Most Recent Article [more articles below]

Categories Public Safety, Transparency, Transportation, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 12/12/2021

2 Comments on Weekly Update: 12/12/2021

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Tuesday: Port Of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda)

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda)

Friday: South King County Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) Executive Board (Agenda)

City Manager Pay Increase

The City Manager is asking for a step increase from †M49D, which is $224k plus various benefits to  M49E $235k, plus benis; a 5% increase. Last year he chose not to accept any increase due to COVID. Page 45 of the Agenda Packet  includes a report he submitted listing his accomplishments.

Here is the City Manager’s current contract: January 23, 2020 City Council Packet. (As I’ve mentioned, it seems to require two performance reviews each year. That second one has not happened in either of my years on the Council.)

On page 44, the motion describing his Performance Review says

“Overall, across 28 performance metrics, the City Manager received 22 scores of “EXCELLENT” and 6 scores of “GOOD.” He did not receive any final ratings of “ACCEPTABLE,” “POOR” or “UNACCEPTABLE.””

This is one of those statements that is accurate, but not exactly true. So some background on the review process might be helpful.

  • Performance Reviews begin with the City Attorney sending that list of accomplishments to the City Council along with a questionnaire with 28 Rating Categories and room for comments on each category.
  • Those written reviews are then compiled by the City Attorney and we see that compilation before the meeting. This provides the talking points for the in-person review.
  • Councilmember Martinelli did not submit a written review. This is his second no-review.
  • My ratings were 8 Unacceptable, 2 Poor, 2 Acceptable, 1 Good. The vast majority I left blank simply because I had no way to answer in any meaningful way. The majority of my review was in the form of commentary. I’ll publish the full compilation (including my colleagues) as soon as I hear back from the City.
  • The actual ‘review’ is then done in a private Executive Session. This allows for a candid discussion of those talking points.
  • The City Manager is present for the entire discussion. There is never a moment where it’s just the seven of us. (In fact, since I have been on the City Council there has never been a moment like that.)
  • Based on the above parameters (including, let’s just say ‘personal experience’)  I had concerns that things might not go in an exactly high-minded fashion. 😀 So ahead of the meeting I  sent this e-mail to the City Attorney. I received no response.
  • Councilmember Martinelli, who was present for the public portion of the meeting, did not attend the E/S.
  • The E/S was scheduled for sixty minutes. It ended after about thirty because, frankly, people ran out of praise. There was no ‘discussion’ of specific items, good, bad, indifferent. (Although, as occasionally happens, I got hints about various ‘projects’ that others are aware of, but not moi–and certainly not the public.)

To summarise, there were five reviews that can only be described as radiant; one no-show; and one that describes “100 violations of the International City/County Management Association Code Of Ethics.”

In statistics, if the overwhelming majority of the samples go one way, one might be tempted to dismiss a single ‘outlier’.  But this is not statistics. It’s seven electeds whose concerns are supposed to carry equal weight. Despite the severity and specificity of my concerns, none were or ever have been addressed. In other words, the ‘outlier’ was not evaluated; it was simply discarded.

On the contrary, my five present colleagues were glowing in their praise to the extent that two were moved to tears.

The relationship between the City Manager and councilmembers is unlike any other. If any member of our staff had concerns similar to those I have raised in my written review, our H/R director would be legally required to perform an investigation. But councilmembers are exempt from that requirement. In Des Moines, there is no enforcement mechanism for the ethical treatment of a councilmember other than a majority of the City Council.

About those Tears…

At that last pay raise discussion on January 23, 2020, Deputy Mayor Vic Pennington (who was resigning) also cried in paying a final tribute to the City Manager. In this video, he said If we lose [Michael Matthias], we lose this city. After wiping his tears, he then pulled out a piece of paper and read a motion from the dais increasing the City Manager’s severance package from six to eighteen months.

Now, you may find my tone a bit snarky. But (4)I do not believe that one should ever suggest that the success of a government depends on a single person. So if you see any tears on Thursday, hang onto yer wallet.

Last Week

Tuesday: 9AM. Port Of Seattle, State Of The Port  This is a pre-recorded presentation. The Port is rolling in cash. 🙂

Tuesday: Police Advisory Committee. There was talk from a couple of residents about ways to keep the police aware about specific neighbourhoods. I’m starting to nag everyone about phones. We should be able to reach the public and they should be able to reach the police easily. Reason #327 on why we need a better web site.

I gotta be more careful: I forget that people often take me literally when I’m trying to be generic. I often use the intentionally imprecise term ‘web site’ because the more correct term ‘digital presence’ means nothing to most residents. What you want is a way for residents and the City to engage; instantly when necessary. If the word ‘instant’ sounds like it might have something to do with a phone? Now yer catching on. A cell phone is how the majority of residents engage with the world, regardless of age or any other demographic. So the City ‘web site’ needs to be able to respond to and reach everyone’s phone, for a variety of purposes–including public safety.

Tuesday: 5:30PM Behavioural Health Forum. Sen. Keiser, Sen. Wilson and Rep. Orwall attended, along with other electeds and community health care providers. I learned about a number of resources in Kent which is good.

It’s frustrating that we still have no idea what ride-along mental health professionals  will do. How they’re deployed? How to find services for people who are not homeless, just close to homeless? See, I’m used to *experimenting. I have no problem spending some money to figure out what works and what doesn’t.. What I struggle with is that we budget for stuff, without clearly explaining what we’re doing or saying that we’re experimenting. And that fuels public distrust. If you don’t tell people, “Look, this may or may not work.” They assume that when it doesn’t that you just wasted public money. We have to find a way to sell the value of these policies beyond ‘humanity’. If we’re spending public safety dollars, we have to demonstrate that these policies really do improve safety and save money.

Wednesday: Salmon Count at McSorley Creek.  After some initially very optimistic results, things have dropped off (sigh).

Wednesday: Sea-Tac Airport Roundtable (StART)

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda)  (Video)

City Council Meeting Recap

Human Services Advisory Committee Presentation

The majority of the meeting you saw involved presentations by two very worthy organisations we help fund through our Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC). I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I have singled out the HSAC for a great deal of attention as to what is wrong with our government, not because it is more problematic than other aspects, but because it demonstrates what the Mayor calls ‘the proof is in the pudding’.

The ‘pudding’ we see is not the problem. The two presenters, Teenlink and Anew are doing great work that anyone can get behind. The problem is that neither the public (or the Council) sees how the Committee works.

Not to torture the metaphor, but I used to own a small restaurant. Using Mayor Pina’s analogy, so long as the pudding looks good, the costs, the ingredients, the suppliers are irrelevant.

It’s shameless because it makes anyone who asks to see the back of the house look both heartless and suspicious. It’s a shield against a basic standard of accountability for public money. And that’s the mantra I have repeated for two years: any attempt to require the most basic standards of accountability are met with defensiveness. In fact, you can’t even talk about this because it implies some ‘guilt by association’. No matter how hard I try to compliment the organisations we support and the members of the HSAC, all most of you will remember is the complaint I’m making about the process. It’s insidious.

And it reminds me a bit of things like property crime or airplane noise. This sort of low-level funny business has become so chronic that even mentioning it makes one sound like a whiner. “Hey, that’s just how things are, man.” It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that:

  • This is not how things work in cities literally next door to us.
  • The chronic exposure to bad process makes one numb to what it is doing to us as a government and as a community. I’m always struck by how many people will go on holiday somewhere. And when they return they’re like, “Wow, it’s really LOUD here!” 😀 That’s what low-level corruption is like. You can’t understand what it’s doing to you unless you’re able to get away from it for a while.

Downtown Alley

This project is, in a nutshell, to underground the utility poles and repave the alley behind Marine View Drive from 223rd to 227th. The Consent Agenda item was to authorise a $163,000 increase to the project from $541,000 to $704,000.

And again, this is where to you I probably look pissy. But the Transportation Committee was told on November 18 that “there might be a dynamic change order.” But we were given neither a description of what that entails or the possible cost.

I guess the property owners wanted some adjustments? Fine. But instead of bringing those concerns and costs to the Transportation Committee for a discussion, the City simply drops $163,000 onto the Consent Agenda.

But if you look at the packet, the administration knew exactly what the change was and the cost because the invoice from Puget Sound Electric is right there. The Transportation Committee never got to see or discuss the change order because it had already happened.

The City Council is supposed to approve costs above $50,000. Which means that we’re supposed to decide before the City spends large amounts of money. That did not happen. The Administration must have had some form of communication with PSE along the lines of, “Just do it. The Council vote is just a formality.” So there was no discussion as to whether or not it was even a good idea. The Administration bypasses the process because they know there will be no objection.

During the meeting, I asked if this was the final cost? And I was told that this is the end of Phase 1. The problem is that I have no idea what ‘Phase 2’ means. And I was just gonna let it go. I do it all the time. Cause I’m nice. 🙂

But one of my colleagues (see I did not mention that person by name 😀 ) just had to pipe up and talk about how, even with a one third increase, it was still a good deal because ‘roads cost a million dollars a mile.’

OK, now you’re annoying me. It’s not a mile. And it’s not a public road. It’s five blocks. Of re-paving. And undergrounding. In a service alley. For commercial property owners. It serves no public benefit.

What I have not been able to properly communicate to my colleagues or to the public is that, NEWSFLASH: the City Of Des Moines does print money.

