Weekly Update: 09/18/2022

This Week

Wednesday: Reach Out Des Moines meeting. Group leader Brenda MBaabu invited me to a community listening meeting at Midway Park last week and the discussion concerned how to organise events like National Night Out all year long in the area. Stay Tuned! 🙂 Just so you understand, these are not simply ‘feel good’ events. The research shows that community events, after school activities, all that ‘fun’ stuff, makes a big difference in reducing teen violence and improving outcomes for our kids. Teen crime was reduced over seventy percent in Pacific Ridge between 2013 and 2019! 2013 being when RODM got started. The program is effective and it’s a lot cheaper than guns and badges.

Thursday: Economic Development Committee (Agenda). Marina Redevelopment Update. An update on the housing situation with SKHHP (see below.) 2024 Comp. Plan Update? PSRC preview for October 21 Kent/Des Moines Station Walking Tour.

Thurday: Municipal Facilities Committee (Agenda) There will be a discussion of renewing the Quarterdeck’s lease. Apparently, the owner plans to sell the place to a new group of investors?

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) Some highlights:

City Manager Report

    1. Citizen Recognition. It would be nice to know who is being recognised, but if nothing else, this gig has taught me to embrace ‘surprises’. 😀
    2. 2nd Quarter Finance Report. This

Consent Agenda

    1. Pothole repair report. There will be a presentation on what is getting fixed. This gives me an opportunity to remind you of DEMOCRACY! Mundane things like potholes get fixed when YOU MAKE SOME NOISE!

Main Business

    1. Capital Improvements Plan (2023-2028) This is a list of projects we will fund, with priority scores and tentative dates. There are several feeder plans (Transportation, Parks, etc.) that are also scored, but they mean nothing unless or until they get on the CIP. You should look at the CIP once in a while because that tells you what the City considers to be important projects.
      A letter to Neighbourhood Activists: I’ve noticed a new form of strategery take shape this year involving the word ‘budget’. Look, nobody appreciates a good hack more than moi, but please note the number $50,000. If a project costs less than $50k, the Council probably does not see it or vote on it because that is the City Manager’s spending authority. And CMs rarely ask for permission unless they have to. 😀

      Sometimes the Council will take up a low-dollar item, but that usually involves something extraordinary, like a new holiday, a disease, or puppies. Seriously. It is not the Council’s job to micro-manage. I’m not only saying it, I believe it.

      I do want you to get what you want. But if you start saying “put this on the budget” or “move this up the list”, understand just what you are saying: You are asking the City to spend more than $50,000, which, despite inflation, is still $50,000. And you’re also telling a highly credentialled, subject matter expert, a person who studies the City every day for a living, that the City’s priorities, which are designed to be equitable and evidence-based, are out of whack. Wow. Look at you. 😀

      I’m not saying don’t do it. I’m just telling you that is the field of play. There are tons of worthy projects in Des Moines. Your only advantage is that those people aren’t working as hard as you are. Your job is to do your homework, be careful, polite, and persistent. It will not, nor should it happen in one meeting or maybe even ten. As that guy says in Saving Private Ryan, “earn this.” 😀 I know you want/need it now. Truly. But the fact that it’s often so arduous will improve your arguments and likely lead to a better solution. Go get ’em.

Des Moines City HallCity Council Meetings are scheduled for Thursdays at 6:00PM at City Hall 21630 11th Avenue S., Suite #C Des Moines WA 98198. They can also be viewed live on Comcast Channel 21/321 or on the City’s YouTube channel. Committee Meetings are either at 4:00PM or 5:00PM, also on Thursdays.

You do not have to sign in to attend a meeting!
The sign-in sheet is only for people wishing to make a Public Comment.

There are three ways to provide Public Comment:

  • In person: Show up a few minutes before the meeting and sign the sheet. Public Comment is usually conducted at the beginning of the meeting.
  • By e-mail: All e-mails sent to citycouncil@desmoineswa.gov are considered public comment. They are instantly available to all members of the City Council and the City Clerk who includes them into the record of public comments at the next meeting.
  • By US Mail: Attn: City Clerk Office, 21630 11th Avenue S., Des Moines WA 98198 no later than 4:00 p.m. day of the meeting. Please provide us with your first and last name and the city in which you live.

