*Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.
Update: 03/12/2022: At the Thursday March 10, 2022 I said I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of competitive elections in Des Moines over the past ten years. I was wrong. Make that twenty. And three of those winners resigned.
Competitive City Council Races 1995-2023The members of the 19th-33nd City Councils of Des Moines, Washington
---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
29
2016
Mayor Dave Kaplan
Mayor Pro-Tem Matt Pina
Dave Kaplan Matt Pina Rob Back Bob Sheckler Melissa Musser Jeremy Nutting Vic Pennington
Twenty one (22) elections over forty four (45) years. Seventeen (18) competitive races. And I was beyond generous using a 15% margin as being (cough) ‘competitive’.
But then factor in five (5) resignations, which means five (5) appointments.
And three of those appointees were ex-Councilmembers who were later re-appointed to other positions.
But only two new faces were brought into the Council via the appointment process.
And then we’ve had cases such as 2009 where an incumbent (Dave Kaplan) ran for re-election in another seat against another incumbent (Susan White), in order to open up an uncontested seat for Melissa Musser to run unopposed.
And yet…
During every election in Des Moines, you’ll hear someone say:
How lucky we are to have such a wonderful variety of great candidates in a town our size!
So how do we make sense of all this?
Well, the two important numbers you cannot see in this table are
Twenty five (25) 2unique winning candidates (UWC).
They sound like new divisions of MMA but they matter. But before we get into them, I’m gonna give you a series of factlets (I know, I know, you hate the factlets. You’ll like these.)
Factlets
Most people run one non-competitive campaign and are never heard from again. [We’ll get into that in another article]
Alexander Szabo was the only other applicant (against Luisa Bangs) for the 2015 appointment. He lost, then ran against her for the same slot that autumn and, as happens with people who run against appointees, got smoked. But just looking at his application, it is sad that he did not try again.
A number of people run multiple intentionally non-competitive campaigns. These are campaigns that have no expectation of success and thus never succeed. I call them ‘civic duty campaigns’ because the candidates feels that it is an intrinsic civic good to have an opponent. But since they don’t actually campaign, they pad the system, making the number of choices appear greater than they actually are.
Eg. Tad Doviak.
All successful candidates in competitive elections have run multiple times. There are no ‘one and dones’.
Almost always they run, win and keep going (Traci Buxton).
Or (much rarer) lose, improve, and eventually win (Anthony Martinelli).
Or (rarest of all) win, lose, then win again (Dave Kaplan).
Contrary to what you might think, it is actually rare for candidates to run multiple campaigns and then succeed in a competitive race.
Anthony Martinelli got totally wiped out by Matt Pina in 2017 and then prevailed in 2019.
A significant number of people run one or more unsuccessful competitive campaigns, but then succeed by running unopposed.
Rob Back ran three times in competitive races, but only won on the fourth try; unopposed.
Harry Steinmetz ran a competitive campaign and then succeeded in 2021 running unopposed.
All appointees run when their time comes and all are re-elected. And anyone who has been appointed tends to be among the longer serving CMs.
Jeremy Nutting: appointed in 2013, then re-elected twice, neither time in competitive races.
Dan Sherman lost in the closest election in City history in 2001 (20 votes!) then was re-appointed in 2003 to replace Wasson, which gave him that ‘appointment bump’ and was unopposed in 2007.
Most people who run successfully the first time run unopposed
When Position #5 incumbent Dave Kaplan decided to challenge Position #7 incumbent Susan White, it allowed Melissa Musser to unopposed for Position #5 in 2009 and then again in 2013.
It is very rare for a first-time candidate to run in a competitive race and succeed
Traci Buxton in 2017 was outspent two to one by Harry Steinmetz.
Most incumbents lose as soon as they face a competitive race, especially if they initially got in via appointment
Luisa Bangs: appointed in 2015, re-elected in 2015, lost in 2019, re-appointed to another seat in 2020.
The number of people who win more than once with competitive races is very low. And these people tend to be the longest serving and most impactful CMs in City history. ie. they were the for realz politicians. Dave Kaplan was unique in that he won in 1997, then lost in a highly competitive race in 2001, then came back swinging in 2005.
Dave Kaplan
Bob Sheckler (Truly unique among Des Moines politicians. He faced multiple tough races, winning every one.)
Put another way, between 2001 and 2020, only six people (actually five, I’m adding back Dave Kaplan) have lost, then come back to win. People who lose, tend to pack it in.
But in four out of six cases where they did stage a comeback, it was a rout or an uncontested election.
In one case, Dan Sherman was appointed two years after his loss and then attained an election victory after that using the ‘appointment bump’.
There have been eleven (11) even vaguely unique competitive losers (UCL)
Most people lose, and regardless of margin, are never heard from again. (Rob Back is a true outlier, ran four times, two vaguely competitive, and finally got in the last time running uncontested.)
Only two (2) people have lost, and then come back to win in strongly contested races.
People like Melissa Musser served multiple terms and never ran a competitive race. Incumbents actually have as good a chance of being defeated as anyone else when confronted with a quality opponent. It’s just that they rarely do.