So every dollar we spend has to come from somewhere else. And in this case, that $163,000 is coming out of street repaving. I’ve seen troll posts on social media saying “Harris should worry more about fixing pot holes and stop complaining!”

Look, we just made concessions to property owners. And that sounds very nice of us. But to do so, we took $163,000 which is supposed to be used to fix your potholes, Mr. Smarty Pants. And we did that without a proper discussion. And whether you agree with this or not, I think we can all agree that $163,000 fixes a lot of pot holes.

Really explore the space…

What I’ve been trying to get at for two years is: Why are we doing this project? I think (which is not in any actual, you know, document, just word of mouth) is that the ‘concept’ is an alley, originally meant for delivery trucks, is transformed into a hip walking place with clubs and restaurants that connects people to both ends of the Marina. If I’m wrong? Not my fault. I have asked.

But references have been made to Post Alley in Seattle. I am also visualising something akin to where I used to live, in lower Manhattan (West SOHO) Either would be, as the kids say, totally awesome.

Post Alley and SOHO developed organically over about a hundred years because the existing architecture favoured the outcome. Without those historic brick buildings with entrances that face into the alley you do not get a Kells or a Pink Door. It’s the reason people like me were/are willing to walk up four flights of stairs to live in what are basically run down buildings. Charm and history are big selling points.

Please take a walk down our alley from 227th to 223rd. In the immortal words of Bruce Dickinson, “Really explore the space.” Do you see that five block stretch morphing into Post Alley or SOHO any time soon?

I keep harping on this kinda stuff because, even staunch supporters of the Administration acknowledge any number of these cognitive dissonances. But it never seems to occur to anyone that if that idea doesn’t sound fully baked, why should any of the other proposals (boutique hotel, adaptive purpose building) be any more legit? Luke 16:10.

City Manager Performance Review

One last thing about this. This is a big deal for me because aside from all the lofty ‘legislation and oversight’ functions, the two big pillar jobs of a councilmember are: pass a budget and manage the City Manager.

If you sense a recurring ‘theme’ in this week’s ranting, it is purely coincidental. Every meeting we scrupulously follow certain formalities–like taking a pointless vote to Adjourn The Meeting. It all looks very official. And I think that it just serves to cover up the fact that we are chronically avoiding the processes that actually mean something.

*I mention it because it has not been reserved for Mr. Matthias. When I first started attending City Council meetings here I would hear that level of reverence for a variety of people. I was told (and am still told) that it is “just the normal political exaggeration.” That is simply untrue. I do not hear that level of excess in other governments. And I believe that, over time, it has further eroded our ability to tell truth to power. When that sort of flattery is normative, basically any form of questioning becomes threatening.

†aka ‘throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.’ 😀

‡And if you don’t get the Bruce Dickinson reference, you may want to leave the creation of a hip downtown alley to someone else.

4For anyone who reads down this far and watches Vic Pennington’s statement, I actually agree with his remarks from 2:36:06 to 2:36:20 or so. The City was in just terrible shape for the entire time Vic and Pina were on the Council. He’s not exaggerating that bit at all. But surrounding that? Hoo boy. There’s just so much to unpack. The statements about the City Manager’s effectiveness re. Sea-Tac Airport? Even the bit about how the public did not want Des Moines to be broken up? Nonsense. If one had taken a vote in 2015 and actually gave voters a choice on various ‘Annexation Do-Overs’, in some neighbourhoods the vote would have been very close. I’m thrilled we did not go down that road, but…

Previous Articles

Categories Transparency

MRSC Inquiry: City Manager Performance Review (Part 2 of 2)

1 Comment on MRSC Inquiry: City Manager Performance Review (Part 2 of 2)

Inquiry: May a city manager review individual councilmembers?

Response:  On the question of whether the city manager may provide feedback to councilmembers in an executive session, I agree with my colleague Oskar Rey’s April 2021 inquiry response to you. RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) authorizes executive sessions for the council to “to review the performance of a public employee.” Councilmembers are not public employees for most purposes. In general, it does not make sense for an appointed official who serves at the pleasure of the Council to review the job performance, either in executive session or in a public meeting, of individual councilmembers.

In addition, a councilmember with a complaint or charge against them could ask that it be considered in a public meeting rather than an executive session. RCW 42.30.110(1)(f) provides:

To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge;

I recommend you consult with your city attorney. Let me know if you want to further discuss.

Linda Gallagher (she/her)
Legal Consultant
206.625.1300 x222

 

Categories Transparency

MRSC Inquiry on Serial meetings

1 Comment on MRSC Inquiry on Serial meetings

Inquiry:  When councilmembers confer in advance about matters to come before the council when is it a serial meeting in violation of the OPMA?

Response:  In my opinion, it would be a serial meeting in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) if a quorum of city council members confer with each other, including either via telephone or email, to determine if they have sufficient support for a matter to be considered at an upcoming council meeting. This would include having a series of one-on-one conversations between council members about a matter of city business for the purpose of assessing support or counting how their upcoming votes are likely to be cast.

Here is MRSC’s FAQ related to this question from our topic page Open Public Meetings Act FAQs:

  1. What is a serial meeting?
  2. A serial meeting, sometimes referred to as a “walking” meeting, happens when fewer than a quorum of the governing body takes “action” at one time, but that action is then repeated in a way that eventually involves a quorum of the governing body. It does not matter if the serial meeting happens in person, or by electronic means such as email or social media posts.

It is not a serial meeting if one member of a governing body shares information with the rest of the body. “Passive receipt” of information is allowed.

Examples using a scenario where there are five board members (1-5), so three members is a quorum:

  • Board member 1 talks to board member 2 about agency business. 2 talks to 3 and tells 3 what 1 said. 3 talks to 4 and tells 4 what both 1 and 2 said. You now had a “serial” meeting because a quorum of the council is discussing agency business.
  • Board director puts a draft policy on the agency’s SharePoint site and grants permission for all five board members to edit the document. (SharePoint allows for simultaneous editing of documents and real-time chat). If at least three members comment, or propose edits, you’ve had a serial meeting.
  • Board member 1 posts on their personal Twitter page about their intent to vote in favor of a proposed action. The next day board member 2 retweets commenting that they oppose the action, and tags board members 4 and 5. Board member 4 responds that afternoon saying they support the member and tags board member 3. This now became a conversation among a quorum of the board members about agency business, and is a serial meeting.

Agencies can help avoid a serial meeting over email by adopting rules prohibiting members of the governing body from communication with a quorum of the body. Instead, route emails and replies to staff and then the matter can be discussed at a future open meeting. Also, putting the addresses of the member in the “blind carbon copy” field of most email programs will keep that program from replying to all the members. For social media, consider adopting rules that prohibit members of the governing body from commenting on posts made by other members; especially if your agency has official media pages for the members. See MRSC’s blog post, Tips for Avoiding OPMA Violations, for other helpful suggestions.

Here is a link to the September 2020 Washington Court of Appeals decision Egan v. City of Seattle, 471 P.3d 899 (2020). The plaintiffs alleged that City of Seattle councilmembers violated the OPMA by making a decision as a result of a serial meeting including via emails and that a councilmember’s staff person made a vote count tally on an issue that appeared to be decided before the council’s public meeting. The court discussed the legal issues and found genuine issues of material fact and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On remand, the parties reached a settlement.

Here is a link to MRSC’s blog post What Constitutes a Serial Meeting under the OPMA?

I recommend you consult with your city attorney. Let me know if you want to further discuss.

Linda Gallagher  (she/her)
Legal Consultant
206.625.1300 x222

MRSC   Empowering local governments to better serve their communities

Disclaimer: MRSC is a statewide resource that provides general legal and policy guidance to support local government entities pursuant to RCW 43.110.030. This communication should not be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney-client relationship. This communication is not confidential or privileged.

Categories Transparency

MRSC Inquiry: City Manager Performance Review (Part 1 of 2)

Inquiry: May a city council review of the city manager’s performance happen in an executive session?

Response:  It looks like the annual evaluation of a city manager may take place during an executive session under the authority of RCW 42.30.110(1)(g). However, if a city is considering termination of a city manager’s appointment, then a resolution, notice to the city manager, and, if requested, a public hearing is required under RCW 35A.13.130 and RCW 35A.13.140.

Here is an excerpt from a recent MRSC inquiry response about executive sessions and city council evaluations of city managers:

For city council evaluations of city managers, RCW 42.30.110(g) of the OPMA allows an executive session to be convened to discuss the performance of a public employee or official. There is how the Attorney General’s Open Government Resource Manual describes the provision – this provides a bit more insight into the purpose of the provision:

(g)  Evaluating Qualifications or Performance of a Public Employee/Official

There are two different purposes under this provision for which a governing body may meet in executive session.  For both purposes, the references to “public employment” and to “public employee” include within their scope public offices and public officials, so that a governing body may evaluate in executive sessions persons who apply for appointive office positions, such as state university president or city manager, as well as for employee positions.

The first purpose involves evaluating the qualifications of applicants for public employment.  This could include personal interviews with an applicant, discussions concerning an applicant’s qualifications for a position, and discussions concerning salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment personal to the applicant.  The authority to “evaluate” applicants in closed session allows a governing body to discuss the qualifications of applicants, not to choose which one to hire.  Although this subsection expressly mandates that “final action hiring” an applicant for employment be taken in open session, this does not mean that the governing body may take preliminary votes in an executive session that eliminate candidates from consideration.  Miller v. City of Tacoma (1999).

