Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Last week, My Edmonds News ran a story with the headline: “Edmonds resident files complaint against city for work associated with Prop. 1.” The article centered on a Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) complaint that had not been investigated and may very well be frivolous. But the story ran anyway, just a week before ballots are set to be mailed for one of Edmonds’ most significant elections in years. I feel it is important that readers know the full backstory and additional context.
This week, the PDC released into public record (pg. 5) an email from No on Prop 1 supporter Theresa Hutchison to fellow No advocates — including Lee Reeves (who filed the complaint), Diane Buckshnis, Ken Reidy, Jim Ogonowski, Nick Lopez and Bill Krepick. It reads:
“Is it time to file another PDC complaint against Mayor Rosen and the City?
“With any luck hopefully the weak PDC may not look so kindly, go as easy, as last time on the mayor.
“However, it won’t have helped us as far as the levy lid lift as we’re only three or so weeks away from the ballots dropping.
“Boy, I’d love to see a recall on this devious mayor.
Theresa Hutchison”
To be clear, this email was exchanged among members of the No on Prop 1 leadership and should not be interpreted as representative of all individuals who oppose the measure. Hutchison’s email explicitly acknowledges the political motivation behind filing a PDC complaint to affect election results and target city staff and elected officials.
This kind of political maneuvering doesn’t reflect the Edmonds I believe in. It’s not about dialogue. It’s not about policy. It’s about distraction and distortion. In my opinion, it’s so harmful.
Personally, I vote based on values, and I look to endorsements for individuals and groups who share my values. I encourage every voter to visit both the YES and NO on Prop 1 endorsement pages to make their own decisions.
Yes for Edmonds: yesforedmonds.org/endorsements
No on Prop 1: keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters
For me, the choice is clear.
Erik Houser lives in Edmonds and is a volunteer with the Yes! for Edmonds campaign.
It’s ok to disagree on this levy. But to do what Theresa Hutchison and associates did here (in her own words, in an email amongst “Keep Edmonds Affordable” leadership that was clearly not meant to be seen by the public) is really sh—y. Just kick up a lot of smoke and hope the public buys that there’s a fire? Glad this article got published before ballots arrived. I hope this serves as a reset on the NO side to move forward with more integrity. If I had my name and picture up on the website of the group that did this, like Michelle Dotsch, Diane Buckshnis, Jessica Bachman, Lee Reeves, Mary Jane Goss, Nate Nehring, Dave Teitzel, Mike McMurray, and Kathryn Paul do, I’d be feeling so embarrassed.
Chelsea -integrity? – how did you feel after taking heat from residents after praising the city for bending it’s public comment rules for the activist group KEV?
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/05/letter-to-the-editor-new-ideas-exciting-times/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/05/council-mulls-middle-housing-code-updates-hears-report-from-keep-edmonds-vibrant/
I try to offer praise or feedback with my critiques – JaneAnne is a substitute teacher, she’s concerned with the levy impact. Please ask Adel for a little help, by adding a dose of empathy with your levy position.
-Adel, thanks for showing a little class, empathy in your recent comments. If the levy fails, I’ll be supporting you in a Yes vote for $6M.
#JaneAnnes Comment
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/10/reader-view-keep-edmonds-affordable-vote-no-on-proposition-1/#comment-555065
I’m unclear as to what you find so offensive with the content of the email. If someone feels there’s been a violation, why shouldn’t they file a complaint? As far as the timing of the filing, people need to understand BEFORE they vote how the city has been pushing an agenda that will negatively impact many community members, and doing so in a way that violates policy. I get that you don’t care about the impact this levy will have on many vulnerable folks, but there’s nothing wrong with people drawing attention to the “political maneuvering” the city is engaging in to affect the outcome of this election.
