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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How it’s supposed to work…

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

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

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

(Hilarity ensues.)

How it works in ‘the real world’…

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

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

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

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

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

Swear to God.

Here’s my current problem…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They made it much worse.

February 2020

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

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

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

Solution 2022!™

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

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

Here is the final process:

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

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

My objections to Solution 2022!™

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

#1 All questions must be the same

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

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

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

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

#2 IMPOSSIBLE TO Do Separate interviews VIA ZOOM

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

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

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

#3 THEY’ve All been The Same

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

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

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

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

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

#4 PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS (NOT INTERVIEWS)

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

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

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

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

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

That is simply untrue.

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

#5 Executive Session

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a better solution

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

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

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

‘Pragmatism’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the residents of Des Moines:

I’ve lived here long enough to see several scandals on our City Council. And the thing I’ve learned is that the public has all the tools it needs to handle them; quickly and efficiently. The best thing colleagues can do at those times is to stay out of it. That is tough because there is an irresistible urge to make a statement of values (especially for people of faith such as myself.) But the moment colleagues weigh in, the issue instantly becomes politicised.

My lived experience tells me that councilmembers should avoid even the appearance that they might be using scandal for political ends. There is a risk of engendering cynicism and that in turn actually hinders a resolution. I understand that will sound deeply unsatisfying to many. But my interest is always to find the best approach and, unfortunately, sometimes that will not be the popular approach.

I would remind the public that Councilmember Martinelli’s resignation was never subject to the City Council. State law wisely makes it the voters’ responsibility to change our City Council–either by election, recall or public pressure. If it were otherwise, council majorities would certainly abuse that power.

So I want to thank you, the community. It is your voice that has resolved this issue. In my opinion it was harder than it should have been and took much longer than it should have done. For that I am sorry.

I also want to thank Anthony Martinelli for hearing that community voice. Some of you may mock that sentence, but many politicians today seem to have lost the ability to hear that voice entirely.

As to the substance of the issue: if you are a regular reader, you will notice something missing in this article: the hyperlinks. Unlike every other article, where I scrupulously attempt to provide citations for everything I describe, this contains only two. My hope is that you will notice them, understand why I provided them, and avoided all others. For the first, I said everything I have to say about domestic violence a long time ago.

The second link contains some observations on our shared working relationship over the past two years, including a difference in philosophy that I think is important to make clear. Then follows a timeline of the past four months from my point of view. I include it because every day I am reminded how much the public misunderstands what happens off the dais. They correctly assume that it is significant. I believe that, to the extent possible, and without betraying confidences, we should provide a window into at least a portion of that world. It contains no hyperlinks.

Now what?

I believe the public voted for change in 2019; a set of positions and not any person. I also believe they were voting against something: the status quo. That only makes Councilmember Martinelli’s failure an even greater disappointment.

But if you share my deep disappointment, I ask you not to become (more?) cynical. Bear in mind that any significant change requires a willingness to fail. (And if you don’t believe that, just go to Youtube and look at how many test rockets blow up before even one gets off the launch pad.) In my opinion, the worst lesson the public could take from the past four months is that choosing someone ‘different’ is a mistake.

Instead, take this as a cautionary tale that Des Moines desperately needs more choice and new blood. There are many people here of great ability who are not active in civic life and it is time for them to step up.

I’ll have more to say about that soon, but for now:

• Think about applying for the vacant position on the City Council. Even if you do not think this is your time, if you have considered public service, going through the process is, in itself, a way to get started.
• Or tell me about someone in the community you think would be great for the role. Same advice applies.
• And call me if you have questions about any aspect of the process or what the job of Councilmember entails. You know where to find me. (206) 878-0578.

The City Clerk will shortly post an application for filling a vacant seat on the Des Moines City Council. If you want to get a head start on that? Email Bonnie Wilkins. Go get ’em.

As always, it is my honour to serve you.