The second part of this provision concerns reviewing the performance of a public employee.  This provision would be used typically either where the governing body is considering a promotion or a salary or wage increase for an individual employee or where it may be considering disciplinary action based on an employee’s performance.  It should be distinguished from subsection (f), which concerns specific complaints or charges brought against an employee and which, at the request of the employee, must be discussed in open session.

The result of a governing body’s closed session review of the performance of an employee may be that the body will take some action either beneficial or adverse to the officer or employee.  That action, whether raising a salary of or disciplining an officer or employee, must be made in open session.

When a discussion involves salaries, wages, or conditions of employment to be “generally applied” in the agency, it must take place in open session.  However, if that discussion involves collective bargaining negotiations or strategies, it is not subject to the OPMA and may be held in closed session without being subject to the procedural requirements for an executive session in RCW 42.30.110(2). See RCW 42.30.140(4).

Inquiry: May a city manager review individual councilmembers?

Response:  On the question of whether the city manager may provide feedback to councilmembers in an executive session, I agree with my colleague Oskar Rey’s April 2021 inquiry response to you. RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) authorizes executive sessions for the council to “to review the performance of a public employee.” Councilmembers are not public employees for most purposes. In general, it does not make sense for an appointed official who serves at the pleasure of the Council to review the job performance, either in executive session or in a public meeting, of individual councilmembers.

In addition, a councilmember with a complaint or charge against them could ask that it be considered in a public meeting rather than an executive session. RCW 42.30.110(1)(f) provides:

To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge;

I recommend you consult with your city attorney. Let me know if you want to further discuss.

Linda Gallagher (she/her)
Legal Consultant
206.625.1300 x222

 

Categories Public Safety, Transparency, Transportation, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 12/05/2021

4 Comments on Weekly Update: 12/05/2021

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Tuesday: 9AM. Port Of Seattle, State Of The Port  This is a pre-recorded presentation. It’s a political nerd thing, but worth watching not so much because the Port has that much direct connection with Des Moines, but because it tells us, essentially where they are at with regard to climate change.

Tuesday: Police Advisory Committee

Tuesday: 5:30PM Behavioural Health Forum. This is a meeting for electeds to, at least in part, discuss how mental health professionals will work in a law enforcement context–something I strongly favour. However, I think it’s fair to say that many people (OK, moi) don’t yet understand how that works in day to day practice. In other words, most of us fall back on ‘guns and badges’ as ‘the solution’ because we understand it. My hope is that as we develop clear benefit statements, more people will get on board.

Wednesday: Salmon Count at McSorley Creek. This may be the last count of the year. After some initially very optimistic results, things have dropped off (sigh). One duuuh moment I had that directly relates to our Environment Committee. The stream flow rate has been crazy high this year. Silly me, I thought that was a ‘good’ sign as a fisherman. But the flow rates now are going beyond normal due to climate change, more development–basically more storm water run-off. And beyond a certain point that extra flow erodes the stream and ruins the redds (where the eggs are laid.) So, we gotta think of ways to process the storm water more gently.

Wednesday: Sea-Tac Airport Roundtable (StART)

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) It will look boring to you, but there are two notable items:

Downtown Alley

There is a Consent Agenda item re. the Downtown Alley project. What that means is that we are repaving the alley behind Marine View Drive from 223rd to 227th. This vote will be to authorise (what seems to me) a last-minute budget increase. *The original project was costed at about $330k. If we vote for the thing it will now be at $704k. I have been on the Transportation Commitee for two years now and I have asked a question: Why are we doing this? And I always get very vague answers like: “it is a key part of our Marina…” I honestly do not see it.

Now on most CIP projects there will be some rendering depicting the final work. Here’s what was in the original CIP under that heading:

I sure hope for more information. For *$704,000 I want to understand some real benefits. Because remember: when it came to undergrounding wires on 24th Avenue, we chose to override the requirement–even though it’s the pathway for our school children.

City Manager Performance Review

There will also be an Executive Session (which is private) where we do the Annual Performance Review of the City Manager. This is a big deal because aside from all the lofty ‘legislation and oversight’ functions, the two big pillar jobs of a councilmember are: pass a budget and manage the City Manager. The final reviews are a public record and I will provide them when we’re done. In case you’re wondering, here is the City Manager’s current contract: January 23, 2020 City Council Packet. The pay rate currently indicates †M49D, which is $224k plus various benefits. Last year the City Manager chose not to accept a 1% COLA. I do not see anything in the packet about that. But our Mayor does like to make last minute changes to the Agenda.

A few things re. that last Executive Session.

  • Totally private.
  • And, in Des Moines? The City Manager participates. It’s the only performance review of my entire life where the review-ee is present and a full participant during the entire thing. There is no moment where it’s just the seven of us.
  • Also, for those of you who think our public meetings are a ‘three ring circus’? OK, now think of every stunt you’ve witnessed on the dais and take it to a place where everyone is sworn to secrecy and use your imagination. I believe that if you were able to see it, even if you were the staunchest supporter of the majority, you would have to give everything a re-think.

One other thing: The City Manager’s contract actually requires two performance reviews. I do not recall that second one in either of my years on the Council. I only mention it because at that January 23, 2020 Meeting, Councilmember Buxton made a motion to remove that second review–which I strenuously opposed. It did not pass. And yet, unless I was sleeping, snacking, or whatever, I do not recall us  conducting that second review.

Details, details.

*Update: 12/07/21: When first published, the number was $715k. I have updated to reflect the current version as presented in the latest version of our packet.

†Update: 12/07/21: I incorrectly wrote that the City Manager was currently at M49E, which was incorrect. He is currently at M49D. I have adjusted the dollar amount accordingly. I regret the error.

The web site is an essential city service

This is the Des Moines City Web Site… as captured by our friend the Wayback Machine… on November 30, 2021

And this is the site as it exists on 12/05/2021

Notice anything missing? The Search. I guess someone decided that since it doesn’t work, hey… who needs it right? 😃

It’s just a problem…

Everyone gets so cringey at all my ‘gotchas’ but here’s the thing: If we were doing a road closure, a pipe was plugged, a wire was down; we would tell the public. “Hey, something is wrong. We acknowledge that it’s a problem. We’re working on it.” Nobody’s ‘feelings’ would be hurt. It’s just a problem of City services that needs to be addressed.

By failing, over and over, for months and months to even acknowledge that there is a problem, it has sent the clear signal that there is no problem. Neither the City or my colleagues feel that it is an issue… or if it is… access to public information in no way rises to the level of any more ‘traditional’ concerns of public safety or civil engineering.

Information is a primary function of government…

I disagree. I believe that access to public information is a primary function and a primary duty of every government. Without having trustworthy access to information, one cannot have good government.

And the polite thing to do, in my opinion, would be to tell the public, “Hey, we know there are issues. We’re working on it.” But that never happens. Stuff just ‘changes’.

This puts me in a very awkward position. I have to point out this stuff because I do believe that access to public information is a primary duty of every government. Really. No. Really.

But what I have been told, repeatedly, is that somehow my complaints hurt people’s feelings. What is clear, just by seeing what happens, is that the web site is in no way considered important to the City.

So let me ask you this…

If you had a problem with code enforcement. If there was a landslide. Or a downed wire. Or any other issue of concern to you, would you give a damn about the City’s feelings? Of course not. That wouldn’t even enter into your thinking. You’re just reporting a problem. You pay taxes, the City provides services.

There is absolutely no difference.

We have a legal and ethical duty to provide the highest possible standard of access to public information… just as we have duties to provide that same QoS when it comes to public safety, roads, storm water, etc.

Making our digital presence on par with other services will require a cultural shift.

One other thing…

I want to take that one step further: It is the duty of government to always provide access to information commensurate with the current state of technology. At the risk of being even more repetitious than usual, I’m gonna repeat that because it matters.

One excuse that we’ll get is that “it’s fine the way it is.”

Absolutely not.

When we upgrade any essential service, we want to make sure that it conforms to the current best practice. When we install anything from a sidewalk to whatever, the expectation is that it will be done the best we can do it. Maybe not ‘bleeding edge’, but as close as we can afford.

Our web site is nowhere near close to best practice–regardless of budget. It simply does not meet a minimum standard of service for a corporation of our size and audience.

Categories Engagement, Transparency

The web site is an essential city service

This is the Des Moines City Web Site… as captured by our friend the Wayback Machine… on November 30, 2021

And this is the site as it exists on 12/05/2021

Notice anything missing? The Search. I guess someone decided that since it doesn’t work, hey… who needs it right? 😃

It’s just a problem…

Everyone gets so cringey at all my ‘gotchas’ but here’s the thing: If we were doing a road closure, a pipe was plugged, a wire was down; we would tell the public. “Hey, something is wrong. We acknowledge that it’s a problem. We’re working on it.” Nobody’s ‘feelings’ would be hurt. It’s just a problem of City services that needs to be addressed.

By failing, over and over, for months and months to even acknowledge that there is a problem, it has sent the clear signal that there is no problem. Neither the City or my colleagues feel that it is an issue… or if it is… access to public information in no way rises to the level of any more ‘traditional’ concerns of public safety or civil engineering.

Information is a primary function of government…

I disagree. I believe that access to public information is a primary function and a primary duty of every government. Without having trustworthy access to information, one cannot have good government.