Part 1
Eric- your LTE accuses a few individuals who are against Prop 1 and who support KeepEdmondsAffordable.com as doing something illegal or unethical by discussing strategy to secure ‘No’ votes and by showing concern for the City’s violation of State PDC election law guidelines. We believe the PDC evidence that was submitted shows that the Mayor and Council have broken State election laws. The evidence shows how City leaders used City resources to promote the tax levy and block the opposition from having an equal opportunity to present in City sponsored meetings. We believe that the Mayor used taxpayer money to produce and distribute 4-pg/4-color marketing brochures that focus on scare tactics to make residents think they will lose police, parks, and street services if they vote against the tax levy. A legitimate PDC filing is neither illegal nor unethical if it helps defeat the $14.5M tax levy lift that is unaffordable by most Edmonds’ taxpayers.
Part 2:
It’s shocking to see how YES supporters show no concern for taxpayer fatigue or affordability of multiple onerous tax levy lifts. No empathy for seniors. Maybe not illegal or unethical, but it gives you an idea of what the YES vote leader and supporters think of long-term Edmonds’ residents.
Since you are accusing the KeepEdmondsAffordable campaign team of ‘illegal’ strategizing, you should look in the mirror and compare the tax levy lift strategizing that was done by your YES supporters and their leader, and ask yourself which group deserves to have the trust and vote of the strapped Edmonds’ taxpayers? https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
I don’t see where this is any sort of gotcha or political maneuvering – its use of the systems that are intended to keep Government in check. It’s their job to determine frivolity – obviously those who are voting yes or no are on opposite sides of the spectrum and can have robust disagreement- but I can assure you that those same people are the ones who are readily joined together in mutual efforts to promote, preserve, and grow Edmonds. Maybe I am naive, but this is just a normal series of events in a normal election with a normal vote on a normal tax increase in a pretty normal town with exceptional community involvement and passion. One would think, with some of these pieces, the Crips and the Bloods have a vicious rivalry brewing in Edmonds – when we pretty much see each other at one of the various markets- festivals, fund raising events, or just walking around town – engagement in discourse – albeit less tolerated in today’s polarized political environment- is necessary and either educates or inspires citizens to seek out better answers – and in the end better Government. I still want a banana slide on the splash pad with adult only hours if and when the levy passes. Councilpersons – please note this when the next donation cycle starts.
Erik, this reeks of desperation. Are you seriously accusing me of wrongdoing for receiving an unsolicited email? That’s a stretch—and frankly, beneath the level of discourse we should be having. But it’s consistent with a campaign that leans on fear rather than facts.
I’ve repeatedly invited the public to submit public records requests for my communications with city officials. I have nothing to hide. Those emails will show a consistent pattern: since 2021, I’ve provided the mayor and council with detailed analysis, fiscal forecasts, and policy recommendations. I warned them early about the consequences of their decisions. They chose to ignore those warnings—and now the very outcomes I predicted have unfolded.
Despite that, I’ve continued to offer constructive solutions, including a comprehensive alternative budget. And once again, City Hall has responded with silence. No engagement. No rebuttal. Just more spin.
A NO vote on Proposition 1 is the only way to compel the city to take responsibility and engage the public honestly. It opens the door to a more reasonable, affordable path forward—one grounded in transparency and fiscal discipline.
Erik might just have a valid point…
Oh, wait a minute, the City and current Officials have a track record of PDC Violations already from the RFA issue sent to voters just a few months ago. And even though I supported the RFA, it was clear that the finding of violations was correct. So, there is that…
The real “ugly politics” in Edmonds isn’t the filing of a PDC complaint—it’s the attempt to vilify those seeking transparency. The latest opinion piece doesn’t dispute any of the allegations contained in the complaint; instead, it targets the messenger. That messenger, Theresa Hutchison, has already endured public attacks for her prior RFA complaint, which resulted in the PDC issuing a formal written warning after confirming city officials violated RCW 42.17A.555 by using public resources to promote a ballot measure. Her persistence wasn’t political theater—it was civic duty.
Under Washington law, any resident who discovers potential violations of campaign or disclosure rules has the right to seek compliance through the PDC’s complaint process. Ms. Hutchison’s decision to invoke that right is fully protected and an important check on government accountability. Equally, she is entitled to her political opinions—participation in democracy does not disqualify a citizen from reporting what may be lawbreaking or misuse of public funds.