All letters or e-mails requesting a specific action are referred by the City Clerk to the appropriate City department.

If you would like a follow up from me, personally please indicate that or call me (206) 878-0578.

The Clerk does not read e-mails to the Council in full; only the subject line. However, we do see them as soon as you send them. Your comments are added to the Agenda Packet available on the City web site following each meeting.

Friday: Midway Park 5:30PM. I will be there with Reach Out Des Moines to do a listening session on teen violence and public safety. If you missed it? The next meeting will be September 23rd, also at 5:30PM. See you there!

Last Week

Sunday: I attended the mini-hydroplane races at Angle Lake Park. In addition to trying a little bit to get some local businesses involved, the “Des Moines” angle is that I’m doing my semi-annual “no car for a few weeks” routine to see how transit is doing.  It’s never been easy here, and… I can report that… it’s about the same. 😀 Transit here is a cultural deal. Tell people in Des Moines you’re taking the bus and they’re likely to say, “Something wrong, dude?” Apart from that stigma, it’s OK if you have one or two routes. But I live near 216th, probably the best place for transit in all of Des Moines and for free-form travel it’s no day at the beach. We have to improve transit here–especially in the South End. And I don’t mean ‘light rail’. Not in two or five years. Now.

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Meeting (Agenda) There were actually several meetings this week, most of them audit committees which the public rarely sees. But the fact that they have an audit committee is a big deal. I wish we had one, that’s for sure. 😀

Friday: South King County Housing and Homelessness Partners. There was  a presentation on ‘inventory’, which means understanding what is the available stock of ‘affordable housing’. It’s important to recognise that how one defines both those words are still open questions. Which houses/apartments are considered affordable? Is it because they are subsdised or because they’re just plain run down? If they’re run down and a developer refurbishes them, can they be motivated to keep them affordable? So many questions. 😀 But it’s no joke. Doing an inventory is all very well, but the main reason housing is so nutsy expensive is simple supply and demand. Developers are very careful to only build so much. And at some point, governments will need to provide more incentives (carrots and sticks.) The more people who move here? The more homes they will need. And I would prefer it if those homes are ownership based if possible. That’s what people want and the taxes are what cities like Des Moines need.

Saturday: I did not attend the International Coastal Cleanup, but I want to give a sincere shout out to Mayor Mahoney, Deputy Mayor Buxton, Washington Scuba Alliance and all the volunteers who picked up five hundred pounds of trash. However… 😀

I’ve done a bunch of these types of events over the years. Every year 300,500, 700 pounds of junk gets scooped up–which is great. OK, so where does it keep coming from? 😀 I’m only being half facetious here. If you’ve watched the aftermath of any storm at Saltwater State Park, a new batch of logs will magically appear on the beach from far away; that’s how oceans work. But a lot of this crap is home grown. And I always wonder what things we could/should be doing here to reduce that ‘supply’?

Ad Hoc Rules Committee #1

Intro

Fair warning: All is true, but I walked into this with a chip on my shoulder. Because:

  • The meeting was held with the bare minimum 24 hours legal notice.
  • At a non-standard location (Police Station)
  • Was not recorded.
  • Did not show up on my City Calendar like other committee meetings.
  • There was nothing on the web except one tiny marker on the City web site.
  • And even little details like wi-fi were challenging.

The notice on the door indicated that there might be a ‘quorum’.  Four people showed up, all from Redondo, including Councilmember Achziger. I assume they found out about it from either he or moi.

Back in time…

When the Council voted for some form of update to our Rules back in July, Deputy Mayor gave a presentation. I asked for a one-sheet specific task list. Because when we leave things open-ended (and we always leave things that open-ended) something bad always happens. It’s designed that way.

Buxton: My view of an ad hoc committee is administrative in mostly administrative like to gather information organize it and for me put everybody's input into a draft...

Mahoney: I would i would just say that this is the purpose of this is administrative, to get us ready to have that meeting in a constructive format where everybody's had input. So essentially the meetings that would occur in November and December would attend. It would essentially achieve that everybody's input would be there but it would be formatted and ready for the discussion any any subsequent meetings before that...

