Most Recent Article [more articles below]

Engagement, Policy, Transparency

Strategy Meeting Proposals

Submitted to Councilmembers as “information only” March 18, 2022

Colleagues,

At the 7 April, 2022 Strategy meeting I will present the following items:

Pg 1. Councilmember Research Process
Pg 2. Committee/Meeting Modernisations
Pg. 4. Digital Presence

#1. Councilmember Research Process:

This is modeled on the SeaTac City Council Request Form (CRF.) The process is very simple.

Any CM may enter a request for research using a secure database form. The database, which is keyword searchable, is kept for all CMs use in perpetuity.
The City Manager responds within (x) of hours, either with an ETA or a cost estimate (in hours, specific staff)
1. If the answer requires less than one hour of staff time it must be fulfilled within 5 days.
2. If the answer is deemed to require more than one hour of total staff time, the information is remanded to the relevant committee for discussion, vote. If the vote is yes, the task commences.
As a follow-up, the CM may also request a staff briefing on the topic, which becomes part of the CRF.

#2. Committee/Meeting modernisations:

Our meeting and committees should be refreshed in two ways:

To provide more transparency and ease of use for CMs.
There are also several structural changes that are needed to help oversee and establish policy in several key areas.

A. Process Improvements

1. Adopt Hybrid Conferencing both for full and committee meetings.
2. All Committees should accommodate public comment
3. All committees should be generating minutes, membership lists and routinely posting ongoing public work product.
4. All CMs should be able to attend all meetings and be allowed an opportunity to ask questions re. the operation.
5. CMs should be able to add presentation materials to the Packet if they are part of their comments and are received within 24 hours of the Agenda being published.
6. All Meeting Agendas should be locked in when posted and should contain all presentation materials, with one exception: Any materials submitted by the public as part of their comment will be added ex post facto

B. Structural Changes

Along with everything else, the City downsized its committee structure significantly when it was in financial crisis. We are now a larger organisation, with much bigger aspirations. We also face timely challenges such as the SAMP. All these require more policy direction and oversight than can be accommodated with the current committee system. I would like to explore the following changes to committee structure:

1. The Environment Committee mission should be expanded to include Sea-Tac Airport. All activity relevant to the SAMP process should be channeled through there with monthly reports.
2. Planning Commission: The planning commission which was abandoned in 2013 for cost savings. Despite the construction boom and ongoing State changes to zoning laws, we are the only nearby City that has no planning commission, and thus no public input on the process. Currently the EDC is the de facto planning commission. But land use and construction are not the same thing as economic development, which should also focus on business formation and development. Restoring this functionality would give the public more input on comprehensive planning and allow the EDC time to focus on revenue generation un-related to building.
3. Finance/Admin Committee: I’d like to explore a committee that can oversee the changes to the city web site and administrative processes.
4. Marina Advisory Committee: I’d like to establish an Advisory Committee
5. Cultural Advisory Committee: We are now 45% BIPOC and yet our City has no outreach or programming to make government reflect our community. This group would be tasked with finding ways to invite more diverse cultures into City life.

#3. Digital Presence

We should begin implementing a robust and ongoing digital presence. I am not using the term ‘web site’, and you should flush that from your minds, please. I am proposing a completely new system of communication and outreach, which would also include the more traditional municipal functions commonly referred to as ‘the City web site’.

In addition to those traditional municipal functions, our efforts should focus on schools, businesses, faith, cultural and senior communities which rarely interact with the wider community. The City is the only way to connect all of Des Moines. We can develop a system to make them aware of each other’s activities and extend our reach out to Puget Sound–particularly giving some marketing assists to retail businesses.

Having a great digital presence will not only provide great value for the community, it will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that Des Moines is a place that is forward looking and stands out from the crowd.