Let’s recap…
Forty two (42) elections over the past 20 years.
But only twenty four (24) 1unique winning candidates. The UWCs.
And only 3seventeen (17) of those unique winning candidates (UWCs) ever faced even a single competitive race. (In fact, only one candidate, Bob Sheckler ever won multiple tough races.)
There have been five appointees, after five resignations. But three of those were ex-CMs tapped to fill subsequent appointments which means that only two new faces were brought on to the Council via the appointment process.
The Talent Pool
This is so important, it bears repeating:
Out of fortyT two (42) elections/vacancies the total unique number of competitive candidates/applicants over the past twenty years has been thirty eight (38).
Even if you include the people like Tad Doviak, who have run multiple ‘civic duty’ campaigns, you arrive at a number less than the total number of elections.
Over the past twenty years, the number of viable or even known candidates for every race has averaged less than one (1).
The overwhelming number of wins are either via appointment (and then an appointment bump), non-competitive races, or unopposed.
And one last new number: Out of the twenty four (24) unique winning candidates (UWC) only seventeen (17) ever faced a competitive opponent.
Moving towards a theory…
The lack of unique competitive candidates makes it difficult to draw many statistically valid conclusions, such as “what makes for a successful candidate”. One would expect a fairly low number of UWCs if people are truly happy with their electeds.
But given the ongoing controversies in our local politics, coupled with the fact that there are so few competitive candidates does suggest a few things:
Candidate quality is probably irrelevant
Money may or may not be a factor (that’s for another day)
Specific policy positions may be irrelevant
Identity has been irrelevant
In other words, the data suggests a typical ‘small town’ election eco-system where people bitch a lot, but only a minority of people vote. And that leads to one other conclusion: the number of UCCs is probably not coincidental.
In any unconstrained market where there are limited choices, it is because the customers are generally satisfied with their choices.
Voters may be truly satisfied, or they may not be, but are unaware of other options for various reasons. However there are no constraints on who can run (no tests, not even a filing fee, the application takes about five minutes to fill out.)
For whatever reason, the 6,000+ people who vote out of the 19,000 registered voters make the decisions for the 33,000 residents. And those people have not demanded more choices.
*This is one of a series of analyses I update from time to time. It is far from perfect (eg. I need to update it to 1997 which was the first ‘modern Des Moines’ election, ie. after the final annexation of Woodmont/Redondo.) But as it is, it’s close enough to make some valid points.
1The thirty eight (38) unique competitive candidates 2001-2020. Win or lose, these are the people who ran anything close to a competitive campaign. And I’m being pretty generous here: 🙂
Anne Farmer
Anthony Martinelli
Bob Sheckler
Brenda Siegrist
Carmen Scott
Dan Caldwell
Dan Sherman
Dave Kaplan
Dave Markwell
Ed Pina
Gary Peterson
Gene Achzigner
Harry Steinmetz
James Payne
JC Harris
Jeanette Burrage
Jeremy Nutting
Luisa Bangs
Maggie Steenrod
Matt Mahoney
Matt Pina
Melissa Musser
Melissa Ponder
Mike Foote
Priscilla Vargas
Rebecca King
Richard Benjamin
Rob Back
Scott Thomasson
Soleil Lewis
Susan White
Terry Brazil
Traci Buxton
Vic Pennington
Yoshiko Grace Matsui
2The twenty four (24) unique winners 2001-2020. The twenty four people who ever made it over the line:
Anthony Martinelli
Bob Sheckler
Carmen Scott
Dan Caldwell
Dan Sherman
Dave Kaplan
Ed Pina
Gary Peterson
Gene Achzigner
Harry Steinmetz
JC Harris
Jeanette Burrage
Jeremy Nutting
Luisa Bangs
Maggie Steenrod
Matt Mahoney
Matt Pina
Melissa Musser
Rob Back
Scott Thomasson
Susan White
Traci Buxton
Vic Pennington
3The eighteen (18) unique competitive winners 2001-2023. The eighteen people who were ever actually given a run for their money in any attempt and prevailed. (And just to be add to the fun: In almost every case, these individuals faced only one competitive race, either their first race or their last. If they faced a competitive first election, any subsequent races were a rout or went uncontested. If they lost in a competitive race, in every case (but one) they packed it in.
Anthony Martinelli
Bob Sheckler
Carmen Scott
Dan Caldwell
Dan Sherman
Dave Kaplan
Ed Pina
Gary Peterson
Gene Achzigner
Harry Steinmetz
JC Harris
Jeremy Nutting
Jeanette Burrage
Maggie Steenrod
Matt Pina
Scott Thomasson
Susan White
Traci Buxton
Tuesday is a regular Port Of Seattle Meeting. That night I’ll be speaking at the North Hill Community Club on various ‘airporty’ stuff. There’s a lot to report, although beyond the Port Package Update bill, it’s not getting a lot of press. I’ll post some notes after the meeting–assuming I actually have some notes. 😀
Wednesday I’m at the Sound Cities Association PIC 101 meeting. The Public Issues Committee (PIC) is an important thing for budding city councilmembers to learn about. Sound Cities Association is sort of a ‘league’ of all us smaller cities to try to have more regional clout with the much larger Puget Sound Regional Council. My hope is that, all us airport communities can work together through this to change airport policy more to our benefit.