And the polite thing to do, in my opinion, would be to tell the public, “Hey, we know there are issues. We’re working on it.” But that never happens. Stuff just ‘changes’.

This puts me in a very awkward position. I have to point out this stuff because I do believe that access to public information is a primary duty of every government. Really. No. Really.

But what I have been told, repeatedly, is that somehow my complaints hurt people’s feelings. What is clear, just by seeing what happens, is that the web site is in no way considered important to the City.

So let me ask you this…

If you had a problem with code enforcement. If there was a landslide. Or a downed wire. Or any other issue of concern to you, would you give a damn about the City’s feelings? Of course not. That wouldn’t even enter into your thinking. You’re just reporting a problem. You pay taxes, the City provides services.

There is absolutely no difference.

We have a legal and ethical duty to provide the highest possible standard of access to public information… just as we have duties to provide that same QoS when it comes to public safety, roads, storm water, etc.

Making our digital presence on par with other services will require a cultural shift.

One other thing…

I want to take that one step further: It is the duty of government to always provide access to information commensurate with the current state of technology. At the risk of being even more repetitious than usual, I’m gonna repeat that because it matters.

One excuse that we’ll get is that “it’s fine the way it is.”

Absolutely not.

When we upgrade any essential service, we want to make sure that it conforms to the current best practice. When we install anything from a sidewalk to whatever, the expectation is that it will be done the best we can do it. Maybe not ‘bleeding edge’, but as close as we can afford.

Our web site is nowhere near close to best practice–regardless of budget. It simply does not meet a minimum standard of service for a corporation of our size and audience.

Categories Engagement, Public Safety, Taxes, Transparency, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 11/28/2021

2 Comments on Weekly Update: 11/28/2021

Happy Hanukkah!

There’s never a piccie of a dreidel or a menorah when you need one. 🙂

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Monday: Highline Superintendent Search. (ERAC, Burien) Come join me to comment on what you want to see in the next Executive of our school system!

Thursday: 3PM Municipal Facilities Meeting. No agenda yet. Supposedly a review of the Capital Improvement Projects and Marine Redevelopment?

Thursday: 4PM Public Safety Committee Meeting (cancelled) I only mention this because this was supposed to be the penalty of Councilmember Martinelli’s censure. Boy we really laid on some punishment there.

Update: Due to the recent events on Pac Highway, the meeting is back on. The Agenda will consist of a discussion with Chief Of Police Ken Thomas. I would urge people to sign up to attend via Zoom.

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda as always the Agenda has directions on how to make public comment or attend via Zoom.)

Of note… we will be approving renewal of two consulting contracts:

  1. Our State lobbyist. His accomplishments include helping us locate developers for the Marina. He has also been attending our StART meetings and the 2nd Airport Siting Committee as an observer. $6,000/mo.
  2. Our Marina consultant on ferries. He also happens to be our Citizen Representative to the StART–even though he resides in Normandy Park. Mr. Philips is also the publisher of our City Currents Newsletter. $3,000/mo.
    We will be approving our Parks/Rec/Senior Services Master Plan. The resolution cites the great public engagement. However there has been no discussion of the actual proposal (which you can read here: https://jcharrisfordesmoines.com/…/Des-Moines-PRSS… ) because the Council (and public) received the plan -after- the last meeting with the consultant team. So… again… we have no opportunity to talk to the consultants in an informed manner.

Do you see a pattern here?

  1. Have meeting with experts, but with no data.
  2. Deliver data -after- meeting.
  3. Vote on final thing at next meeting, but with no experts on hand.

Apparently, the Mayor will be making a statement re. the Human Services Advisory Committee. But there are no materials and no explanation of what that might entail. November is -usually- when the HSAC presents to the City Council and this is a sore spot for me because this is literally the -only- time during the year the Council gets to hear from the HSAC. In all other Cities, the HSAC reports to Council at least quarterly in some regard. The membership of the group is not even on the City web site.

We will also be approving our Legislative Agenda, which has only one item on it concerning aviation: support for Rep. Orwall’s Indoor Air Quality proviso (which actually includes the outdoor sampling which I hope to get made into an annual process.)

Last Week

Tuesday: Meeting with Arshia Nilchan, political director for Rep. Adam Smith. No, I’m still independent. But all the candidates for City Council this cycle were running as Democats and at least a few asked for his endorsement, so I wanted to give him some feedback on the process.

Thursday: I only want to point out that this was the single most viewed post I did on Facebook for 2021.

I made a reference in there about Hogan’s Heroes–and was taken to task by an incoming colleague that it was not about Nazis. Uh oh. 😀 I guess my point was how much the world has changed. I mean, looking back from where we’re at a society now, it just seems odd to me that there was ever a popular ‘comedy’ show with… you know… swastikas?

Public Safety…

Residents are understandably freaked out about the recent spate of incidents along Pacific Highway and Kent Des Moines Road.

I’m going to  gas on a bit here about our police department in general and that spot in particular because we’ve been down this road before (no pun intended) and I’d prefer that we handle things a bit differently this time in order to hopefully prevent a next time–if you take my meaning. But first, the obligatory show of concern:

The Des Moines Police Department will effectively address the current spate of problems. They are really good at acute interventions like this. And your City Council will provide them with all the necessary resources to effectively handle that acute need.

The tricky part is that Pac Highway and Kent Des Moines Road are mostly in the City of Kent. So there will be some partnering, which I am also quite sure will be effective. But… it’s about to get ‘complicated’.

It’s a numbers game

I often get asked, “How many police officers do we have?” The subtext is usually we don’t have enough police officers. But the total number is a bit misleading.

Currently, we have 4+1 officers per shift: four Patrol and one Sergeant. And with that configuration officers are able to respond to calls for service. Keep that phrase in mind. Calls for service. That is the model. They respond to calls. Despite the nomenclature they generally do not ‘patrol’ in defined ‘sectors’. So if I were being wonkier than usual I would rename the position ‘Responder’. Because, again, officers respond when a call comes in–often in teams of two cars.

Big picture history

Backing up a bit, like most cities,  we have always spent about 50% of our general fund budget on public safety. That amount is regardless of the number of officers. The rule of thumb is to spend as much as we can without really hurting other services (roads, kids, parks, seniors, etc.) Fifty percent.

Now, back in the 2000’s we had a lot more police. So we had not just the responders, but also officers that actually did patrol key areas (what us old people used to call ‘beat cops’.)

For a great variety of reasons, the City was going through terrible budget cuts starting in the late 90’s. We were downsizing, downsizing, downsizing. Thankfully, residents continued to keep the PD funded through a special, small tax levy. That was part of the reason other areas wanted to be annexed into Des Moines. We offered the promise of a higher cop to resident ratio. (That’s a real thing, by the way.)

However, after 9/11 and Tim Eyman’s various initiatives got rolling, DM voters started saying not just ‘no’ but ‘Hell no!’ to any City-sponsored levy. Roads. Police. What-evehhhhr. So, when that tax ended in 2012 we were forced to dump any of that sector-based jazz. And code enforcement? Buh-bye! Drove me bonkers. Truth be told the police were so short staffed at times that they were running 3+1 or even 2+1 in some cases. Fortunately, violent crime had been steadily dropping, reaching historic lows until the pandemic. So we kinda dodged a bullet there. (Sorry… that’s pretty dark humour. Even for me.)

With the economic recovery, our budget started getting better and my predecessors responded admirably by rebuilding the force and re-establishing a dedicated Code Enforcement Officer. So despite the lack of a dedicated ‘police tax’, in 2019, City was able to proudly state that we were once again ‘fully staffed’.

But that is one of those statements governments make that are accurate but not exactly ‘true’. Because all ‘fully staffed’ means is that we’re back to having enough officers to do 4+1. We’re just not short-staffed. Get it? In truth, we’re still nowhere near the staffing levels we enjoyed in that ‘golden age’ pre-2008 recession.

But here’s the thing: Most planners tended to think (or hope) that the lower violent crime rate in the 2010’s was sort of the ‘new normal’. We thought it would persist. In fact, at our last Budget Retreat, a lot of the discussion centered around how the entire concept of policing and court were changing throughout Washington. We’re now moving towards using mental health professionals instead of guns and badges. Our courts are using any number of interventions instead of putting people in jail. These are huge policy changes that took years to develop.

And at the same time it has gotten more and more difficult to recruit new officers. I know my colleagues get a bit annoyed at my hypothetical questions, but at that same meeting, I asked the Chief whether not we even could hire ten more officers (assuming we found a million dollars hiding under some rock.) That simply may not be possible in the near term given the shortage of qualified candidates, intense competition and the long lead times.

But think of it this way: George Floyd was killed less than eighteen months ago. The entire conversation about ‘policing’ has changed (again) in a very short time frame.

And now? If we want to hire police they come at a premium. Seattle is currently offering up to a $25,000 signing bonus. That is the competition.

That darned boundary…

Unfortunately, that whole area of Kent Des Moines Road and Pacific Highway has been problematic for decades. (Again, without a newspaper it’s hard to keep track but for example, there was a high-profile car show murder in the parking lot of the Goodwill in 2011(ish?)

