Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) on Thursday issued a warning to the City of Edmonds following a complaint that the city violated the law by using public funds and resources to influence the upcoming Regional Fire Authority (RFA) annexation ballot measure.
The findings were in response to the Feb. 24 complaint filed by Theresa Hutchison on behalf of the Edmonds Can Do Better committee, which opposes the current RFA proposal. The complaint alleged that the city violated the terms of RCW 42.17A.555 in its contract with Liz Loomis Public Affairs to assist in communications to the public about the RFA ballot measure, stating that these communications crossed the line between education and advocacy. For complete details, see My Edmonds News’ earlier story here.
In addition, Hutchison submitted a supplemental complaint March 1. It alleges that the tax calculator on the city’s web page is intentionally misleading in that it selectively presents tax data in a manner that creates an incomplete picture, thereby preventing voters from understanding the tax implications of the RFA ballot measure. (Note that My Edmonds News developed its own tax calculator aimed at presenting a more complete and robust report of the tax implications of the RFA ballot measure.) The commission’s warning did not address the calculator.
The City of Edmonds submitted responses to both complaints, with the first denying the allegations of misuse of public funds and resources and a subsequent response denying that its calculator is misleading. The PDC did not address the complaint about the calculator in its warning.
In its findings and conclusions, the PDC noted that:
– Communications with the public on public time…needs to be devoid of advocacy or opposition, and
– The respondents [the City of Edmonds] did send emails and texts through their official emails and phones in support of the ballot measure…to the consultant [Liz Loomis Public Affairs] as documented in the complaint, and
– The respondents posted on the official City of Edmonds social media on Jan. 15, 2025 using supportive language such as “seeking approval” and “annexation protects the current level and quality of emergency response,” showing support instead of fact-based information regarding the RFA annexation ballot measure, and
– It appears that the emails and texts sent and received by officials at their government email addresses and phones regarding the supportive wording being used in public-facing communications was in violation of RCW 42.17A.555. That’s because the email and text messages were in support of the ballot measure and were communicating on how to best persuade voters to vote in support of the ballot measure regarding the RFA annexation.
Despite the above, the PDC concluded that “any violation that may have occurred was minor and has been cured,” and “does not amount to a violation that warrants further investigation.” The PDC further noted that under state law, the PDC executive director “at any time prior to consideration by the commission, may dismiss a complaint which on its face, or as shown by investigation, provides reason to believe that a violation has occurred, but also shows that the respondent is in substantial compliance with the relevant statutes or rules, or shows that formal enforcement action is not warranted.”
Accordingly, the PDC is issuing a formal written warning letter to the city stressing the agency’s “expectation that you do not use public facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure going forward,” and has dismissed the matter.
Read the full PDC report here, where you can also find links to all relevant documents and the case summary.
“We appreciate the PDC’s thorough review, and the formal warning issued to the City of Edmonds,” said Theresa Hutchison of Edmonds Can Do Better. “Our community deserves government officials who adhere strictly to laws designed to maintain fairness and neutrality in public communications, especially concerning ballot measures that impact our city’s future. Edmonds Can Do Better calls on city officials to respect the PDC’s warning and commit to transparent, unbiased communication with the public.”
In a statement issued Friday morning, the City of Edmonds said: “We’re pleased to see that the PDC dismissed the complaint. While the PDC’s ‘substantial compliance’ finding is a good thing, we think we can do even better than that moving forward and will strive to do so.”
Note that there have been two other complaints filed with the PDC regarding the RFA annexation ballot campaign, both against the Emonds Can Do Better (ECDB) committee.
The first was filed by the Snohomish County Firefighters PAC (FFPAC) alleging that ECDB has not been regularly reporting income and expenditures per PDC rules and has missed several reporting deadlines. However, the PDC reviewed and summarily dismissed the complaint because ECDB is registered under the agency’s mini reporting campaign rules. That means ECDB does not expect to raise more than $7,000 and agrees not to accept any single donation in excess of $500 – exempting it from regular reporting. See My Edmonds News earlier story here for details.