Harris: Having done this for a little while now and been kind of been a sap, I am going to recommend to my colleagues that the deputy mayor prepare a written proposal with a specific process bring it back at the next meeting and then we amend it and pass that. We've had this history of doing this kind of ad hoc, from the dais, sloppy business. And one person's understanding is this or that. You want a piece of paper. One page...

Pennington: I don't know that any one of us have that kind of expertise or time...

Harris: I made the motion because i have every confidence in the deputy mayor's ability to prepare a parliamentary procedure that is accurate and would be for the good of the council. And on one page.

That motion failed 2-5. No one spoke on my behalf.

The funny thing is that if you look at the Agenda, we were given two options to vote on, a ‘tweak’ or ‘complete re-write’. We never even voted on that. We just voted for… er… ‘something’.

All I took away from the above was that ‘we’ had decided to hire a consultant who would interview each of us as to our needs, wants desires. The consultant would compile those together, then submit a report. And then the committee would convene, discuss those ideas, and submit a draft to the full Council for debate.

As I said, I’ve been through this before. And yeah, that’s not what happened.

On the plus side, apparently, we have hired a consultant, Ann McFarlane of Jurassic Parliament, with whom I have taken several classes on various aspects of parliamentary procedure. I’ve also posted articles of hers here many times.

On the minus side, the committee (of which Deputy Mayor Buxton was named chair) showed up to the meeting having already developed a draft proposal, but before gathering that individual input. So whatever concerns CM Pennington may have had regarding anyone’s lack of time or organisational skills seem to have been misplaced.

In fact, during the meeting they were very pleased with their progress, seeming to have gone through about reviewing two thirds of that first draft.

You can stop right there.

In my opinion, that right there is, unethical and shows such bad faith as to be considered corruption. And if it had been recorded, I would’ve just walked out. There wasn’t even the pretense as to good faith.

Let’s start over…

Again, this is not a series of tweaks. It is a full re-write being done by the committee before it is even seen by the rest of the Council or the consultant and that is not what the Council discussed or voted on.

Over our history, our Rules of Procedure have slowly evolved from a standard template of language provided by the State of Washington for cities like ours. We’re referred to as ‘Code Cities’ because we adopted that State’s template of ‘code’. And every few years we amended that template.

The members had already spoken among themselves in private and developed a work plan. Rather than simply amending the existing Rules of Procedure as we have every time in the past, they decided to do a complete re-write based on two cities they apparently found attractive. Bothell and Kirkland.

Non-decision

And regarding that consultant, as much as I admire Ms. McFarland, our City Council has never before felt it necessary to retain a ‘consultant’.  Deputy Mayor Buxton could have used her obvious vast store of energy and saved the taxpayers a few bucks on yet another ‘consulting fee’. And when I said that ‘the Council decided’ to hire her, actually City Manager Matthias says in the video that he had already researched hiring a consultant ahead of the meeting. So we really didn’t ‘decide’ anything, of course.

Side by side…

To give you a sense of why this bugs me so much… here is the table of contents and one page from our current rules concerning the role of presiding officer (Mayor). We have thirty seven rules and the whole thing takes up thirty three pages.

Now, here is a similar TOC and page describing the role of Mayor (presiding officer) from Kirkland. It has twenty five pages, but is subdivided into fifty five ‘rules’:

Looks easier, right? Sure. To you. But it functions exactly like our current system, which we already know how to navigate. And (sorry) it wasn’t meant for you. So again, the committee was starting from scratch, with two new documents, which do the same things, but are now formatted in a radically different manner. They were cutting and pasting large sections of each of these together before even sitting down?

Why forms don’t change…

Think about your 1040 tax form for a minute. Sure, it could be designed to be easier. But one reason it stays the same is because familiarity is a very good thing with legal documents.

Every year your accountant only goes over changes that might affect you. You expect the 1040 to look (mostly) the same every year. That allows you to focus only on the differences. That is also how the law works. You don’t generally scrap the entire presentation of the law. You amend it. To do otherwise would breed suspicion.

