At the end of our City Council Meeting last night, we had a 30 minute Executive Session that was extended to 50 minutes. I am not supposed to divulge the contents of that meeting, but click on the above link and Councilmember Achziger has a comment as to why he did not attend.

…the Mayor has told me that the Council will shortly be going into an executive session to discuss potential litigation against the Des Moines Legacy Foundation. As a Legacy board member I have a remote interest in the topic and therefore recusing myself from the process to protect both my integrity and that of the Council.

Now, we actually could have concluded the purpose of that meeting within 30 minutes. However, the discussion veered off in another direction, hence the extension. The hard feelings have obviously not abated. There were some personal attacks. It got to the edge of ugly, but stopped just short.

And… we’re gonna have another discussion about it on 31 March. Woo hoo!

I have said over and over and over, to all sides. “Let. It. Go. We have to work together. Genuine cooperation.”

Civility

During the last campaign, several candidates spoke often of ‘civility’.  I understood why they did it. But personally, I hated it. To me, civility implied politeness; not mean sincere cooperation.

But many voters wanted to believe Gene Achziger, Harry Steinmetz and Matt Mahoney that things would be different people.  Surely the problem was the crabby Matt Pina and Luisa Bangs.

And I’m like, noooooo man. 😀 That’s so not the problem.

Phone call

So I decided to call Mayor Mahoney to protest the bad personal conduct and ask him to not allow things to devolve as in the previous Council. I also protested the fact that we have no place in our current meetings to ask questions of the City Manager, as we’ve had in the past, and as every other city has.

Before I continue. I generally maintain confidence as the default option. If you speak with me you can I assume I will keep your side of the conversation confidential, whether you ask for it or not. But conversations between electeds and staff on City business are meant to be part of the public record so I have no problem related the following, because it has policy significance, it does not divulge any personal information, and it  had nothing to do with that Executive Session.

The Mayor told me that:

1. I am generally suspected of constantly blurting out confidential stuff. He offered no evidence. That has not happened, it does not happen, it will not happen. Most people know how to maintain professional boundaries.
2. Mayor Mahoney has no intention of intervening to obtain professional cooperation from the City Manager.
3. I have offended the City Manager. And therefore it is up to me, as it is the responsibility of all CMs responsibilities to get along with Michael Matthias. “You have a lot of fences to mend.”
4. “You say a lot of bad things about us. And we’re monitoring you.”

I leave it to you to decide who ‘us’ is. And what “we’re monitoring you” means.

Email

After that conversation, the City Manager wanted to punctuate a message that came up during Executive Session by sending an email blast to all the attendees of that meeting and a few others who were not for good measure.

The contents of the emails are from ex-City employee, Sue Padden, a former board member of Legacy and a party to a litigation against Mr. Matthias.

However, the emails have nothing to do with Legacy or the lawsuit. She was replying to a blog post I wrote about parliamentary procedure. They were vacuumed up in the City’s law suit discovery process.

The insinuation being of course that, because this person responded to a blog post I wrote, that there is some connection which makes me suspect–even though the legal settlement has nothing to do with that stuff.

It’s just schoolyard nonsense: Us and Them. as the old song goes.

Aren’t you making it worse?

The only reason to post this is

1. There’s this world that you the public cannot see. CMs and the Administration rarely say anything real on the record. The rancor the public finds distasteful in public is small fraction of the childish nonsense in private settings such as phone calls and Executive Sessions.
2. And because you don’t see 95% of it, that makes it hard to understand what’s really going on and how petty it really is.
3. But regardless of your feelings as to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, it’s just a huge time suck. And time is money. The amount of hours and energy everyone puts into these feuds is ridonculous.  And for that reason alone, it’s worth getting past.

No dog in this fight…

When people discuss how hard it is to change politics in Des Moines, this is part of the reason why. People do not let things go. They make decisions based on implied ‘tribes’, whilst attempting to look as civil as possible in public.

The funny thing is? I have absolutely no dog in these fights. People constantly mistake my desire for fairness (and saving money!) with taking one side or another. Everything from the Legacy litigation to Anthony Martinelli to the recent appointment process, all I care about is the money.

Arguments and litigation about ‘my reputation!’ are all a complete waste of time because there is never any victory.