The real political maneuvering is coming from those attacking her rather than addressing the conduct under investigation. Labeling community oversight as “ugly politics” while mounting a coordinated effort to discredit critics perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy at work. The facts remain: the PDC complaint has been accepted and is now under investigation—a clear sign it has merit, not malice. Accountability is not partisanship; it is the foundation of public trust.
Part 1of 3: Mr Hauser, thank you for posting this as it gives me the opportunity to respond and clarify.
By me asking Lee Reeves if it was time to file another PDC complaint, I did so because it appeared that once again the mayor was using public facilities and resources to support the ballot measure – Prop 1. I filed a PDC complaint on February 24, 2025 against Mayor Rosen and the city alleging violation of RCW 42.17A.555 for use of public facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. Why did I do this? It was plainly obvious that the mayor was using taxpayer dollars to promote the annexation of Edmonds into the Regional Fire Authority – which would increase our yearly payment to the RFA from $12 million a year to $21 million a year for the same level of service. The mayor hired and paid Liz Loomis Public Affairs (LLPA) $64,000 to promote the annexation. He also continually used public facilities to promote the ballot and denied the same access and time to present the Vote No argument. The mayor, City Council President, and RFA personnel had unlimited time to present the promote the annexation while allowing the opposing argument 2 minutes from the audience.
Part 2 of 3: Mayor Rosen cried foul and said he was innocent of the PDC complaint I filed. But on April 17, 2025 the PDC disagreed and issued him a warning. “From the PDC warning: Subject: PDC Case 167685 regarding City of Edmonds Officials. The PDC completed its review of the complaint filed by Theresa Campa Hutchison on February 24, 2025 and March 27, 2025. The complaint alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.555 for use of public facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. In conclusion it reads: Pursuant to WAC 390-37-060(1)(d), however, you are receiving a formal written warning concerning the use of public facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. The formal written warning will include staff’s expectation that you do not use public facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure going forward. The Commission will consider the formal written warning in decided on further Commission action if there are future violations of PDC laws or rules”.
Based on the mayor’s current use of public facilities and resources to promote Prop 1, the Levy Lid Lift, it was obvious that he felt immune to the previous PDC warning I have outlined above and so I suggested to Lee Reeves that perhaps another PDC complaint was in order. I felt the warning from the PDC on my complaint was not strong enough and it came two weeks before the November RFA vote – not giving us time to educate the electorate as to the mayor’s wrongdoing. This complaint by Lee Reeves as far as the levy lid lift will not allow us time to educate the electorate no matter if the PDC again finds in favor of the residents of Edmonds.
Part 3 of 3: And as far as my statement “Boy, I’d love to see a recall of this devious mayor”, I stand by this. The PDC warning tells us that he used taxpayer dollars to promote his own agenda during the RFA annexation, and that he is again using the same tactics to promote this outrageous 14.5 million dollar levy lid lift which will be so harmful to many in our community. Further, he falsely promoted himself, his qualifications, when knocking on thousands of doors running for mayor. When I called him out in an October 2023 MEN article, two weeks before the November vote for mayor, he gave a mia culpa. Again, too late to let the voting residents of Edmonds know of his deception and that he had no real qualifications to be mayor of Edmonds. So yes, I think Mayor Rosen has behaved devious, shown no transparency, little or no integrity and ethics in his dealings with those who elected him and deserves to be recalled as IMO he has violated his Oath of Office.
Again, thank you Erik Hauser for giving me this opportunity, this platform, to respond to your statements.
Theresa Campa Hutchison
November 4 can’t come soon enough. I’m exhausted, reading back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, arguing, arguing arguing on this proposition. Strident voices. Accusations, myths, threats. Can’t wait to vote & be done with it.
Agreed. I’m exhausted. Next election, let’s all hire a moderator(s) – 2 public financial experts that QC our data from Pro & Con.