We can begin here: at our 16 September, 2021 ARPA Stimulus Spending Meeting, we already allocated money to develop a Marina Redevelopment Town Hall. The project can provide a kick off to show the community that we are serious about having the best Digital Presence in South Puget Sound.Our primary goals must be:

1. Mobile First. Every person in DM, from the eight year old Somali child to senior citizen at Wesley, even homeless people, have a cell phone. All our communication must lead with SMS because that is the way, and in fact the only way to reach everyone.
2. Usability: Despite the fact that everyone has a digital device, many of our residents struggle with them. We also have a high degree of digital illiteracy that many are embarrassed to discuss. We must make our systems easy to use, especially for seniors and for people who’s first language is not English.
3. Search: This is a two-way street
  - We must make information, programs, tasks, easy to find
  - But we must also make it easy for the rest of the world to find Des Moines has a fantastic story to tell. And our City should be telling it! Currently, the City has at least ten domains that do not connect. We should be working on an integrated communications/marketing approach whereby anyone searching anything ‘Des Moines’ see everything we have to offer and first on Google.
4. Portal: The City should be the portal and the nexus for the entire community.
  - When any group has something of interest, the City can be that town crier.
  - We can expose far more public information, including dashboards for public safety, finance, public works projects. This improves transparency, but also improves resident satisfaction. (Just seeing all the projects the City is working on at any given time never fails to impress most people.)
5. Notification as incentive: OTS tools exist right now which almost all residents will want. And in return, these will allow the City to reach residents when it matters:
  - Emergency Alert
  - SMS bill pay, licensing and permit reminders
  - Fixit reporting
  - Personalised calendars, meeting and events alerts
  - Public safety reporting
  - Available services
6. Storyteller: Des Moines has a fantastic story to tell. And our City should be telling it! We need to develop a coherent communications strategy that tells people and businesses about our City. Our new system can provide the framework for consistent messaging.
7. Automation: The ‘boring’ part. Because we have so many disparate systems and processes, there are too many inconsistencies. We can integrate any number of systems so that information is entered once and syndicated everywhere it needs to be, consistently and error-free.

History

Des Moines, Washington City Council 1996-2022

Modern Des Moines begins in 1996, with the last annexation: Redondo/Woodmont.

City Councils 1996-2022 The members of the 19th-32nd City Councils of Des Moines, Washington.
There are seven positions with a four year term. All positions are at large.
Elections are staggered every two years between: Positions #1,#3,#5,#7 and Positions #,2,#4,#6