And how dare you suggest otherwise, Councilmember Harris!

On 24 January, 2022 I emailed the Mayor Mahoney with my preferences as Committee assignments.

Mayor,

For 2022 I would like to make the following committee assignment requests:

1. I would like to be assigned to the Municipal Facilities Committee or
the Economic Development Committees. Either is fine.

2. I would like to remain on Environment. We treat it as 'the storm
water utility' but it ties in with a broader environmental discussion,
including the Flood Control District I was recently appointed to and
Saltwater State Park that is a key part of the de-armoring discussion
with WRIA-9 and Midway Sewer, etc.

3. I would also certainly like to remain on Transportation. But if
moving to either of those committees makes that necessary, that is a
slot I would give up.

4. If necessary I would be happy to give my slot on the Waterland/DDM to another colleague at this time. Obviously, Gene has a connection with that group. Same with SKHHP. I am very interested in the discussion, but am happy to give that to another to balance opportunities.

5. I would like to be named to the Highline Forum for (hopefully)
obvious reasons. Mayor Pina, you and I actually discussed my being the
alternate in 2020 but for whatever reason that did not happen.

A couple of other things:

1. I have no desire to 'hog' things. But some of us simply have more
-time- and interest. Eg. I dunno why Anthony was only on the PSEM
Committee, but apart from anything else, as far as I could tell he
performed that one thing well and I offer more time in that spirit.
Some people like Harry and Jeremy have full time gigs and may not have
the requisite -time- to dive in.

2. My main goals with Municipal Facilities are these:

    a. It's time to consider a Marina Advisory Committee be spun off
from the MFC. It's not a great look having a quorum of CMs at every DMMA meeting for the foreseeable future. The City has functionally been
conducting business in that DMMA space since the beginning of the
redevelopment process. Dan, Beth Anne and Michael have presented
information there -before- it gets to the Council. Having an Advisory
Committee would bring the DMMA to the City and offer a better
opportunity for the public to engage on the development process. No
matter how welcoming Bill tries to be, it's a bit much to ask the
general public to beg permission to attend monthly meetings--or even
know what's to be discussed. I -believe- they support that, but
regardless, it's time given the significance for the entire community.

    b. I assume the web site fits into MFC. Or it kinda should. Like any building project, to do what needs doing will be an ongoing discussion.

Sincerely

---JC

Here are the final choices posted 8 March, 2022 (after the Council vacancy was filled by Vic Pennington on 3 March, 2022.)

This is an article by Ann McFarlane, who runs Jurassic Parliament, a training company used by *The City of Des Moines and most cities in WA. It corrects just one of dozens of misconceptions I hear over and over from both the public, candidates and electeds about how Council Meetings are supposed to work.

Time and again I’ve heard the following throughout Des Moines:

• Many residents believe that harmony is a sign of a well-functioning City Council. And they cannot stand what looks like ‘arguing’.
• Others will comment that many issues looks ‘pre-arranged’. They see no disagreement and it appears as though no one ever changes their mind.
• I’ve spoken with many people over the past week (including one applicant for the Council vacancy) that the primary purpose of the Mayor is to be a ‘consensus builder’.

So… if I hear people clearly (and I don’t want to exaggerate) this sounds kinda like the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 😀 It sounds like you believe our City Council works like this:

• CMs (somehow?) discuss things ahead of time, aided by a ‘first among equals’ Mayor. Their job it is to somehow help the Council reach agreement or guide the process in some way (perhaps in concert with the City Manager?)
• We then have a meeting which is the ‘big reveal’. The discussion is basically our rhetorical comments as to why we were for or against.

I totally know why people get that impression. But that scenario is completely illegal. And it is illegal because it was the express will of the State to insure that Council decisions be made in public. So much so that your legislature created this thing called the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA.)

However: most people assume that what they see is how things are supposed to work. They have a tough time believing that any process they’ve observed year after year might not be correct. I get it.

But when neither the public or even the candidates are aware or are willing to follow the spirit of the law? That has to be addressed.

How it’s supposed to work…

State law intends that decision making occur on the dais. And as this article states clearly, the Discussion Period is supposed to be a true debate; a professional argument leading to the group decision. We are not supposed to discuss things in advance and the Mayor is not supposed to have any role in decision making beyond their one vote.