Two years ago…

Anthony Martinelli and I were both elected in 2019. We both defeated incumbents (which was almost unheard of over the past three decades) and shared many broad policy positions. But there was a real difference in philosophy. In one sentence: I was interested in the long game; he seemed focused on helping people now.

A good example of this distinction was the ARPA Stimulus discussion in September.

• My colleagues in the majority were following the City Manager’s recommendations. Simple.
• Anthony successfully advocated for straight dollar amount grants for businesses, eviction relief, etc. Simple.
• In contrast I’m objecting to the entire notion of spending $9,000,000 in three hours. And on every line item I’m complaining: Why are we using one time money for salaries? Show me some stats on actual need. When can we get money out the door? How do we insure equity? What’s the process? Basically, I’m the ‘Dad’ asking my colleagues to behave responsibly. Goes over great with teens. Goes over even better with electeds.

The main thing we seemed to have in common was being mistreated as Councilmembers from day one. He and I disagreed on how to manage that reality. Ironically, he accepted that as ‘part of the game’ and from my point of view bent over backwards to be non-confrontational. If you look at his *social media it is unfailingly optimistic about all City actions except in two cases where he agreed to co-sign a letter I wrote. He went so far as to avoid submitting performance reviews of the City Manager. Drove me nuts. 😀

He also served on the Public Safety Committee.  When he chose to, he had no difficulty objecting to language he felt needed improvement and providing specific and useful edits. It was notable because that’s exactly what CMs are supposed to do and frankly I wish it happened more often.

My points being:

• Much of the animus directed against him began long ago. People hold grudges here and it is a shame that there is no price to be paid for doing so. But none of it had anything to do with this scandal or the way he conducted his official duties.
• He felt his approach was the pragmatic way to help people now.

The incentives to get something done now are incredibly strong; on all ends of the ideological spectrum. That is why almost everyone goes to such extraordinary lengths to avoid difficult discussions, even under the most challenging circumstances.

We’ve all heard the expression, “You can’t fight city hall”. It would be truer to say we choose not to. Some essential change requires at least minimal confrontation and a willingness to defer gratification. There is no other way.

And if that sounds like some hippie agitator crap, I will tell you that, no, that is just another common sense Dad Lecture:

• Sometimes you have to complain. Repeatedly. It’s not you. It’s them.
• You should balance your checkbook and review your spending. You can save a lot of money that way.
• And sometimes you have to put off that spending in order to save for something much better down the road.

But very few people, both the public and electeds, find any of that a particularly entertaining prospect when it comes to government. In our private lives, sooner or later we pay a very high price for not listening to Dear Ol’ Dad. But when it comes to government, both the public and electeds have every incentive to pretend that these rules do not apply.

An uncomfortable reality is that Councilmember Martinelli lost his seat for an issue in his private life. We all agree that the accusations are beneath contempt. But by the same token, the entire City Council can make absolutely monumental screw-ups with your money and suffer absolutely no consequences. Hell, we may even get a plaque on a building. And you may not even know the truth until after we retire down to Boca.

That is the ceiling of what is possible; not ‘city hall’.

Martinelli navigated that ceiling as best he could because his goal was to help people now. I disagreed with that approach. In contrast, I was and will continue to try to punch through it.

I went through all this to tell you one simple truth: if you too have ever complained “you can’t fight city hall”? That’s the reason. It has nothing to do with ideology or character or age or anything other than the fact that the system incentivises all of us electeds to behave like that and then tell the public it’s the best we have to offer.

Four months ago…

Within minutes of Councilmember Martinelli’s arrest in October, then Mayor Pina issued a press release claiming to speak for the entire Council. That was not true. But if he had asked my advice, I would have reminded him of 2015. At that time, the Council, of which he was a member, handled a comparable situation with restraint. The public responded immediately with an outpouring of letters of outrage. Shortly thereafter the Councilmember understood that it was best to resign. Her legal woes dragged on for over a year, but the political scandal lasted about a week.