The second was filed by Alexander Johnson on March 21 alleging lack of transparency by ECDB in not revealing the funding source for their campaign flyers. ECDB responded in two separate filings documenting its account records, the first filed on April 11 and the second on April 14. This complaint remains under review by the PDC. Additional details are available from the PDC here.
I just can’t wait for it to be over. The text messages are blocked, and no matter which way it goes, we can rest assured that we won’t be able to afford either option, there’ll be another need to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the Easter Bunny will still visit on Sunday.
Characterizing the Edmonds Can Do better campaign as “anti-RFA” is inaccurate. While there are some associated with the effort who oppose the concept of a regional fire authority on principle, the issue that really binds this group together is opposition to annexation under the terms currently offered by the RFA which are widely perceived as being unfair to Edmonds.
Also, on the subject of campaign tactics, why has the firefighters’ union resorted to last minute scare tactics, pushing robotexts alleging that Edmonds will lose service if the vote goes against them? Full text below. This claim has no basis and even the RFA’s own website confirms that a contract option is available at comparable cost in the event that annexation fails.
Niall,
I’m Connor, a firefighter in Edmonds—and I want to be there for you on your worst days. But our fire and EMS contract ends next year, and without a solution, we could lose critical services.
Voting YES on Prop 1 by April 22 means more local control, fully staffed fire stations, and stable, affordable costs.
I hope you’ll stand with me and vote YES. Learn more here: https://edwafirefuture.info/
– Connor
In a last-ditch attempt to sway voters, Proposition 1 proponents have chosen fear over facts. When their arguments fall flat, they pivot to scare tactics. My wife and I received robo-texts from “Connor, a firefighter in Edmonds,” warning us that voting NO on annexation could cost us critical emergency services. After pouring over $100,000 into this campaign—most of it taxpayer-funded—they’ve now resorted to emotional manipulation.
Worse yet, as this article states, the state’s Public Disclosure Commission has formally notified the city that it violated campaign laws in this process. And just when you thought it couldn’t get messier, we learn that Edmonds is locked in a financial dispute with the RFA over millions of dollars—money that rightfully belongs to our community.
How are we supposed to trust an organization that’s already at odds with us—before annexation has even happened? How can we believe they’ll suddenly act in Edmonds’ best interest once we sign over control?
These tactics reveal something far deeper than desperation. They reveal contempt—for our intelligence, for due process, and for the very community they claim to serve. They think we’re too distracted to notice. Too gullible to push back.
Let’s prove them wrong.
Our fire and EMS services are not going anywhere. Don’t be misled by smoke and mirrors. Let’s put out this fire before it spreads. Vote NO on Proposition 1.
The city is basically bankrupt and having to borrow money from water/sewer revenue to keep the General Fund afloat and the Mayor throws away $64,000 hiring a PR firm to illegally promote passage of Prop. 1 which is basically a special election the Council approved, thus just wasting another $250,000 on this Fire nonsense. And they wonder why sane people are opposed to giving them more money to mismanage. Frankly, this city needs to go bankrupt, if for no other reason, to get people who know what they are doing making the legislation and code and just doing the required basics of management in order to call a town a town. Police, Fire, Waste Management and Infrastructure are the basic functions that a Mayor is supposed to be laser focused on. At one time Ambulance service was in private hands and people got billed for getting themselves hauled to the E.R. Our fire service has become a grandiose Public Ambulance service that fights fires as a sideline.
Editor – I appreciate you getting this article published quickly. There’s 4 more days in the voting period. And many residents are still making up their minds on this topic that has several dimensions to it. Regardless of the complexity of a topic like annexation or continuing to be served under a contract – it’s too bad the City has conflated their (mostly self imposed) fiscal emergency with the topic of fire authority annexation. Perhaps their violation of campaign laws was motivated by their hope the property owners will bail them out this time. Have they compromised their ability to get property owner support for the SECOND ballot measure they’re running this year for higher property taxes? Can we look forward to the same PR firm being engaged to design the messaging for that second election?