Councilmembers are supposed to have the freedom to discuss, compromise and even change their minds entirely when presented with convincing arguments and evidence from their colleagues. That is the *purpose of the Discussion Period and †currently it is impossible.

But in a properly functioning City Council a good CM shows up with well-researched arguments, presents and defends them skillfully, with the reasonable expectation of obtaining agreement and maybe even changing hearts and minds entirely. On the dais. That’s really how it’s supposed to work. Really, truly. 🙂

(Hilarity ensues.)

How it works in ‘the real world’…

Somewhere along the way, we got so far away from how things are supposed to work that many of you, including people who run for office, either do not understand the correct process or choose to avoid it. Instead, we promote candidates based on their ability to navigate in ‘the real world’, a place where harmony is considered not just ‘nice’ but ‡essential.

Many of you told me you voted for ‘change’, but are frustrated with my constant banging on about ‘process’. You understand that ‘in theory’ process matters. But over and over again I hear now,

“Hey JC, that’s just not how it works in the real world.”

No. That’s just how it has worked here. And it’s at the root of decades of bad policy. The flavours change, but they’ve all been bad. And that is why I will not move off this. You cannot make good decisions without vigorous debates. They expose the flaws, polish good ideas into gems. And if nothing else? They make it clear to the public who should be rewarded and who should be punished at the next election. In Barbie’s Dreamhouse of Good Government this is not a new closet. It’s the foundation of the entire house.

We cannot make the fundamental improvements you told me you want, to the airport, the marina, downtown, public safety, after school programs, race, everything, until we can at least conduct basic processes like Discussion Period as intended and with sincerity.

Swear to God.

Here’s my current problem…

Unfortunately, I’ve asked the candidates in the last election and the applicants in this process for their support. And so far?

Let’s just say the response has not been everything I had hoped for. 😀

The obvious reason is because we’ve been doing it this way for decades, it’s all people know and frankly, it’s easier to insist we can have it both ways: address the issues you want without fundamental (painful) process reforms.

I’m very sorry, but that is also untrue. And because there are so many things to be unlearned (like Discussion Period) it won’t be easy. And it won’t happen unless you insist that your fave applicants/candidates are on board.

And if you will not believe me, I wish you (and all candidates) would read the articles I post almost every week from people like Ann McFarlane. Judge for yourself.

*Our City offers all kinds of educational courses to electeds free of charge, but her blog is open to the public. But anyone interested in running for office should take a look because parliamentary stuff matters.

†This is why the rule changes implemented in 2019 (eg. Rule 19a–speak twice, 20F12b–four minutes) are so egregious. They made any real debate or information sharing impossible. They made it clear that ‘keeping the meeting moving and civil is all the matters.

‡Vic Pennington mentioned in his application speech a refrain I heard year after year: We need harmony on the City Council in order to attract investors and developers. Not true.

After the February 2020 appointment process, I received many negative comments. What was so striking to me in reading those comm was the fact that both the process and the person selected came as almost no surprise to anyone. (I myself was told by fairly well-informed people three days after my election exactly how that night would go three months later. How’s that for a honeymoon? 😀 )

Even though my colleagues in February 2020 clearly wanted Luisa Bangs returned to the Council, I thought surely they had heard the public outcry and would respond with a new process for 2022. They certainly did.

They made it much worse.

February 2020

Aside from the person selected, there were two complaints about the 2020 vacancy selection process. Mayor Mahoney had also considered them:

• Then Mayor Pina tried to insist that CMs ask the same question of every applicant.
• All applicants were in the same room and thus heard each others’ responses.

This created a sadly comical scene, which Councilmember Steinmetz commented on at the February 10 meeting because he was one of those applicants. Everybody basically parroted one another going down the line.

Solution 2022!™

So the process put forward by Mayor Mahoney, which I have dubbed Solution 2022™ neatly addresses both those issues by simply removing any opportunity for Councilmembers to ask questions.

The only good part? I brought the issue to a vote to get everyone’s position on the record: 5-1. All of my colleagues agree that applicants should not be required to answer a single Councilmember question.