#	YEAR	Members	Mayor/ Mayor Pro-Tem	Significant Events	Votes Counted	Registered Voters	Turnout
16	1990
	1991
17	1992
	1993
18	1994
	1995			---Don Wasson elected
19	1996	Richard Kennedy Scott Thomasson Don Wasson Bob Sheckler Gary Towe Terry Brazil	Richard Kennedy Scott Thomasson	---23rd, largest and last annexation: Redondo/Woodmont
	1997			---Richard Kennedy (author of Waterland History) retires ---Dave Kapan wins by < 100 vote ---Gary Towe wins ---Terry Brazil wins
20	1998	Scott Thomasson Terry Brazil Bob Sheckler Don Wasson Gary Towe Dave Kaplan Dan Sherman	Scott Thomasson Terry Brazil
	1999			Don Wasson (comp.) Scott Thomasson Bob Scheckler (comp.)	6966
21	2000	Scott Thomasson Terry Brazil Bob Sheckler Don Wasson Gary Towe Dave Kaplan Dan Sherman	Scott Thomasson Terry Brazil
	2001			Wasson Takeover: Maggie Steenrod Gary Peterson Richard Benjamin ---Dave Kaplan loses ---Dan Sherman loses by < 20 votes ---Susan White elected	8787	14886	59
22	2002	Don Wasson Richard Benjamin Maggie Steenrod Gary Petersen Bob Sheckler Scott Thomasson Susan White	Don Wasson Richard Benjamin	HSD School Board President Ed Pina organises unsuccessful recall campaign over the conveyor thing...
	2003			Wasson resigns Dan Sherman appointed Maggie as Mayor	6063	16077	37.7
23	2004	Bob Sheckler Dan Sherman Richard Benjamin Maggie Steenrod Gary Petersen Bob Sheckler Scott Thomasson Susan White	Bob Sheckler Dan Sherman
	2005			---Wasson crew wiped out ---Ed Pina leaves school board ---Matt Pina takes his father's seat on school board	8003	15165	52.8
24	2006	Bob Sheckler Mayor Scott Thomasson Dave Kaplan Ed Pina Carmen Scott Dan Sherman Susan White	Bob Sheckler Scott Thomasson
	2007				6734	14364	46.9
25	2008	Bob Sheckler Dan Sherman Scott Thomasson Dave Kaplan Ed Pina Carmen Scott Susan White	Bob Sheckler Dan Sherman
	2009			---Matt Pina takes Ed Pina (his father)'s seat ---Dave Kaplan ran against Susan White in order to make space for Melissa	8063	15291	52.7
26	2010	Bob Sheckler Dan Sherman Matt Pina Carmen Scott Scott Thomasson Melissa Musser	Bob Sheckler DFan Sherman
	2011			---Dan Caldwell takes Scott's seat? ---Jeanette Burrage ---Dan Sherman retires	7922	14805	53.5
27	2012	Bob Sheckler Dave Kaplan Dan Caldwell Jeanette Burrage Matt Pina Melissa Musser Carmen Scott	Bob Sheckler Pro-Tem Dave Kaplan
	2013			---Dan Caldwell resigns due to ill health. ---Jeremy appointed w 8 applicants ---Carmen Scott retires ---Vic Pennington elected	5329	15890	33.5
28	2014	Dave Kaplan Matt Pina Vic Pennington Bob Sheckler Jeanette Burrage Melissa Musser Jeremy Nutting	Dave Kaplan Matt Pina
	2015			---Jeanette Burrage resigns ---Arts Commission member Luisa Bangs appointed w 2 applicants and re-elected same year ---Rob Back wins on 4th try running unopposed	5867	16174	36.2
29	2016	Dave Kaplan Matt Pina Rob Back Bob Sheckler Melissa Musser Jeremy Nutting Vic Pennington	Dave Kaplan Matt Pina
	2017			---Melissa Musser retires ---Dave Kaplan retires ---Traci Buxton replaces Musser ---Matt Mahoney replaces Kaplan	6258	17174	36.4
30	2018	Matt Pina Luisa Bangs Vic Pennington Jeremy Nutting Traci Buxton Rob Back Matt Mahoney	Matt Pina Vic Pennington
	2019			Mayor Pina Deputy Mayor Mahoney Harris replaces Bangs Martinelli replaces Back Buxton Bangs Nutting	7955	18055	44%
31	2020	Matt Pina JC Harris Luisa Bangs Jeremy Nutting Traci Buxton Anthony Martinelli Matt Mahoney	Matt Pina Matt Mahoney	---Vic Pennington resigns ---Luisa Bangs appointed w 8 applicants
	2021			Mayor Mahoney Deputy Mayor Buxton Gene replaces Luisa (retired) Harry replaces Pina (retired) Harris Nutting Martinelli Martinelli resigns	7334	19468	37.7%
32	2022	Harry Steinmetz JC Harris Gene Achziger Jeremy Nutting Traci Buxton Vic Pennington Matt Mahoney	Matt Mahoney Traci Buxton	---Anthony Martinelli resigns ---Vic Pennington appointed w 3 applicants
	TOTAL

Marina, Transparency

03/10/22 Marina Enterprise Presentation – Why we need a Marina Advisory Committee

March 14, 2022March 12, 2024

The 03/10/22 Marina Enterprise Fund presentation was Great. Too rare. And one POV. That is why we need a Marina Advisory Committee....

... [Continue Reading] ...

Policy, Weekly Updates

Vic Pennington

Weekly Update: 03/13/2022

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Monday: Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The EPA has unveiled a new series of Community Grants that are available to airport communities. Several local organisations have expressed interest and I’m trying to meet with all of them to make sure we’re not overlapping or working at cross purposes. My goal is to have annual air quality monitoring reports of the entire flight path so we can track changes in air quality at the neighbourhood level. We did one set of measurements in 2017, but we need to do it every year. When SR-509 comes on line and air cargo (and truck) traffic expands we have to know what it is doing to us so we can (finally) obtain the relief we should have gotten twenty years ago.