But since most of you are relatively new to the area, when the public thinks of ‘high crime’ they often think of Pacific Ridge–largely because of some high profile incidents between 2013 and 2015. The police did put emphasis there and it helped. But a lot of the long-term improvement was not about guns and badges. It was more about building Waterview Crossing and establishing anti-violence programs like Reach Out Des Moines and citizen activism like clean-ups and then Midway Garden and now the City has stepped up to make significant improvements to the park. Most of that is super-low cost and it really works. But it all takes time.

So for a good while there we kinda took our eye off of of KDM. Which was not a great idea because historically that has often been where a great deal of the ‘action’ has been.

We can get into a long discussion as to why the border between Des Moines and Kent is so verkachte. And we should definitely revisit that. And we can definitely discuss why it’s so hard to successfully police that border. And we can also discuss why that corner has been steadily going down hill for the past twenty years.

OK, back to the big picture…

But the fact remains that policing is reactive. The police respond to calls for service. Their primary business is not crime prevention, just as it is not about addressing homelessness or  people with chronic mental health issues. By the time people call 911 it’s already too late.

Since I have lived here a while I can assure that this spate of incidents will abate almost regardless of what the police do. That is not to minimise our police force. But it did before and it will again.

My real concern is that as soon as it does, the public will once again take their eye off the ball and we won’t address the structural issues that have caused that area to deteriorate–and ‘leak’ from the perimeter into Des Moines. Because it’s that deterioration that inevitably causes the flare ups every few years. And we better get on that before the Light Rail Station opens.

Eat your heart out Batman…

Now at our ARPA Stimulus vote on September 16, the Deputy Mayor proposed hiring four ‘new’ officers. I was not thrilled about that because we’re not really adding new people so much as keeping the pipeline going in the face of retirements, sick leave, etc. We ended up voting for two, for a three year period. But, full disclosure: I was vehemently opposed to that as well. Not because I don’t think we need them. We do. But because we voted to use one-time money for salaries–which is exactly the kind of accounting gimmickery that got us into trouble in the 2000’s. If we want more police officers, don’t use money that was meant for something else. Commit. Now. Don’t saddle the 2025 City Council with that choice.

OK, have you looked at a fully equipped police officer lately? Bruce Wayne is jealous of all the stuff they have on their utility belts. Throw in the compensation package and benefits. And then add in the vehicle and all the other accoutrement. When you see a DMPD officer driving by you’re waving at over $200,000 a year. No kidding.

But that’s not even the expensive part. To get to what people really want (that sector-based policing) would require almost doubling our patrol officer staff. I mean like twenty officers. Because remember, during that golden age there were up to as many as four officers patrolling areas of the city. So even if you make them miserable with four twelves that’s at least twenty people. That’s $4,000,000 a year. If you look at our current budget, carving out space for that much money would mean saying, “Good bye parks! Good bye roads! Good by senior services! Been nice knowin’ ya!” That is the price of the golden age model of public safety for Des Moines.

The only way to get to that special place is to do what we used to do: ask you voters to pay for it. And for what it’s worth? I would be absolutely thrilled to pay that kind of tax. Why? It’s targeted. I’d know exactly where it’s going–a purpose I totally approve of. It’s not some blank check that could be re-purposed by those no-account politicians.

Remind me why I voted for you?

When I ran in 2019 I was constantly trying to beat up on my colleagues for talking about how we had a ‘fully staffed’ police force. As I door belled people I’d comment on all the new ‘Ring’ cameras and really expensive CCTV systems. But when I asked voters how they’d feel about instead paying  for police officers? They’d look at me like I was nuts. I had people say, “I was gonna vote for you, but now? No way. You just want to tax me to death.” And I dunno how to respond to that. I get that many of you no longer trust the government to do anything. And I get that we as a City haven’t always done a bang up job of improving that sense of trust. But in this one specific case, I’m gonna ask you to give that a re-think. If not? Enjoy that totally vivid 4K video of some guy removing your catalytic converter at 5AM. I’d rather put that money into a patrol officer.

On the other hand…

The primary job of our police force cannot be crime prevention. At least, not without waaay more very expensive police than we can hope to afford. Police are trained to respond to occasional calls for service. If there is more than occasional crime on your street? Don’t take this the the wrong way, but there is something wrong with your street–and  that requires a different model of intervention. Good neighbourhoods have low crime. Full stop.

So after all that, I gotta say, I am much more inclined to direct City money towards crime prevention than a massive influx of people to respond to more calls for service. Both approaches take years to implement. But prevention costs less and in the end you can’t keep calling the cops. At some point, you gotta improve your neighbourhood.

Safety first…

Forget all that noise. You’re freaked out now. You want relief now. Got it. So again:

The Des Moines Police Department will address the current spate of problems. They are really good at acute interventions like this. And the City Council will provide them with all necessary resources to effectively handle that acute need.

But think about it: if there were a lot of fires in your neighbourhood, your first thought would probably not be “We should definitely hire more firefighters!” Your first thought would likely be, “What’s the deal with all these fires?”

It’s all about you…

The real problem(s) are going to take years and your energy to solve.

  • I’ve been grousing about the boundary for years. But you can get the Cities to (finally) engage again.
  • And you can get the two Cities to work on economic development.
  • And you can get us to commit to crime prevention programs throughout Des Moines . (They work in Pac Ridge. And they’re cheap. So we should expand those programs everywhere.)
  • And we know that code enforcement is effective in identifying problem houses before things get out of hand. You can make all that happen where us politicians have previously lacked the will.
  • And, yeah, some of it may also require you to step up and pay a few extra bucks a month for new officers.

But specifically: if you live in the area of Kent Des Moines Road and 240th, permanent change will mean be your neighbourhood getting organised as an ongoing project–especially with the advent of Link Light Rail. As residents of Des Moines, you will need to work with the Kent businesses and residents west of Pac Highway to help keep the two Cities focused on your issues. Because all of us, residents and governments have very short attention spans. There is always a new crisis every month.

I want to help you create that organisation in any way I can because I have lived here a while. And it took me a long time to figure out that you are what drives long-lasting positive change at the neighbourhood level.

Categories Economic Development, Policy, Transparency

Some see things that never were…

I’ll say. 😀

At our last City Council Meeting, our City Manager opened the discussion of selecting the developer for Parcel A by recounting that, early in his career he had been given a fellowship by the Robert F Kennedy for work with low income families in Oakland, California. I had no idea what that has to do with building a boutique hotel at our Marina, but I get accused of grandiosity from time to time, so I’m willing to roll with the occasional rhetorical flight.

But then he winds up by quoting RFK…

Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?

Me being me, I’ll tell ya why not…

  • That is not an RFK quote. It’s actually from a really stupid play by George Bernard Shaw. The only reason I know that is because we have very few famous people in Ireland, so as a child you’re required to learn about every last one of them–no matter how boring. (Although to be fair, if you ever visit Ireland, one of the coolest places is the National Art Gallery–in Shaw’s house in Dublin.)
  • Kennedy used that line while campaigning to end the war in Vietnam, which was a pretty bold move in 1968. He was not talking about building a hotel. And conflating the two kinda bugs me in the way it bugs me when Cadillac and Mercedes started using 60’s protest songs to advertise luxury cars. OK, Boomer.

We can debate the merits of building a hotel at the Marina. But that warm-up made it sound as though this development had some connection with a greater service to humanity. And that’s a bit of a stretch for a boutique hotel which would be charging close to $200 a night.

http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2011/07/i-dream-things-that-never-were-and-say.html

Categories Engagement, Transparency, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 11/22/2021

1 Comment on Weekly Update: 11/22/2021

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Tuesday: Meeting with Arshia Nilchan, political director for Rep. Adam Smith. No, I’m still independent. But all the candidates for City Council this cycle were running as Democats and at least a few asked for his endorsement, so I wanted to give him some feedback on the process.

Thursday:Look, I am total policy guy. I forget how much most of you enjoy all that ‘personal crap’ 😀  So if I have failed to show enough appreciation for your support this year, I am truly sorry. If I have failed to ask you how your kids are doing wherever they happen to be doing it, I am truly sorry. But if I have over-burdened you with facts and figures and ways to improve the City when you just wanted to know more about how my family is doing or my health or the boat or whatever? NOT SORRY. 😀  But for what it’s worth, I proposed crab, but will be eating turkey. And apparently the entertainment will consist of this thing you refer to as ‘football’ playing on a device called a ‘television’. I seem to lose votes wherever I go.

!YOU GUYS ARE THE GREATEST ! HAPPY THANKSGIVING DES MOINES!

Last Week

Monday: MRSC Climate Action Webinar. I found this to be extremely useful. It had real-world examples of how cities can reduce emissions, both for its own process, residents and business. There has been a ‘Great idea! You first!’ approach to climate change. And the idea that anything we do will be onerous. I do not think we can ask bigger players to act if we aren’t willing to do our share. Also, it is in our best interest to be aggressive. People come to Des Moines for the environment, the beautiful shoreline, trees. Those are the assets.

Tuesday: Port Of Seattle Commission (Agenda/Video) The Port finalised it’s budget for 2022. There was a good discussion on the Port’s initiative to bring the Maritime side down to net zero emissions.

Wednesday: Salmon Counting at McSorley Creek with Trout Unlimited and Friends Of Saltwater State Park. We saw one dead female salmon

Wednesday: Reach Out Des Moines. I proposed creating a web site for the Pacific Middle School Design/Engineering program. The goal is to showcase their past successes and testimonials from students and parents.