Wouldn’t change a word, Clinton.
Let’s recap. This all began when the South Snohomish County Fire Commissioner’s unilaterally canceled our contract five years early, without any justifiable cause. Following this, they proposed annexation at nearly double the cost we currently pay for the same level of service, under the guise of “parity” based on assessed property values. This means that because our properties are on more valuable land than neighboring communities, we would end up paying more than our fair share. It’s important to remember that the land itself doesn’t burn, and houses of similar size have comparable values across the region. This proposal was presented to us through bad faith negotiations with our city.
Since we initiated our grassroots campaign to educate the community about alternatives to the current annexation proposal, we’ve uncovered some surprising and unfortunate truths. We’ve seen the lengths to which our elected officials will go to get their way. We’ve witnessed the spin and deception they employ to misinform citizens. We’ve even discovered that they are willing to act illegally to achieve their goals. Now, other grassroots efforts are beginning to learn the same things.
Once the votes are counted, I believe there is opportunity for our various grassroots efforts to collaborate and help our city move forward. Since leadership and initiative are not coming from city hall, it will have to come from us.
This PDC Case (167685) claims that “any violation that may have occurred was minor and has been cured”.
What defines “minor”?
Isn’t the impact of “showing support instead of fact-based information regarding the RFA Annexation ballot measure” already baked? How many voters have been influenced?
Also, how has it been cured? The PDC offers no details about how this situation has been “cured”.
This week’s council agenda packet indicate Liz Loomis Public Affairs was paid another $8,000 on April 9, 2025.
As a result of the the City’s behavior regarding the RFA and it’s planning to sell parks, Frncis Anderson Center, etc. and then lying about it, I have lost confidence in the Mayor(who I had high hopes for), and in many on the City Council including Vivian Olson, and Neil Tibbott. No matter how the RFA vote goes, and the eventual fate of the City properties, I hope that during election times, the voters remember how they treated us. We need folks in our government to be honest, transparent and competent.
The PDC ruling says that the City Council and the Mayor broke the law, but it was a pretty minor breakage and they have now found religion and been warned to do better, so it’s all just okay and over with. The absurdity of this finding and conclusion is mind boggling. We pay these “drones” big bucks to make excuses to do nothing about anything. It’s time for a tax payer revolt at all levels of our government from the top down. Our laws including the Constitution are treated as pretty much a joke by the President right on down to the City Council Person. We have reached the point that we can just assume the people we elect to manage our common needs are mostly going to do stupid stuff that just makes things worse for most people, but a little better for them in some way – better pay, better return on investments with insider information and a bigger and more impressive title to prove how “smart” or “influential” they are. It’s pretty depressing. The humble honest people that just want fairness, end up giving up and doing the best they can to survive all the greed and foolishness. There is a reason people are spending weekends demonstrating and waving signs. They our out of other options to be heard.
I have been receiving messages from some of our elected officials who are attempting to distance themselves from the recent wave of inaccurate and misleading robo-text messages from “Connor, a firefighter in Edmonds.” My response remains consistent: the city and our elected officials are guilty by association. There is substantial evidence that the city, along with their PR firm Liz Loomis, has collaborated with the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) and the firefighter’s union to advocate, rather than educate, for the passage of annexation – Proposition 1. The findings of the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) referenced in this article, which indicate that the city has violated campaign laws, are based, in part, on such evidence. Unless and until our elected officials, either collectively or individually, publicly disavow and condemn these scare tactics, I will continue to link them together.
As a community, we should hold our elected officials to higher standards than they have been displaying.
The Edmonds’ Mayor and Council behavior had already indicated very questionable ethics by only telling part of the RFA-annexation story and using half-truths and deceit about the whole story. Now it’s demonstrated that they had to also use illegal methods to get their agenda pushed through. The RFA seems a very good accomplice to their plot by using the typical fear tactics employed by con-artists and other criminals alike.