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

And,,,, not much else! So why not give me a call and tell me what’s going on in your part of Des Moines! (206)-878-0578.

Last Week

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda). Watch the meeting on Youtube here. Sign up for Public Comment (here). Recap below.

Monday: Meeting with Beacon Hill Community Council, Maria Batayola

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda)

Wednesday: Puget Sound Clean Air Agencyo. The EPA has unveiled a new series of Community Grants that are available to airport communities. Several local organisations have expressed interest and I’m trying to meet with all of them to make sure we’re not overlapping or working at cross purposes. My goal is to have annual air quality monitoring reports of the entire flight path so we can track changes in air quality at the neighbourhood level. We did one set of measurements in 2017, but we need to do it every year. When SR-509 comes on line and air cargo (and truck) traffic expands we have to know what it is doing to us so we can (finally) obtain the relief we should have gotten twenty years ago.

Wednesday: Des Moines Marina Assocation meeting (DMMA). City Engineer Khai Le gave a presentation on the last phase of the North Bulkhead replacement.

Thursday: Sea-Tac Airport International Arrivals Facility Preview.

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda). Watch the meeting on Youtube here. Sign up for Public Comment (here). Recap below.

City Council Meeting Recap

In the City Manager’s Report he whipped out not one but two big updates. As usual, we did not get the materials ahead of time and took few questions on either and there were no decisions to be made.
1. 1. On the ‘Construction Update’ there was nothing really ‘new’. But it was good information for the public. I asked for information on the exit and entrance to the new fast food restaurants south of Waterview Crossing.
  2. COO Dan Brewer gave the single most detailed explanation of the Marina Enterprise Fund as a business I’ve since in many, many years. Unfortunately, I was cut off from asking the second round of questions. I’m working on an analysis of his presentation but I couldn’t get it ready in time. Soon!
In New Business, I voted against a motion to add money to the new Sound View Park (formerly known as the Van Gasken House. I did so because:
1. I will never vote for anything having to do with the destruction of that historic property.
2. There has been no community input on the design of the new park.
In the New Items For Consideration, I asked to create a Marina Advisory Committee. A lot more to say on this, but it’s gonna take a lot more time to put together.
There was a 30 minutes Executive Session that was extended 20 minutes.

https://youtu.be/Wy4z_Iu2eyI?t=6846

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

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

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

Phone call

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

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

The Mayor told me that:

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

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

Email

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

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

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

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

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

Aren’t you making it worse?

The only reason to post this is

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

No dog in this fight…

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

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

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

And how dare you suggest otherwise, Councilmember Harris!

Transparency

Why things never die in this town

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

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

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

Civility

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

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

Phone call

The Mayor told me that:

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

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

Email

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

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

Aren’t you making it worse?

The only reason to post this is

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

No dog in this fight…

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

And how dare you suggest otherwise, Councilmember Harris!

Transparency

Letter to Mayor Matt Mahoney re. Committee assignments

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

Mayor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of other things:

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

2. My main goals with Municipal Facilities are these:

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

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

Sincerely

---JC

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

Policy, Weekly Updates

Vic Pennington

Weekly Update: 03/06/2022

2 Comments

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Monday: Meeting with Beacon Hill Community Council, Maria Batayola

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda)

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda). Watch the meeting on Youtube here. Sign up for Public Comment (here) There are two items on the City Manager Report and that usually means something significant. There is a request for additional funding for ‘Sound View Park’ (formerly known as the Van Gasken House. Apparently it has to do with drainage and creating some amenities that give a nod to Native American Culture.

I’m just gonna keep repeating some of my ongoing beefs.