Proposing a completely new format forces any serious reader to review every frickin’ line old vs. new to make sure everyone covered all the bases.

So, far from making things ‘easier’, though the new system is meant to appear ‘friendlier’, it offers no real value. There are passages in the current RoP that could be made clearer or simplified for sure. But generally speaking, in no way is the current system difficult to understand. In fact, it’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaay simpler than most of the 1040EZ. Frankly, anyone who has real difficulty in navigating the current RoP, probably should not run for City Council.

And also, though they are a Public Committee of the Council, they provided none of the materials they were working from. So even if the public had shown up, it would’ve been impossible for them to follow along.

The process

As I wrote, the members mentioned in passing having looked at RoP from various ten other cities, but only Vancouver and SeaTac were mentioned by name and none of their code was used in the discussion. (Although they failed to mention the examples I submitted for some reason. 😀 )

So, they worked from that draft–going section by section through whole sections copied from Bothell and Kirkland. They mentioned sections they liked as being in blue? Sections they didn’t were in red? Sections they thought were ‘unneeded’ were simply cut out (eg. a travel budget, which many other cities do have, btw.) That was a theme: if there was something in those cities’ RoP that we do not currently have but which they did not appreciate, they didn’t say, “I know some people want to discuss that!” They simply cut it.

When they got to bits where they thought there might be hard opposition, they would say things like “that will be a discussion”, marked it off as such and then moved on.

At the tail end of the meeting a lot of the meeting was spent using the word ‘sanctions’. Basically, how to make the rules have some form of enforcement component.

Efficiency

By having what was essentially a private draft worked out in advance, they were, by their own able to get through about two thirds of their work in two hours. Woo hoo!

Left for next time? The apparently thorny subjects of ‘social media’ and ‘conflict of interest.’

Let’s talk about Bothell and Kirkland

I love Bothell. I was married off of Juanita Bay (which is technically Kirland? 😀 ) Hi there, Kirkland City Council! But those two cities are part of the North Shore School District, which includes Woodinville. Let’s just say that the (cough) demographics, challenges, and just about everything are slightly different from Des Moines. 😀

I’m sure both cities are doing great things and I mean that literally. Bothell and Kirkland have over twice the budget we do. (Long time watchers of our City Council meetings may remember Bothell because Traci Buxton has used them three times over the years as an example during salaries bumps for our City Manager. At last check, the Bothell guy was the highest paid City Manager in WA. And if we had as much money as either of these two cities, I’d be more inclined to think that appropriate as well.)

Why we would choose to use cities so different from ours as a model for either salaries or our RoP on escapes me. Perhaps those are the Cities my colleagues wish we could be.

Highlights

Spending Authority

All three agreed on the notion of raising the City Manager’s spending authority from $50,000 to $100,000, apparently to account for something ‘inflation’? Again, if we had twice the budget, I might be more amenable to twice the spending authority.

Appointments

They acknowledge that our Mayor has not always been using the proper procedure for appointments. So they seemed to indicate a willingness to just codify this de facto practice as the new rule. This doesn’t kill me because:

  • Just look at our current assignments, which are solely and arbitrarily at the whim of the Mayor. He assigned himself to ten things, the Deputy Mayor to a dozen things, removed me from assignments during the term, and even invented assignments without a vote of the Council–in direct violation not of our RoP, but of the City Municipal Code.
  • I’ve also registered at least a dozen complaints from residents who applied for various advisory positions and found the whole thing to be a black box. To which I reply, “Welcome to my world.” 😀

Two years to be mayor

One rule that has been controversial is the requirement that one must serve for two years to be eligible to be mayor or deputy mayor. All three members agreed that that this should be retained. Mahoney: “When I got started I didn’t know anything.”

I could not agree more. No matter what you think you know going in, it does take two years to understand what’s going on, let alone to do a fair job as Mayor. Without that experience, you are simply at the mercy of staff guidance. And no matter how helpful they are, that prevents one from maintaining the proper professional distance.

Councilmember Steinmetz has criticised me for not feeling he belonged on this one particular committee and this is exactly why. No matter how many games you’ve watched, it would be inappropriate having someone make rules about baseball until they had actually spent some time on the field.