Thursday: Transportation Committee Meeting (Agenda) (Video)

Thursday: Environment Committee Meeting (Agenda) (Video)

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) (Video)

‘The Three Ring Circus’

This last meeting was as action-packed as it gets. And that in itself is problematic. Our calendar really should have some ‘load-balancing’, where significant work is more equally spread out during the year. Jamming so much significant work into a single meeting is an invitation to bad government. But that’s another rant about process for another day.

As occasionally happens I got some snippy comments about my appearance. What was unique this time was that the remarks acknowledged that the entire Council was a ‘three ring circus’ and that somehow my appearance was as bad as the rest of the Council’s ongoing conduct. Now normally, I don’t comment on that sort of thing, but this gets to the heart of what is wrong with our politics.

The idea that my appearance rises to a level of ‘unprofessionalim’ equivalent to the obvious failings of my colleagues is like telling students that a dress code violation is as bad as cheating on a test.

If those are your priorities? You have only yourself to blame for bad government. In fact, if my ‘image’ is what you choose to focus on? You are encouraging bad government.

Property Tax Levy

We covered a Property Tax Levy. As usual there were some snarky comments about ‘taxes too high!’, even though no one showed up for the Public Hearing. But in fact, the increased taxes are simply a function of increased property values in King County. This is one area where I agree with the Administration in that it has consistently worked to keep tax rates as low as possible and not recommending that we take the legally allowable 1% annual bump.

I want the public to understand that this is one of those no free lunch deals: Everyone loves low property taxes. But if you also are unhappy with the level of services? Not allowing this tax rate to even keep up with inflation creates a ceiling that prevents us from putting more money into parks, seniors, kids, etc. All that jazz about ‘outrageous salaries!’ You never heard that from me. Because it was never the reason for weak services. But that’s also a rant for another day.

Budget Amendments

We approved the 2022 Budget and it was approved without a single amendment. As it was last year.

Actually, there were proposed amendments. Councilmember Martinelli proposed adding $250,000 in one-time money for tenant relief at a prior meeting.

And I submitted six amendments totaling a whopping $41,204.

Neither was even discussed. And I mention that because amendments are supposed to be discussed as a part of the process. The Mayor simply did not allow that part of the meeting to happen. He also did another weasel move by removing the New Business portion of the Agenda at the last moment. (And in #297 of “I told you so”, when the Mayor proposed creating that ‘New Business’ part of the Agenda, none of my colleagues supported my motion to amend Council Rules to make it permanent. I argued that, “if the mayor creates it, he can simply take it away when it is to his strategic advantage.” And that is exactly what happened. Any nine year old knows “get it in writing”.)

So, since none of my colleagues objected, and since CM Martinelli was not there, I smiled and let it go. I guess my concern is that you don’t know what an egregious violation of parliamentary procedure that was.

I’ve taken to sending people this fifteen second link, which they find very cryptic: The Law Of Gravity Is Nonsense

All it means is that City Council creates its own reality. If the public doesn’t know how things are supposed to work, whatever happens on the dais seems ‘normal’. You have no way of knowing that it’s bad. And since it’s not an ‘issue’ like “more police!” no candidate understands either.

Now, back to my extravances what did I want $41,204 for?

  • FIX THE WEB SITE. Breaking the code of silence here… apparently ‘key people’ find nothing wrong with it. Really. No. Really.
  • Commit to permanently recording and allowing for remote attendance of Committee Meetings. Why is this necessary? Because the City Manager has not reported back on a ‘vendor quote’ to do that work… in six months. And again… breaking the code of silence here… some of my colleagues and staff do not LIKE having recorded and zoom Committee Meetings. They were (candidly) much happier -without- those pesky citizens watching the sausage get made.

Apparently, these extravagances will need to wait until “end of Q1”

Marina Redevelopment Developer Selection for Parcel A

I asked residents to Reject All Three prior to the meeting and at least a dozen of you wrote the City Council. Thank you! Although my colleagues voted to proceed, you sent a message. This is far from over. As more of you engage, we will be able to obtain better outcomes.

All along my entire sales pitch has been: learn more. I believe that the arguments against this stuff are self-evident. The only challenge is in getting you up to speed after four years of the City moving ahead without proper public engagement.

Below is my response to the discussion, which was about as egregious a discussion as I’ve witnessed in my dozen or so years observing our City government.

Censure

More parliamentary silliness. I fully supported the concept of Censure. I made a motion to amend the resolution to remove the police report and *Items 5 and 6. That would have ended the discussion which had gone on long enough in my opinion. Let’s do it and move on. Anything beyond that was calling more attention to the woman and child. My motion did not receive a second so on we went. And Councilmember Buxton asked to speak last so that… wait for it… she could propose removing the police report. She wanted to make the same motion. Which then passed of course.

But the Mayor then added one final dollop of humiliation by proposing that the resolution be further amended to send the resolution to all regional electeds. And that also passed.

So to recap, the final resolution removes the police report, but substitutes a link where anyone can get a copy of the police report. And it sends the resolution to all the media and all our regional electeds and posts it on the City Bulletin Board.

I voted against the final resolution because

a) The actual ‘censure’ came down to preventing CM Martinelli from attending one committee meeting. Seriously. That is all the ‘punishment’ it inflicts.

b) Everything else is shaming. And as you can tell, I have no problem with (useful) shaming and blaming. But in this case every action taken against CM Martinelli, including these lengthy public discussions, calls more attention to the woman and child. It also doesn’t make the City look particularly great either.

This negative side-effects of this resolution, and in fact every aspect of the City’s handling of the issue have started to swamp any responsible actions we have taken.

Parcel A

At our November 18, 2021 meeting, we chose a developer to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the City to develop Parcel A of the Marina Floor as described in the RFQ from our 18 November 2021 Meeting. Essentially, it was a job interview.

Drama?

After the meeting I got some feedback telling me that I was being ‘dramatic’ and that the process was ‘fine’. Wow. I hate to be that guy, but I have to respond because it was definitely not fine and if you think it was?

Remember that when you watch someone doing heart surgery on Gray’s Anatomy they do not actually know what they’re doing when it comes to heart surgery. 😀 I’m not trying to just be snarky. Unless one is an expert, one cannot evaluate whether any complex process is being handled properly. You can make a lot of things in life appear like people know what they’re doing. And you wouldn’t know the difference unless you really know something about heart surgery.

Again, it was a job interview. We were voting for a firm, not a plan. So think of it like how one hires a City Manager or previous police chiefs. (Notably, our last PD Chief did not go through a public interview process, but that’s another story.)

The process I expected…

  • In my previous experience, if a large corporation wanted to site a culturally significant building–say Apple wanted to redo their headquarters, they would specify in the RFQ that there needed to be some number of qualified applicants before making a final selection. Let’s say three. But definitely more than one. You might need only one legit applicant for a ‘normal’ project, like an apartment building. But for something special, you’d definitely want choices.
  • So if the minimum were not found, the RFQ process would automatically start over. There would be a meeting with the finalist(s) giving them feedback and asking them to re-submit. (And btw ‘rejection’ is not like, “Oh my boyfriend rejected me and sobbing.” This happens all the time in big contracts. Having to resubmit is totally normal. Sometimes it might take 3-4 go-arounds before a vendor is chosen.)
  • The review committee would include subject matter experts (architect, urban planner, landscape designer) And if it were in a particularly important spot, for example a landmark for the community, perhaps even a local historian. The aesthetic significance would be obvious as well as the  ‘setting’. You don’t just want a great building, you want a great building that fits within the context of the place.
  • The finalists would be brought in for review by the planning committee (oops, the City Of Des Moines ended their planning commission in 2013–another story) or in our case the City Council. Because again, it’s a job interview, right? We’re giving the winner a lot of latitude. So we want a lot of reassurance and complete transparency as to who they are and what their vision is. (For example, I would want to know why they chose to put that particular hotel in their proposal rather than something more ‘inspiring’. That was their choice.)
  • And we might not provide an exclusivity clause. Because remember, after only a 35 day evaluation process we approved an exclusive negotiating agreement. We told the developer that we won’t look at any other options.

The process I witnessed

In short, what we got was one legit entry, after a two week review. A company that the City Manager knows, which some CMs have experience with, while others have none. There was no public engagement. And the winner did not lead with their most inspiring work examples. Call me difficult, but this felt to me like one of those presentations where the vendor felt no great need to impress the shit out of us in order to get the job.

Why boutique hotel?

The title of the RFQ was ‘Why Not Des Moines?’ And me being me, my first thought was “Why Boutique Hotel?”

Because here’s the thing: no one ever voted on the concept of ’boutique hotel’. There has literally never been a formal discussion by the Council as to what we should do with that spot.  It’s been mentioned since 2017 as  one possibility, but it was always in this vague fashion, “Well, we could put a ’boutique hotel there–along with many other options of course.” And over time, that ‘could’ somehow morphed into ‘will’.

On the other hand, the 2018-2019 Council did go through a formal process to place the SR3 animal hospital on that particular spot of the Marina Floor. Same thing when we leased the space to the Quarterdeck restaurant. So the precedent is for the Council to vote on the purpose of a spot.

The land side must pay for the water side

Also, there has never been a discussion as to how much revenue should be expected. But do some *quick math on a 100 room hotel with 95% occupancy at $180 a night (according to the consultant) and then look at how much of our Sales and Lodging and B/O taxes.