Our next meeting after this has been re-scheduled for March 31. By then we’ll have had nine meetings and possibly gone three months without committees and with the most empty agendas I can recall. And that means a whole bunch of ‘stuff’ will either get crammed into the rest of the year or the Council will simply avoid it altogether. I understand the Council vacancy process mattered to the public, but it further reduced any chances at oversight or providing direction.
Speaking of which, the whole New Business item, where CMs can ask to have new items placed on a future agenda. Notice how that went missing in action over a month ago. That’s another one of those process things. When the last Council finally gave in and added it to our meetings, they refused to change the Rules of Procedure. So it’s totally up to the Mayor to giveth and taketh away. Note to future CMs: always get it in writing.
Unlike other governments (see Port of Seattle Commission above), neither the City Manager or staff ever provides presentation materials ahead of the meeting. So I have no idea what to expect.
Let’s talk again about Vouchers, since this week we received the Agenda Packet, but not the Voucher Reports, which in this case is $4,758,506.45.
1. The Voucher Report is a list of all the checks the City writes to pay bills. It is a public document, which, unlike the Agenda, the public never sees. And that too is unlike other cities.
2. We do not receive copies of the actual bills we are approving, just the dollar amount. So if I see an item I have a question about I have to request that the Finance Dept. send me a copy. That is also unlike other cities, which provide a way for CMs to see those invoices any time they like.
3. The City Manager has a rule that all questions must be received by 4PM on Monday. So if I have a question re. one of these bills and I don’t get it in by 4PM, I won’t get an answer.
4. In this case, if I don’t get the Voucher Report until Monday morning, I only have a few hours to scan it and see if I have questions. Now, I’m retired so I can usually make time. But if you have a full-time job, you will likely have no chance to see that Voucher Report even if it shows up on Monday.
5. And, the City Manager sees no obligation in reporting back. There have been many times where I’ve asked a question about a particular invoice and received the response after the meeting where I voted to approve the Voucher Report. I’ve literally had to vote sight unseen.
6. Once the meeting is over, if I have question on one of the invoices I have voted to approve, the City Manager has told me that he is under no obligation to answer questions after the relevant meeting.
7. So this week, as has happened before, there is a very real possibility that I’ll be voting to approve 4,758,506.45 with no way to review what the hell I’m saying ‘yes’ to.(OK, look I see ya sweating there and I’m sorry if I made ya nervous. I just want to reassure you that the law says that I can do that and no matter what happens, I won’t be held responsible in any way. Thanks for your concern. 🙂 )

Last Week

Tuesday: Chief Thomas’ Police Advisory Committee.

We discussed crime stats on this report: DMPD Crime Stats 201-2021 Overview Sheet. I really want to obtain reports by neighbourhood. I also want to get reporting of the areas in Kent along Pac Highway and KDM so we can tell how those areas contribute to the big picture, but that may take some doing.
We talked about the challenges in staffing up the Mental Health Ride-Alongs. This is a whole new area of law enforcement here. We probably should have been building these programs years ago to prepare for now.
We’re (finally) back to ‘fully staffed’, ie. we have everyone we need to do every shift. COVID-19 has been rough on our department. OK, now add the recent uptick in violent crime and then last year’s police reform laws. Now add a number of retirements and other leaves of absence. It’s been a lot for our Chief and our officers to absorb. I am glad to see so much public support for the force because such a stressful work environment requires a high level of morale.

Tuesday: 4Culture Heritage Grants Meeting. I’ve had a strong desire for a long time to scan every local newspaper and put it on line in a searchable format. I see all those old Des Moines News and Highline Times as the key to helping residents understand how our City began and how we got to where we are today. The Des Moines Historical Society has all those copies in pristine condition. I’m just helping get them connected.

Thursday: Sea-Tac Airport International Arrivals Facility Preview. More below.

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) (Video). Former Deputy Mayor and former South King County Fire Chief Vic Pennington was chosen to fill the Council position left open by the resignation of Anthony Martinelli. More below…

Sea-Tac Airport International Arrivals Facility Preview

So… this is one of those things you get invited to if yer a low-rent elected. Thursday’s big reveal of the IAF was a chance to see the facility with no people. The Native American dance show was cool. You get to stand next to the Governor. (Ya know why he’s the Governor? He said he remembered me in a way that made me kinda believe it. That’s talent! 😃 )

But this is the beginning of a new phase of airport expansion. The public fear has always been about a ‘fourth runway’. What the public does not hear enough is that with GPS-based navigation, there is no need for it. The airport can expand operations almost as much as demand will allow wth the current three runways.