Theresa Hutchinson along with Jim Ogonowski, Dinane Buckshnis, Joe Scordino, Lee Reeves, Ken Reidy, Joan Bloom and Teresa Hollis are Edmonds heros who are fighting contolling and egotistical type people who are slowly destroying the livability of a really great little town. They are heros and I’m a whimp because I couldn’t take those certain controlling types anymore and just left. People who really love a town don’t promote themselves as genious’s, then try to contol and villify everyone who came to town ahead of them and have a view toward government effiicency and just taking care of what they have. Raising taxes is not great and thoughtful management; it’s just raising taxes. Scareing people to death is not great management; it’s just manipulating them with scare tactics. Hey, it worked with RFA so why not repeat with the levy lift.
I was talking earlier with a fellow resident and we think there should be a ceremonial Battle Royale Cage Match just like in the good old days of the WWF to solve the levy conundrum. In one corner, Diane “Buster” Buckshnis, Jim The Oliminator, and Terminator Theresa facing off against The Council Crushers and Mike The Wrecker Rosen. I mean just a good old fashioned whooping and hollering with table crashing and chair slinging. Front row seats alone would go for at least 100 each.
Or we could all realize that some of the vitriol is exactly what Edmonds rallies against – no matter the side of light blue or light pink we sit on.
I have worked with Mayor Rosen before he was Mayor – and its tough for me to vote for something that I detest – taxes. I also explicitly trust the guy and see absolutely nothing nefarious going on. I support the levy. I agree with some of the points both sides make. What is challenging to me is that the arguments have been presented and it has devolved into a shouting match and discredit campaigns on both sides. I understand and almost agree with the No vote- but I don’t. I have increased.my demands to a wine cart, banana slide, and adult hours at the splash pad. Vote your conscience.
I agree with you everybody should vote their conscience. Despite Mayor Rosen’s campaign pledge to eliminate the “craziness,” he has not fulfilled that commitment. His inadequate management abilities have made him a key figure in the ongoing chaos. Therefore, I am casting my vote NO.
In fairness to Mike Rosen, he was just the chosen one to follow in the footsteps of other highly controlling male mayors. He was a victim too in a way. He comes from a long line of folks who just know what is best for you and boy, you better not question them and their proposals in any way, lest you get labeled a town troublemaker. They all claim they are masters at managing the public dime, when in reality they are really only good at asking for more dimes to fund questionable pie in sky projects that often don’t work as planned; rather than just carefully managing the basic needs. Rubber stamp City Councils end up being enablers rather than crucial watchdogs over how the public dime gets spent and you have thus ended up where you are at. You’ve taken in money that out paces inflation but you have also spent even more money on bad management decisions that far out paces inflation.
Mike Rosen was far from a just victim of prior poor decisions; he eagerly sought a seat at the table way over selling his management skills Sure, many City Council members were financial numbskulls, but when you’re dealt a bad hand, doubling down on poor choices and poor advisors doesn’t make sense—yet that’s exactly what he did.
George,
Your idea might actually have legs. If we sold tickets and donated the proceeds to the city, who knows—maybe we could raise enough to rescue the budget without needing a levy lid lift at all.
Jim and George, I think you are both onto something. Another possibility would be to move the City Council meetings to the beloved Center For the Arts and charge admission to watch the show. Of course there would also be a bar with over priced drinks and snacks. People who came to testify for three minutes would be charged double admission of course for the Mayor and Council allowing them that waste of THEIR precious time. Where else could you go to hear at least six representatives of the people thank Staff Directors over and over for just doing their jobs and not leaving Edmonds for greener pastures? I bet this would finance at least a 1/2 cut of the levy lift supposedly needed for Edmonds very survival.
Mr. Houser, you’ve been an officer for multiple political committees and so i expect you to know the difference between a individual who endorses a committee’s platform and an individual who is “a member of the leadership”. mr jon milkey and myself are leading the opposition committee to Prop 1. that’s it. Others in Edmonds are free to engage in any political activity they choose. Do i get confused and think the Snohomish County Exec is one of the leaders of your committee? Read the C1 reports. that’s what they are for.