In contrast, the 2021 City Council made every possible effort to inflame public sentiment. Then Deputy Mayor Mahoney went so far as to encourage the public to download a police report containing highly personal information about the alleged victim which I felt put her and her children at risk.

The Waterland Blog also went to town, publishing not only the press release, but gratuitously placing the police report on their web site in multiple locations. I called the publisher to complain and he took them down, but by then the ‘reach’ was in the thousands according to the almighty Google.

After the November election, the Council discussed a censure, which seemed entirely reasonable to me. I spoke with one colleague and said that I would only vote for a censure if the police report were removed, and discussion limited. Consider the children and remain calm. Going so over the top is bad on many levels.

But when the Agenda packet was published, the entire report, all 123 pages, were included! The language of the resolution addressed none of my concerns and in fact upped the ante saying that the notice be placed prominently in front of City Hall (with a link to that police report) and forwarded to basically every elected in South King County.

Regardless of motive, we subjected his current partner and three children to unnecessary public exposure. It was cruel, bad press for the City, and if the majority goal was not merely ‘censure’ but to hasten Councilmember Martinelli’s departure? It was also poor strategy. I voted No.

Last week…

Thursday Jan 13

About an hour before a City Council Meeting I got a phone message from Sydney Brownstone of the Seattle Times, asking for comment on an upcoming story she was doing but with no specifics. I returned her call, got her voice mail and did not hear back.

Sunday Jan 16

On Sunday the Seattle Times ran her story with new allegations from two former partners, including the mother of two of his three children, Cydney Moore. The article was 2,500 words, three times the length of a typical small town piece and left no detail to the imagination. I’d go so far as to call it ‘advocacy journalism’ and not straight news.

Mayor Mahoney wasted no time in responding with a short statement in the Waterland Blog.

TUESDAY Jan 18

Based largely on that Seattle Times piece, the 33rd Democrats announced they were calling for Councilmember Martinelli’s resignation.

WEDNESDAY Jan 19

At that point I decided to call Mayor Mahoney. I told him I appreciated both the measured tone of his statement and especially the fact that he was clear to say that he was speaking on his own behalf and not for the entire Council. I told him I considered that a marked improvement over the events of October.

And then I reminded him of how the Council had handled the comparable situation in 2015 and urged him nicely, but firmly that leaving it there was in everyone’s best interest.

THURSDAY Jan 20

I watched Councilmember Martinelli’s pre-trial hearing. Now: if one were to watch that video as an outsider; truly dispassionately, the Judge is upbeat. There is no scolding and the tone is 100% optimistic. Someone watching with no other references would certainly register a note of hope for the future. The Judge’s job was not to punish. Her job was to execute the law and encourage the guy to successfully carry out the terms of the agreement. I thought she handled it well.

Within minutes he posted on Facebook that he would not be resigning.

The City also had a press release ready to go. It was factually accurate, but again, not exactly flat.

Councilmember Martinelli wrote me a short note that afternoon commenting on that press release.

I wrote back something longer. I told him that the press release was spun in an extremely negative manner. But I also I told him that he should have come to expect that after the past two years and he should expect even more over the next two years if he stayed.

I told him I felt I had been more than fair in my handling of his situation. A lot of the public would not understand that I had merely acted in a principled manner.

I told him that he should expect the video of his court appearance to be as widely viewed as that police report.

The Court video has been removed from Youtube and I’ve read some notes on social media suggesting that there is something fishy in this. Probably not. The Court live streams videos and Youtube caches them for a while. But I’ve never seen any of our Court videos hang around for very long.

And finally, I made it clear that our working relationship had not been what it should have been from the beginning. If he intended to remain on the Council I expected that to change. The public did vote for change in 2019. It takes years of mutual cooperation to fix the long standing problems in both our politics and our government. More ‘Dad’, I suppose.

He sent me a one sentence reply, only asking a question about the video.