The limiting factor is on the ground. Getting planes out to their ‘parking places’ as fast as possible. Getting passengers in and out as fast as possible. Getting cargo off-loaded as fast as possible. THOSE are the choke points.

This is one piece of that puzzle: getting passengers processed. In a few years, SR-509 will make it possible to more than TRIPLE cargo flights.

The message I keep trying to say to the community is that the airport is complex. It keeps expanding. We cannot stand by passively while it does.

And I’m not. As I wrote above, I’m currently working on several projects to help with this, including air quality monitoring with PSCAA, Port Package Updates, and a bill to incentivise businesses and government agencies to continue and expand remote conferencing options to reduce air travel.

Re: The 2022 Council Vacancy Vote

Dear Des Moines,

I want to congratulate all three applicants for the Council vacancy, especially the winner, Vic Pennington. He was not my choice, but he ran a gauntlet of criticism that most of us would find very tough to take and did so graciously. To him, I promise my full professional cooperation.

To those of you who are unhappy with the results tonight, I understand and I am truly sorry. As I said in my comments, I raised black children here, several years of it as a single parent and… lessee… we had one black neighbour near the church and…. there was one couple over in Pac Ridge we never got to know and… ? Let’s just say, it wasn’t a particularly ‘diverse’ experience. 😀

Back then we weren’t concerned about things like stickers on a light pole. We prepared for some form of overt racism every time we went out to eat.

This puts me in an awkward position. As a politician one cannot scream about injustice. First off, you simply will not get elected, which means you can’t help anyone. Second, it sounds like one is badmouthing our happy town or ‘anti-police’ so no one listens. And then… if I appear less than thrilled about proclamations like “Racism As A Public Health Crisis”? I must be a racist.

There seems to be some ‘golden mean’ of “sensitivity” I never quite achieved, perhaps because I have so much frustration at seeing some things (like Highline Schools) actually going backwards while the City becomes more diverse.

I’ve noticed a number of the most upset comments were avid supporters of Matt Mahoney, Traci Buxton, Harry Steinmetz. My comments tonight were mostly for you. I’m sorry, but this should have come as no surprise. I’ve tried to be sympathetic all along, but since so many of you gave me hell, it’s been slightly challenging. 😀

Many of you were wondering about the circumstances of CM Pennington’s departure from his position as Chief of South King Fire & Rescue. Instead, I would ask you to think about it a different way: the majority did know what you wanted. But as I said, it was willing to go this far to make sure that big ticket projects like the Marina and airport keep sailing along. And it is for that reason I would ask your help in providing more oversight on everything they propose from now on. There is no transparency and between that problem and tonight’s vote? This should be a red flag.

I had about a dozen calls re. the appointment process. I was yelled at in every one. And that’s fine. Others I asked to speak with chose not to. Also fine. Most of the people I spoke with simply had no interest in what I was saying. You wanted what -you- wanted. But the thing is: I was -trying- to tell you what it would take, both for Yoshiko to get across the line and to achieve goals I know we both share. All it seemed to do was breed contempt and I’m sorry.

But… I do make those calls. I really do hear you. And you have my record of votes as your proof.

I often hear my writings are ‘TLDR’. You want short signals. I do get it. But it’s also kinda puzzling to me.

Because all you ever need to judge us fairly is to look at our votes. If you take nothing else from tonight, remember that. The votes are all that matter. Then it’s up to you to reward or punish accordingly. Don’t judge us by what we say or how we look or selfies at some fun event or -whatever-.

Judge us by how we vote.

Because if you vote a certain way over and over, regardless of how we vote, there can be no real ‘change’.

I’m sorry for the scolding tone, but I’ve lived here long enough to see a bad habit that has to be broken. I was willing to share some of my private life (which I really do not enjoy) because I want you to understand that I share your frustration, profoundly. And I need your help to get us where we should’ve been a long time ago.

It is my honour to serve Des Moines.