Here is the final process:

1. The applicants submitted their applications by Feb 11.)  The list of applicants will be revealed on Feb. 18th as part of the next Agenda Packet.)
2. At the February 24th meeting, each applicant will orally answer the same three questions on the written app and give a five minute prepared speech.
3. We vote. In the case of a tie, we go into Executive Session to ‘discuss’, then retur n for the ‘public’ vote.

That’s the process for a two year position that, historically leads to almost certain re-election. In my opinion, the successful applicant should buy the Mayor candy, flowers, nylons, chocolate bars and offer to wax his truck for the next year.

My objections to Solution 2022!™

In February 2020, people were so focused on the person selected, they didn’t really focus on the process. So I think it’s worth running down some of the ‘problems’ that Solution 2022!™ is meant to ‘solve’.

#1 All questions must be the same

OK, since there are no questions this is a bit of a mis-direct. But since my ‘unfair behaviour’ prompted Solution 2022!™, I think it’ worth reviewing that process.

In February 2020, Mayor Pina simply announced the process for filling the council vacancy. There was no debate. Each Councilmember was told they could ask one question of each applicant and that it should be the same question for each applicant. I objected to basically all of that. My colleagues all complied, but when my turn came I did ask each applicant a different question. I had met with almost all the applicants in advance, I liked them all, and wanted to tailor my single question to something each of them had mentioned to me. So in a real sense, my questions were all softballs.

At the February 10, 2022 I was again taken to task by now Mayor Mahoney for again wanting to ask my own questions. Councilmember Steinmetz suggested I may have been going easy on applicants I favoured and giving ‘zingers’ to those I did not. He considered it unnecessary and unfair to ask applicants to think on their feet during a job interview.

†Here are my questions during 2020. I leave it to you to judge:

#2 IMPOSSIBLE TO Do Separate interviews VIA ZOOM

The Mayor also told us, offering no evidence, that it was technically not possible to interview applicants separately. One example argument being that they could have Channel 21 going in the background. Sneaky bastards, right?

*Or… or… and I’m just spitballing here… Maybe you just politely ask applicants not to do that? 😀 I mean seriously. This isn’t some Vegas card counting scam. People applying for such a job can surely be trusted to not have a hidden earpiece with Lefty feeding them information from the next baccarat table, right? 😀

Yes, I’m being slightly flip. But there is a solution. Zoom does have the ability to admit people and then remove them as needed. And City Hall does have rooms with high-tech devices like microphones and cameras and wires, where we could set people aside in a COVID-safe manner. Other cities are providing COVID-safe spaces for at least a few people for short periods.

#3 THEY’ve All been The Same

During the February 2020 meeting the public was told by both Mayor Pina and Deputy Mayor Mahoney that the process was exactly how things had been done in the past and that I did not know what I was talking about.

At the February 10, 2022 meeting, now Mayor Mahoney re-iterated that and was given further back up by CM Nutting. And how can ya argue with an eyewitness account?  Because Jeremy Nutting was the successful applicant for the 2013 spot!

All three people were and are incorrect. Every council vacancy selection process of the past twenty years has been run differently. Pina was on the Council for the 2013 and 2015 appointments, so he shoulda known that he was making an untrue statement. Mahoney did not even live here during those previous appointments. And certainly one should expect CM Nutting to know because he was that successful applicant in 2013.

Given the above debate over what is possible in the world of ‘high tech’, I feel a need to mention at this point that there is this newfangled thing they invented called video. So you can see for yourself what actually happened when Mr. Nutting applied for the job on 04/25/13…

And, not to put too fine a point on it, in other cities, the process is also one where CMs can ask pretty much whatever they please. And they do… (Appointment interviews for SeaTac Vacancy 10/13/2018 Amina Ahmed)

#4 PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS (NOT INTERVIEWS)

In February 2020, I announced that I would interview applicants one on one and was criticised for that as well by both then Mayor Pina and new Mayor Mahoney for…. wait for it… ‘a lack of transparency’.

It was considered ‘unfair’ and ‘unequal’ that I may have spoken with some applicants, but other councilmembers may not.

But in Solution 2022!™ private is the new public. Since there will be no public questioning by the Council, we are now encouraged to have one on one discussions with applications. (The City Attorney was quite right to interrupt at one point to mention that a private conversation is not a part of the official selection process and not to even imply that it might be.)