But almost immediately, I started seeing dozens of people linking to that court appearance and of course none of the comments were positive. Every person used that video as a platform to say, ‘resign’.

Another example of ‘sharing’. There were only two and then three people listed as viewers during his hearing and I was the only one who publicly identified themselves. I did not share the link. So one person shared that link and that turned into dozens and then hundreds within the space of an hour.

FRIDAY Jan 21

Councilmember Martinelli announced his resignation Friday night on Facebook. Resigning via social media is non-traditional, but it is also exactly what I would expect from the person I know.

Within minutes the Mayor responded that he was taking action to start the replacement process–which I assume means Rule 33 of our Rules Of Procedure.

I asked the Mayor, the City Attorney and Councilmember Martinelli to confirm his resignation via official email. The City Attorney wrote me that he considers that post sufficient.  I wrote back that I’m not exactly wild about any official action being taken based on social media. A growing percentage of the public mistakenly assumes that posting something on Facebook is the same as contacting the City for services. It’s not.

Sunday January 23

Sydney Brownstone published a 1,000 word update describing Councilmember Martinelli’s resignation. If I appear to have something of a tone here, it’s only because it has gone beyond advocacy journalism into the realm of “if it bleeds it leads.” There are any number of stories the Seattle Times could do that would be of greater impact to Des Moines. The article is about Des Moines but it is targeted for a Seattle audience.

Three small details…

I applaud any woman for coming forward. But the family dynamics of three small children and two electeds were and remain complex. My understanding was that he and his current partner were the primary caregivers for all three–including the two eldest with Cydney Moore. One of my primary concerns from day one was to minimise their exposure to any of this.

An inconvenient truth…

I keep noting the difference in approach between 2015 and 2021 because, with all the media coverage, all that energy, there was nothing approaching the public outrage of 2015. There have been a handful of obvious partisan complaints and an on-line petition with less than 200 anonymous entries. But not to trivialise the issue, the Council has heard half a dozen issues over the past two years that generated more public comment.

You may say, “I don’t give a damn how many people wrote in. This is domestic violence!”

It’s also democracy. And sometimes the voters want things they cannot or will not say openly. I do not believe that anyone condones heinous conduct like domestic violence. But my guess is that many people were torn at being forced to choose between the change they hoped for in 2019 and even appearing to support domestic violence.

I am also aware that a large number of residents never got over our last appointment process in February 2020. At that time, the person I defeated was re-appointed to another vacant seat only three months later and by what I can safely say now was an unethical process. Many people considered that move deeply undemocratic and a slap in the face of the change they had just voted for. The possibility of a repeat held no appeal for a large part of Des Moines.

That is the practical effect of slowly eroding public trust. The public remembers. Every time the City Council acts in anything less than a completely ethical manner, it creates bad unintended consequences for the future.

To be specific: whatever benefits the majority may have felt they were obtaining by appointing Luisa Bangs in February 2020 only made the events of October 2021 more difficult. And that in turn will make the February 2022 appointment process more fraught.

In short, the relative silence from the public was, in itself, a message. My hope is that our City Council can hear that message above the din of scandal.

Now what?

Our Council has some trust building to do. The February 2022 appointment process is a key moment, either to improve or further erode that trust.

Already I see people speculating about ‘who’. But my primary concern, as usual, has more to do with that process. So long as the process is good, I trust the public to do the right thing. And the upcoming appointment process must be a model of fairness.

*I assume because I do this blog and he was on Facebook a lot, we get lumped together. But in fact, Anthony Martinelli was a very conventional  progressive local politician. He used Facebook to communicate. And yes, his partner and he would coordinate on social media messaging. But others on our Council also have social media surrogates to fight their battles for them. You just don’t know it.  And other CMs were web-illiterate and complained that somehow he had taken ‘unfair advantage’. Ridiculous. That nonsense made him look far more ‘different’ that he really was. One can disagree with his policy goals (and as you can see I certainly did at times) but those goals and his approach were not out of the mainstream.