—JC
(206) 878-0578

Policy, Transparency

An Open Letter Re. The 2022 Council Vacancy Vote

Dear Des Moines,

Back then we weren’t concerned about things like stickers on a light pole. We prepared for some form of overt racism every time we went out to eat.

But… I do make those calls. I really do hear you. And you have my record of votes as your proof.

I often hear my writings are ‘TLDR’. You want short signals. I do get it. But it’s also kinda puzzling to me.

Judge us by how we vote.

Because if you vote a certain way over and over, regardless of how we vote, there can be no real ‘change’.

It is my honour to serve Des Moines.

—JC
(206) 878-0578

Transparency

What’s the point of the discussion period?

1 Comment

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.

The job of Mayor is mostly to call on people. Almost every other ‘power’ they obtain is because the majority allows it. And in fact, in many governments (like the Port of Seattle and Tukwila) they rotate the presiding officer so that everyone gets a turn. That is more in the spirit of how the office is supposed to work.

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.

Policy, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 02/13/2022

Public Service Announcements

This Week

Sunday: I met with Noemie Maxwell to have a ‘Tree Tour’ of Des Moines. Her immediate efforts involve saving North SeaTac Park from development by the Port of Seattle. But she is working with other activists to come up with ideas to improve tree cover all around the airport. I wanted her to get a view of one possibility of commercial development of Port property. The Des Moines Creek Business Park has definitely changed Des Moines. But none of that compares with what is about happen as SR-509 (and the high-speed exit off the airport) come on line around 2027.

Monday – Wednesday: I’m watching the Highline School District Superintendent Search Townhalls closely. Des Moines, especially in the south end is really struggling in terms of school quality.

Wednesday: Reach Out Des Moines. More discussion on a community center. How to create programs for the summer?

Last Week

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission Meeting. The Commission will be considering its Local and Regional Policy Agenda for the year, which includes sound insulation. I will be testifying in support of the Port funding an Update or ‘second chance’ program, modeled on the Replacement Initiative program that has been working successfully at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Wednesday: Des Moines Marina Association Meeting.

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) (Video). Watch the meeting on Youtube here. There were some big issues which I will have more to say on in separate posts:

This was the unveil of the Dock replacement strategy, ie. recommendations on the number of slips in various sizes. Short takes: We’ll do L,M and N now on our own dime and there will be no covered moorage (surely be a blow to many larger boat owners.) But the really painful decisions won’t be necessary for ten years, all of which makes the landside economic development plans even harder to justify.
We voted to approve a contract with Environmental Science Associates Contract to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning the demolition of the Masonic Home. There’s nothing for the public to protest yet, but this is getting real. If you care about saving the Masonic Home, now is the time to mobilise. And that means:
1. Show up for Public Comment! (See the link above)
2. Write the City Council! citycouncil@desmoineswa.gov
3. Contact the Washington Historic Preservation Trust
We discussed the process for selecting an appointee for the vacancy left by the resignation of Anthony Martinelli, which I have dubbed Solution2022!™

Solution2022!™

https://youtu.be/VQwPjSYe87A?t=6700

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:

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.)
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.
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:

Let’s talk about ‘thinking on your feet’…

Friends, we’ve all interviewed for jobs. Many of us have also interviewed applicants for employment. Honestly, would you consider hiring someone for a job this important without having at least some free q&a? Would any applicant resent you for wanting to do that?

(And for some context: Highline School District is about to conduct a series of town hall meetings for the next Superintendent where each applicant has to take questions from the public.)

The successful applicant will need to be seen on video every two weeks for the next two years. At many of those meetings they will need to make important decisions for the entire community in the moment. As Luisa Bangs said in her 2020 interview, we are legislators. And a fundamental part of being a legislator is public debate.

Given those requirements and the level of public responsibility, applicants who do not feel comfortable enough to field even a single ad hoc question in public do not belong on the dais.

An important part of the campaign process is to prepare the candidate to do govern. That’s the value of campaign fora, doorbelling and debate. Without any of that, it becomes even more important to know that the applicant has some ability to ‘think on their feet.’

#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:

Because the applicant speaks with a CM.
And that CM is an elected representative of ‘the people’.
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.