Considering that this is only what was exposed so far, we can imagine what is hidden behind this agenda, and their action confirm that Edmonds is being mercilessly attacked by wolves coming after the “old men life savings” as one of the council members confessed before.
What is also startling is that the PDC’s reaction was just a slap on the city’s wrist. What comes after this? Aren’t the mayor and council mayor mandated to refund the illegally used money to the city coffers? Isn’t this referendum tainted by lies and deceit supposed to be cancelled? Or nothing will be done and WA will just keep its infamous “most corrupt State” crown?
How can we get the DOGE team here? I just imagine what they will find behind all the incompetence and corruption festering in Edmonds. If a quick check brought this, imagine what a deeper investigation will expose.
There has been a council member canvassing neighborhoods, ringing doorbells, handing out notes to vote “yes,” and holding neighborhood meetings while arguing for annexation, all with no one present to present the opposite arguments. Doesn’t this cross the line from education to advocacy?
Sandra-
if the Council member identifies themself as a Council member and speaks as a Council member – it is definitely illegal. If they say they are acting as an individual, and not a Council member, then their action is ‘OK.’ The Edmonds Can Do Better group discovered that 3 of the Council members had previously received campaign contributions from the Firefighter’s union – in 2 cases amounting to more than $3,500 each for brochures and signs in their last election campaign. None of the 3 recused themselves from the vote on annexation! With the exception of Michelle Dotsch, the rest of the Council and Mayor were on a mission to limit the scope of the Fitch study so it would result in a recommendation to pursue the RFA annexation as the ‘lowest cost’ and ‘preferred’ alternative, because the Mayor and Council wanted to have residents pay taxes directly to the RFA. Tht would allow the Council to keep $6M in current taxes that pay for the fire/ems contract service. A ‘No” vote will force the Council to do proper due diligence and to honestly evaluate fire/ems alternatives that cost $9 million/yr less than what the RFA annexation will cost! And they will have to solve the budget disaster by cutting services and laying off staff, not by cutting fire/ems services.
Hey Bill, who are those 3 CC members? Are they up for reelection? People should know. Thank you, Deb.,
Theresa Hollis. I agree it bullying.
Hi Deb
The 3 Council members who accepted contributions from the firefighters’ union include CM Tibbott, CM Eck, and CM Paine. btw- someone asked about seeing the salaries of all Edmonds staff. I think there should be a State law that requires every taxing entity – city, town, fire authority, emergency medical service, school district, county sheriff, etc to publish every employee’s name and salary in the annual report. Why should taxpayers be forced to submit a Public Records Request to get that information? It should be readily available and accessible to every taxpayer every year! I had to file a PRR with the RFA to get the names and salaries of the top 50 wage earners. That’s when I found that in 2023 that the top 50 highest paid employees averaged $264,000, or which about 17% was overtime!
Bill
Thank you, Bill. I appreciate your help I did find that site a couple years ago. It is very interesting, and it does tell ever single salary amount. I think maybe if I am remembering correctly Edmonds Gov may post some salaries too. I don’t think it’s been updated since 2023 and It may only be dept heads not all staff. Not sure. I think what amazed me the most was not so much teachers’ salaries but Superintendents and Principals and even some of the board chairs?? Is that what they are called? I don’t know but one thing for certain is people for the most part are paid very well here. Pretty amazing the OT percentage. What really amazes me is that our Mayor and our CC make less than almost everyone. I’m not mad at anyone I just think being informed is a good idea. Citizens can’t help with planning without knowing pretty much everything. I am also interested in knowing how many lawsuits we are currently dealing with and what are they etc. I have never sued anyone in my life nor has my husband who practiced law. Hés retired. Nice guy he is. I’m lucky to have him. 50 years. Thanks again Bill. Deb.