Business Owners

Everyone felt that it was important to clear up any confusion as to the role business owners have on committees like the Lodging Tax Committee. The feeling seemed to be that since they generate business they should be in control.

I disagree completely. I believe that no City board/committee should ever be controlled by people who are not residents of Des Moines. Of course business owners should be a strong component of all relevant advisory groups; but never the controlling interest.

Sanctions

  • The committee spent a lot of time discussing ‘sanctions’ and ‘punishment’.
  • They also talked about having Councilmembers sign some form of ‘contract’ after being elected–agreeing to abide by the Rules of Procedure.
  • A ‘three step process’ was mentioned.

Councilmember Steinmetz mentioned the possibility of conducting a ‘sanction’ process in Executive Session. And for the uninitiated, Executive Session means in private. Nothing from Executive Session may be recorded or even discussed in public.

1And here’s the best part: Under state law you’re never allowed to tell people anything as to what just occurred behind the curtain. Ever. You’re not even required to provide Minutes if you don’t want to. ES is the exact opposite of accountability and transparency.

In the past, the only time there has been an Executive Session here concerning an elected was when an elected was involved in litigation that might involve the City (eg. Don Wasson, ca. 2003.) There was no ES during the Anthony Martinelli kerfuffle because legally speaking his personal issues did not affect the conduct of City business.

This will be interesting.

Better…

For those of you who will complain ‘fake news!’? Fine. Show up at the next one, which is September 29 at 5:00PM. I told you that, they didn’t. Listen for yourself. Demand a recording. Prove me wrong; or over the top; or a complete fabulist.

This is my opinion (one of the rule changes the committee seems to want is that one provide an explicit disclaimer at all times)

The word ‘better’ was mentioned many, many times without defining what that means.

The RoPs in Bothell and Kirkland may appear more user-friendly, but ‘user-friendly’ was never our problem so I don’t see that change as ‘better’ or even ‘necessary’. I see it as taking time.

But the discussion I heard did nothing to address my definitions of ‘better’. Which are:

  • Transparency
  • Access to information
  • Accountability
  • Outreach, both to the public and to members of the Council.

Regardless of any personal animus, these changes will affect every new Councilmember going forward. It will create a new ceiling as to what is possible here, using two very different cities as the model. Candidates will fool themselves into thinking, “Oh, I’ll be nicer. It won’t be a problem for me.” That. Does. Not. Happen.

Be careful…

As I said, without any specifics, the City of SeaTac was mentioned in passing. Like Bothell and Kirkland, SeaTac’s budget is also at least twice our size. But their RoP does address many of my concerns. And many of those improvements were made in the past five or six years, by a Council with very different politics. Which only goes to show that good government is not about ideology. Ironically, it is exactly as Deputy Mayor Buxton said in her opening remarks. It all comes down to one’s ethics.

But that’s a conundrum that more than one CM has expressed to me in private over the years. By implementing processes like a right to inquiry and providing more public access to meetings and town halls, the prior SeaTac Council helped contribute to the recent change in their Council majority.

In other words, if you work to make your government truly more transparent, accountable and inclusive you make it easier to be replaced.

Comments

  1. Hi I enjoyed the Ferry ride and the members of the staff on board but as it stands right now it is a summer thing. If we want to make it a viable option then it need to continue having free parking and an early morning and later in afternoon so, workers can use it. I was glad to see it advertised in the Seattle Times on the weekend.

    You may use my email for my comment.

  2. I also enjoyed my Ferry ride but I can see no way it can continue. .What would it take to make it self sustaining? JC as always you present an enormous amount of information and options for engagement . Thanks for all that stimulation !! kaylene Moon

    1. It is -impossible- to be ‘self-sustaining’. It’s true cost is over $20 a ride. And the problem is: the people using it most are seniors. Who get it at $5 a ride. So… the more seniors that use it, the more money we lose. -And- it’s using money that was meant for the -future-. ie. parks and a community center, etc.

      There is a much better option IMO. It would require residents to pay about $25 more a year and for the King County Council to fund this: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/water-taxi.aspx

Leave a Reply

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