;
• Convert it to a formal investigation.

Should the case not be resolved at a lower level and rise to the level of formal investigation, there is no set timeline. Formal investigation begins with a closed-door case status review meeting with the PDC executive director, followed by an enforcement hearing before PDC presiding officers. If they determine that a violation has occurred, the full PDC will consider it and either rule or refer it to the Washington State Attorney General.

Full details about the review process are available in the PDC publication Initial Review of Complaints.

According to Johnson, most cases are resolved at the staff level. In fiscal year 2024, the commission found 70 violations out of a total of 653 complaint-based cases, a little less than 11%. See more details in the PDC’s 2024 Annual Report here. For cases rising to full commission review, per violation penalties can range up to $10,000.