OK, I’ll save you some time. The stated goal of all cumulative land side projects is to generate $3,000,000 in annual revenue for the City Of Des Moines. Everything: The Adaptive Purpose Building (APB), hotel, ferry, dry stack storage… whatever is inside that Enterprise Fund Area must generate $3M/yr. That is the bar.

Why? Because that is the finance cost for dock replacement. If these projects do not meet that standard, we would have to look somewhere else to finance dock replacement.

And just to be clear: the sum total of expected revenue from all those fabulous ideas do not  come anywhere close to bringing in $3M/yr. And the Administration and my colleagues know that.

So the whole financial ‘plan’ is bogus. It simply consists of projects that our City Manager (who is also our Economic Development Director) seems to find appealing. And since he has convinced my colleagues? It’s happening.

But think about this: if the whole plan does not finance dock replacement, why aren’t we considering other ways to finance it? And while we’re doing that, stop and have a real discussion–with the entire town– about what everyone wants the Marina to be for the next 50 years.

One of those convos you cannot have…

One last detail: There is absolutely no reason why the City could not simply go to the voters and ask them for $1 a month over a period of years in order to finance every aspect of Marina Redevelopment. If one runs the numbers, the amount of such a tax would be laughably small for residents. Maybe the voters would say no, but would it hurt to ask? If the vote were yes, it would completely eliminate any pressure to make the wrong moves. It would put the City in the driver’s seat… and not the developer as seems to be the case.

Because the overwhelming message I got from listening to my colleagues was how grateful they were to be chosen. I want to be careful not to sound disparaging of the chosen developer because they really have done some stellar work, but there was this sense that somehow they were doing us a favour.

Arguments against?

it’s all one master plan…

The Des Moines Marina Association (DMMA), ie. ‘the boat owners’ want those docks fixed. Now! So they will likely view that last paragraph as entirely obstructionist. And they will also likely consider this paragraph inflammatory as hell. But the fact is that they have a perverse incentive to support whatever development occurs so long as it meets two criteria:

  1. That it include dock replacement.
  2. That it happens immediately.

In part, that is why the Marina Redevelopment is being sold as a unified package, when in fact there is no reason to do so. This marketing creates the totally artificial notion that dock replacement and land side development are somehow connected. They are not–well, except to the extent that the water connects to the land. 😀 (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself there.)

And it is also an inconvenient fact that leadership of the DMMA were some of the key donors for the current majority (and especially the Deputy Mayor.)

One proposal is just fine

I got a couple of people saying, “No, lots of projects get done with a single legit proposal. You bet. But not on something of this brand significance. When it’s to do with something that is key to the organisation’s identity? There is always patience.

And then were a few “You misled people! That is not the final design.” Fair enough. Maybe I’m being waaaaaaaaaay too harsh. Just grandstanding ol’ JC.

So lets look next door at a mixed used development in SeaTac opening in 2023. That project also had one legit proposal. And the initial review was also done by the City Manager. Boy do I feel stupid.

On the other hand, take a look at that proposal. This is the image the developer put in their proposal. It is an artist’s rendering of a proposed vision. They weren’t being held to that. It was simply the image they were leading with. Not bad, right?

Wanna know what it’s gonna look like when it opens in 2023? Just like that. Really. And if you look at their review process, it went through a public planning commission and the developer met with the public and the City Council multiple times and look at the specifics on their vision for the place. They did all that basically for some affordable housing apartments; not the most valuable spot in the entire City. And all that was before they even submitted a plan!

We’ve had plenty of community engagement

I am just sick of that bald faced lying. About how much there’s been, what it consisted of, even how many people were involved. This, from the consultant’s own presentation in 2019 is how much community engagement we’ve had.

200 people. In October 2017. I was there with Des Moines Historical Society President James Langston. We did the stickers. Since then the number of people who supposedly attended that event has ranged from 350 to 500 depending on the fish tale being told.

Frustration…

If you watched the discussion of the November 18 Meeting, you heard a great deal of talk about frustration. My whole argument of “be patient” was represented as mere obstructionism. It is not. We just want something INSPIRING that befits one of the most beautiful spots in the entire State Of Washington.

When my colleagues express frustration about how long we’ve waited and how many times we tried, I had to restrain a chuckle.

In a funny way, I’ve been watching the Council longer than anyone up there except Mayor Pina. My colleagues do not seem to realise that all the other so-called ‘attempts’ to re-develop the Marina were impossible because we were in the process of going broke. We never could have proceeded before because we had no money! The City had been slowly going down hill for 15 years or so until things started to turn around in 2017. So all the talk about ‘redevelopment’ was just that: Talk. In fact, this is our first legit whack at the ball. All that jazz  ‘previous attempts’ is simply untrue.

I get that people are frustrated. But don’t conflate frustration over how long its taken to get here with serious attempts to develop the Marina. This really is our first serious time at the plate.

It’s the process, stupid…

However, this is the real deal breaker–the absolute worst. And it likely won’t resonate with the residents like it should But it all comes down to that boring word ‘process’.

Even if (as many people do in private) one acknowledges that there are some (cough) ‘gaps’ in the process, the reason it’s supposed to be OK is that:

“This is just the start. We’ll have plenty of time for votes and amendments.”

No we won’t. If the current majority holds ranks, they will take an up/down vote at every point. Just as there was never a vote or discussion on the purpose of that parcel and there will not be any amendments to whatever the City Manager/Economic Development Director submits.

Well first of all because I attended the last serious Marina Redevelopment

Study Session (Agenda) in 2019.

And also there’s this: In my two years on the Council, at each annual Budget vote (which this year also occurred at the same meeting Nov. 18, 2021). there is a required section for Councilmember Amendments. In both my years on the Council I have tried to present amendments for consideration. (After all, we’re supposed to be legislators, right?)

This year my amendments totaled a whopping $41,204. Out of $29,000,000. That’s a little over one tenth of one percent. And what did I want all that splashy moolah for? Well, as you can read for yourself in the link:

  • Fix the web site.
  • Create a public engagement program.
  • Install a camera in the conference room so that committee meetings could be recorded post-COVID.

You know. Extravagances.

And in both years, the Mayor simply ignored that part of the process and went straight to an up/down vote on the entire $29,000,000. You didn’t notice that obvious violation of parliamentary process because none of my colleagues objected. He literally did not allow it. Because my colleagues were fine with it? It was fine.This is one of those things I absolutely struggle to explain to the public: The City Council polices itself entirely. There is no ‘cop’. Regardless of how egregious something may be at a meeting, if no one objects, there is literally no problem. And since the public has no idea how parliamentary process is supposed to work (or cares much), there is no oversight. If you haven’t fallen asleep reading this paragraph, I salute you.

But that is what we do in DM.

So no, things are not fine. By selecting one developer from one legit applicant in a 15 day review process by the City Manager’s dept. heads with no experts and no members of the public and where there is obvious prior ‘connections’? The entire process is suspect. All of it.

*OK, the revenue we’re talking about is in the $6.5M range. Sounds massive, right? Actually, out of the sales tax, lodging tax and B/O tax, we’re lucky to see $200k. Really. No. Really. I don’t think the public understands how much sales it takes to make a meaningful difference to a small city. Out of all that ‘tax’, most of it goes somewhere else besides the City of Des Moines. You should take that up with your State and County representatives. Seriously. Rather than new State programs that we have to claw back, I would love it if we could just keep more of the original tax and skip the middleman.

Categories Economic Development, Engagement, Marina, Transparency

Parcel A

9 Comments on Parcel A

At our November 18, 2021 meeting, we chose a developer to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the City to develop Parcel A of the Marina Floor as described in the RFQ from our 18 November 2021 Meeting. Essentially, it was a job interview.

Drama?

After the meeting I got some feedback telling me that I was being ‘dramatic’ and that the process was ‘fine’. Wow. I hate to be that guy, but I have to respond because it was definitely not fine and if you think it was?

Remember that when you watch someone doing heart surgery on Gray’s Anatomy they do not actually know what they’re doing when it comes to heart surgery. 😀 I’m not trying to just be snarky. Unless one is an expert, one cannot evaluate whether any complex process is being handled properly. You can make a lot of things in life appear like people know what they’re doing. And you wouldn’t know the difference unless you really know something about heart surgery.

Again, it was a job interview. We were voting for a firm, not a plan. So think of it like how one hires a City Manager or previous police chiefs. (Notably, our last PD Chief did not go through a public interview process, but that’s another story.)

The process I expected…

  • In my previous experience, if a large corporation wanted to site a culturally significant building–say Apple wanted to redo their headquarters, they would specify in the RFQ that there needed to be some number of qualified applicants before making a final selection. Let’s say three. But definitely more than one. You might need only one legit applicant for a ‘normal’ project, like an apartment building. But for something special, you’d definitely want choices.
  • So if the minimum were not found, the RFQ process would automatically start over. There would be a meeting with the finalist(s) giving them feedback and asking them to re-submit. (And btw ‘rejection’ is not like, “Oh my boyfriend rejected me and sobbing.” This happens all the time in big contracts. Having to resubmit is totally normal. Sometimes it might take 3-4 go-arounds before a vendor is chosen.)
  • The review committee would include subject matter experts (architect, urban planner, landscape designer) And if it were in a particularly important spot, for example a landmark for the community, perhaps even a local historian. The aesthetic significance would be obvious as well as the  ‘setting’. You don’t just want a great building, you want a great building that fits within the context of the place.
  • The finalists would be brought in for review by the planning committee (oops, the City Of Des Moines ended their planning commission in 2013–another story) or in our case the City Council. Because again, it’s a job interview, right? We’re giving the winner a lot of latitude. So we want a lot of reassurance and complete transparency as to who they are and what their vision is. (For example, I would want to know why they chose to put that particular hotel in their proposal rather than something more ‘inspiring’. That was their choice.)
  • And we might not provide an exclusivity clause. Because remember, after only a 35 day evaluation process we approved an exclusive negotiating agreement. We told the developer that we won’t look at any other options.