Not to put words in a lawyer’s mouth, but I think he did so because one of my colleagues seemed to suggest the following:

1. Because the applicant speaks with a CM.
2. And that CM is an elected representative of ‘the people’.
3. That then makes the private conversation somehow constitutes a ‘public interview’.

That is simply untrue.

Again, I’m glad if applicants want to meet one on one. But a private conversation should never be considered to be any part of the public process.

#5 Executive Session

In the ‡2015 appointment process, whereby Luisa Bangs was chosen the first time), the Council discussion occurred in Executive Session (ie. out of public view.) Yes, the Council appeared after the ES to take the formal vote, but the actual decidering was done in private. And here’s the part that kills me: There were only two applicants. It wasn’t like there was this long list of names to plow through.

Solution 2022!™, continues that tradition. If there is a 3-3 tie, we’re supposed to head into Executive Session. Not to break the tie, that would be (cough) illegal, just to, ya know, ‘work things out’. Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.

Summary

Your City Council voted 5-1 to approve a process that was based on several untrue and misleading statements.

• Sadly, each vacancy selection process I’ve seen has been handled differently. There has never been a standard process.
• Despite my colleagues’ memories, in 2013, councilmembers were able to ask their own questions.
• With or without Zoom, I am certain it is possible to offer COVID-safe separate interviews for each applicant in a public setting.
• Despite what the public was told in 2020, there was never a legal problem with one on one discussions between applicants and CMs. However they are most definitely not ‘public engagement’ as one of my colleagues seemed to imply.

For all those reasons, not to mention the possibility of Executive Session, the process used to select your next Councilmember is actually worse than that of February 2020.

The most likely reason all my colleagues voted for the process they did in February 2022 is that they find the whole notion of public questioning unnecessary and much prefer speaking in private.

And thinking back on how pre-determined February 2020 seemed to me, for a job that is meant to be done in public, one should wonder why.

Towards a better solution

As so often happens, the root problem comes down to the fact that so much authority is given to a ‘weak’ mayor and a council majority.

Considering the fact that this is at least the sixth vacancy we’ve had to fill in the past twenty years, it seems a bit odd to me that we have no standard procedure in place for filling council vacancies. So every time this happens, the current majority just creates a system that tends to lead to an outcome of their liking.

Such an important part of the process should be codified to insure consistency and fairness. At the first available opportunity, the Council should update our Rules of Procedure to create a standard process for filling vacancies, including independent questions from each councilmember.

‘Pragmatism’

The process we use to fill Council vacancies should be based on facts. My colleagues voted for a process based on more than one error of fact–even after those were pointed out. OK, fine, we all mis-remember things. No prob. But after the errors are pointed out, one should be willing to reassess the wisdom of the process. That did not happen.

Perhaps my colleagues already know who they want and the public process is a formality. But if you find that thought distasteful, at least be willing to acknowledge the fact that many of you have also pre-decided.

Most of us tend to want our person to get in, regardless of any ‘process’ or ‘facts’. It can be difficult to admit sometimes, but we like who we like and evidence be damned.

Which is why process matters so much to me. The applicant process should give both the Council and the public at least a chance to see who people really are. It may not often change minds? But at least it offers that chance.

Sure, you can have an excellent process and still people will respond to the frailties of human nature. But if you have a weak process, there is no other option.

I’m not trying to sound all ‘hopeless’. We may choose a fine addition to the Council and if so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. But if so, it will have nothing to do with Solution2022™.

*Tune in weekly for more zero dollar solutions to thorny issues of governance.

†Most of the questions I asked are self-explanatory. My question of Luisa Bangs referred to the previous week where Vic Pennington moved to triple the City Manager’s severance package should we attempt to make a change. I voted ‘no’. She said that she would have voted with the majority. I did not consider that a particularly tough question.

‡Luisa Bangs applied for the 2015 vacancy in April, 2015. She was appointed, then immediately filed to become a candidate in the fall 2015 election (running against the same person she had competed with in the appointment process.) This was because that seat was up for election in November of the same year. She won that election as usually happens with appointees. In 2019 I ran against her and won. Three days after my victory I was told that Vic Pennington would be resigning his seat in January in order to take the top job at South King County Fire. The majority would then vote to re-appoint her to his seat. And that is what happened in February 2020. This is Des Moines.