The process I witnessed

In short, what we got was one legit entry, after a two week review. A company that the City Manager knows, which some CMs have experience with, while others have none. There was no public engagement. And the winner did not lead with their most inspiring work examples. Call me difficult, but this felt to me like one of those presentations where the vendor felt no great need to impress the shit out of us in order to get the job.

Why boutique hotel?

The title of the RFQ was ‘Why Not Des Moines?’ And me being me, my first thought was “Why Boutique Hotel?”

Because here’s the thing: no one ever voted on the concept of ’boutique hotel’. There has literally never been a formal discussion by the Council as to what we should do with that spot.  It’s been mentioned since 2017 as  one possibility, but it was always in this vague fashion, “Well, we could put a ’boutique hotel there–along with many other options of course.” And over time, that ‘could’ somehow morphed into ‘will’.

On the other hand, the 2018-2019 Council did go through a formal process to place the SR3 animal hospital on that particular spot of the Marina Floor. Same thing when we leased the space to the Quarterdeck restaurant. So the precedent is for the Council to vote on the purpose of a spot.

The land side must pay for the water side

Also, there has never been a discussion as to how much revenue should be expected. But do some *quick math on a 100 room hotel with 95% occupancy at $180 a night (according to the consultant) and then look at how much of our Sales and Lodging and B/O taxes.

OK, I’ll save you some time. The stated goal of all cumulative land side projects is to generate $3,000,000 in annual revenue for the City Of Des Moines. Everything: The Adaptive Purpose Building (APB), hotel, ferry, dry stack storage… whatever is inside that Enterprise Fund Area must generate $3M/yr. That is the bar.

Why? Because that is the finance cost for dock replacement. If these projects do not meet that standard, we would have to look somewhere else to finance dock replacement.

And just to be clear: the sum total of expected revenue from all those fabulous ideas do not  come anywhere close to bringing in $3M/yr. And the Administration and my colleagues know that.

So the whole financial ‘plan’ is bogus. It simply consists of projects that our City Manager (who is also our Economic Development Director) seems to find appealing. And since he has convinced my colleagues? It’s happening.

But think about this: if the whole plan does not finance dock replacement, why aren’t we considering other ways to finance it? And while we’re doing that, stop and have a real discussion–with the entire town– about what everyone wants the Marina to be for the next 50 years.

One of those convos you cannot have…

One last detail: There is absolutely no reason why the City could not simply go to the voters and ask them for $1 a month over a period of years in order to finance every aspect of Marina Redevelopment. If one runs the numbers, the amount of such a tax would be laughably small for residents. Maybe the voters would say no, but would it hurt to ask? If the vote were yes, it would completely eliminate any pressure to make the wrong moves. It would put the City in the driver’s seat… and not the developer as seems to be the case.

Because the overwhelming message I got from listening to my colleagues was how grateful they were to be chosen. I want to be careful not to sound disparaging of the chosen developer because they really have done some stellar work, but there was this sense that somehow they were doing us a favour.

Arguments against?

it’s all one master plan…

The Des Moines Marina Association (DMMA), ie. ‘the boat owners’ want those docks fixed. Now! So they will likely view that last paragraph as entirely obstructionist. And they will also likely consider this paragraph inflammatory as hell. But the fact is that they have a perverse incentive to support whatever development occurs so long as it meets two criteria:

  1. That it include dock replacement.
  2. That it happens immediately.

In part, that is why the Marina Redevelopment is being sold as a unified package, when in fact there is no reason to do so. This marketing creates the totally artificial notion that dock replacement and land side development are somehow connected. They are not–well, except to the extent that the water connects to the land. 😀 (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself there.)

And it is also an inconvenient fact that leadership of the DMMA were some of the key donors for the current majority (and especially the Deputy Mayor.)

One proposal is just fine

I got a couple of people saying, “No, lots of projects get done with a single legit proposal. You bet. But not on something of this brand significance. When it’s to do with something that is key to the organisation’s identity? There is always patience.

And then were a few “You misled people! That is not the final design.” Fair enough. Maybe I’m being waaaaaaaaaay too harsh. Just grandstanding ol’ JC.

So lets look next door at a mixed used development in SeaTac opening in 2023. That project also had one legit proposal. And the initial review was also done by the City Manager. Boy do I feel stupid.

On the other hand, take a look at that proposal. This is the image the developer put in their proposal. It is an artist’s rendering of a proposed vision. They weren’t being held to that. It was simply the image they were leading with. Not bad, right?

Wanna know what it’s gonna look like when it opens in 2023? Just like that. Really. And if you look at their review process, it went through a public planning commission and the developer met with the public and the City Council multiple times and look at the specifics on their vision for the place. They did all that basically for some affordable housing apartments; not the most valuable spot in the entire City. And all that was before they even submitted a plan!

We’ve had plenty of community engagement

I am just sick of that bald faced lying. About how much there’s been, what it consisted of, even how many people were involved. This, from the consultant’s own presentation in 2019 is how much community engagement we’ve had.

200 people. In October 2017. I was there with Des Moines Historical Society President James Langston. We did the stickers. Since then the number of people who supposedly attended that event has ranged from 350 to 500 depending on the fish tale being told.

Frustration…

If you watched the discussion of the November 18 Meeting, you heard a great deal of talk about frustration. My whole argument of “be patient” was represented as mere obstructionism. It is not. We just want something INSPIRING that befits one of the most beautiful spots in the entire State Of Washington.

When my colleagues express frustration about how long we’ve waited and how many times we tried, I had to restrain a chuckle.

In a funny way, I’ve been watching the Council longer than anyone up there except Mayor Pina. My colleagues do not seem to realise that all the other so-called ‘attempts’ to re-develop the Marina were impossible because we were in the process of going broke. We never could have proceeded before because we had no money! The City had been slowly going down hill for 15 years or so until things started to turn around in 2017. So all the talk about ‘redevelopment’ was just that: Talk. In fact, this is our first legit whack at the ball. All that jazz  ‘previous attempts’ is simply untrue.

I get that people are frustrated. But don’t conflate frustration over how long its taken to get here with serious attempts to develop the Marina. This really is our first serious time at the plate.

It’s the process, stupid…

However, this is the real deal breaker–the absolute worst. And it likely won’t resonate with the residents like it should But it all comes down to that boring word ‘process’.

Even if (as many people do in private) one acknowledges that there are some (cough) ‘gaps’ in the process, the reason it’s supposed to be OK is that:

“This is just the start. We’ll have plenty of time for votes and amendments.”

No we won’t. If the current majority holds ranks, they will take an up/down vote at every point. Just as there was never a vote or discussion on the purpose of that parcel and there will not be any amendments to whatever the City Manager/Economic Development Director submits.

Well first of all because I attended the last serious Marina Redevelopment

Study Session (Agenda) in 2019.

And also there’s this: In my two years on the Council, at each annual Budget vote (which this year also occurred at the same meeting Nov. 18, 2021). there is a required section for Councilmember Amendments. In both my years on the Council I have tried to present amendments for consideration. (After all, we’re supposed to be legislators, right?)

This year my amendments totaled a whopping $41,204. Out of $29,000,000. That’s a little over one tenth of one percent. And what did I want all that splashy moolah for? Well, as you can read for yourself in the link:

  • Fix the web site.
  • Create a public engagement program.
  • Install a camera in the conference room so that committee meetings could be recorded post-COVID.

You know. Extravagances.

And in both years, the Mayor simply ignored that part of the process and went straight to an up/down vote on the entire $29,000,000. You didn’t notice that obvious violation of parliamentary process because none of my colleagues objected. He literally did not allow it. Because my colleagues were fine with it? It was fine.This is one of those things I absolutely struggle to explain to the public: The City Council polices itself entirely. There is no ‘cop’. Regardless of how egregious something may be at a meeting, if no one objects, there is literally no problem. And since the public has no idea how parliamentary process is supposed to work (or cares much), there is no oversight. If you haven’t fallen asleep reading this paragraph, I salute you.

But that is what we do in DM.

So no, things are not fine. By selecting one developer from one legit applicant in a 15 day review process by the City Manager’s dept. heads with no experts and no members of the public and where there is obvious prior ‘connections’? The entire process is suspect. All of it.

*OK, the revenue we’re talking about is in the $6.5M range. Sounds massive, right? Actually, out of the sales tax, lodging tax and B/O tax, we’re lucky to see $200k. Really. No. Really. I don’t think the public understands how much sales it takes to make a meaningful difference to a small city. Out of all that ‘tax’, most of it goes somewhere else besides the City of Des Moines. You should take that up with your State and County representatives. Seriously. Rather than new State programs that we have to claw back, I would love it if we could just keep more of the original tax and skip the middleman.