There is also a Des Moines Marina Association Meeting at 7PM. That also will be interesting because they also turned out in support of Luisa Bangs. I guess this is why they call it ‘politics’. 😀 Again, you’ve got an organisation with a shared interest (the Marina is in my top three concerns) but where we seem to disagree is on the process to get there.
Thursday is a Regular City Council Meeting (Agenda). The appointment for the vacant position will be decided. There will also be a presentation on the next big road project in Des Moines (wish we could do more than one at a time, right?) which is 24th Avenue from KDM to 223rd–the path in front of all the schools. One little detail: there is a Public Hearing scheduled for ‘clean-up’ of the Municipal Code. This one should be routine, but it’s like a ton of detail on all sorts of zoning. And I always get a little nervous when I see references to dozens and dozens of ‘tweaks’ to any document. It means lots of reading.
(Following the meeting, I will once again retire to somewhere for a post-whatever drink. I was joined by a few very nice people last week and it was a great way to unwind. The only challenge was that the All-Star is a bit loud if you want to hear tears descending mournfully into ones beer.)
Somewhere in here I also hope to chat again with all the contestants 😀 …er… ‘applicants’ for the vacant Council position. As I wrote before, I thought that limiting the process to one teeny, weeny question (and basically the same question over and over and over) was kinda weak. Most of the applicants were great and I hope to get to know them better. (By the way, not to complain too much, but in past appointments, the applicants were kept off-stage so that they could not hear each other’s answers. Am I the only one who thought it was stupidissimo to have all the candidate kinda saying the same thing over and over and over in response to hearing the guy before them? Maybe it was just me. 😀 )
Last Week
Wednesday I met with Police Guild President Justin Cripe and Vice President Isaac. It’s a weird thing because the Guild was (and is) a big supporter of Luisa Bangs (and the entire current majority). And why not? The current government has been responsive to the needs of the police department–and in many ways that has been good for Des Moines. What I tried to convey is that there is a significant gap between the public’s perception and the Police Department’s crime statistics. It’s not always thrilling news to hear that you’re not universally loved (trust me on this! 😀 ) but it’s critical to me that the residents feel safe–and feel heard. A lot of that comes down to better communication. I talk to residents more than most so I hope I can help bridge that gap on both sides.
I did not meet with City Attorney Tim George to get a tutorial on how to write a Resolution. Me sad. Hopefully when we get past all these tough initial City Council Meetings. (The beginning of the year is hectic!)
Thursday was the Study Session. I’ve gassed on about that all over social media so I won’t belabour the point. On the positive side? I think that six out of the seven Applicants would be fantastic for the job. And that right there makes me feel good about the future of our City. My hope is that at least a few of those who do not get in see this as the kick-off to their 2021 campaigns.
The whole Board/CEO thing
There is a great article in the Seattle Times today on the Boeing Board Of Directors and I urge you to read it. The S/T has been doing really great coverage on the whole 737 MAX issue. Their writers keep promising me to provide more coverage of the SAMP, but they keep getting diverted to this cluster-f–k which has Pulitzer Prize written all over it so I can’t blame ’em.)
One of the first things you notice is the horizontal spread of all the Directors with their credentials. Note that only one director has any serious knowledge about aviation. (In fact, that one guy was the CEO they just fired.) You’ve got people in Big Pharma, heavy machinery, several hedge fund guys, three diplomats (one of the Kennedys!) Contrast that to the good ol’ days back when HQ was in Seattle and when their Board would be staffed by people with an intimate knowledge of, oh I dunno, airplanes? Perhaps you can develop a one word explanation for why things may have gone off the rails. And that word might be oversight.
What I’m getting at is that I’ve been getting a certain amount of flak regarding my (apparent) obsession with ‘process’ and ‘transparency’ at Council Meetings. The push back I receive is usually along the lines of, “Why keep complaining when things are going so well? Setting aside just how ‘well’ we’re doing, my grousing about ‘process’ is because I believe that the City Council’s number one job is to provide active oversight.
Although we are described as legislators, the truth is that the Council does very little actual legislating. Almost all items that appear on a Meeting Agenda originate from the City Manager. For example: as I’ve previous mentioned, one way a Resolution can appear on the Agenda is when three councilmembers vote to put it there. But when I recently asked Mr. Matthias how often that happens, he told me that he could not remember the last time that had occurred. See the vast majority of what the Council actually does is not legislation per sé, but rather approval. Our actual work load is mostly just signing off on legislation that was created by the City Manager and his Staff.
And because we rarely actually make the laws, and because most of us are not exactly experts on any of the Agenda Items we’re being asked to sign off on, this can easily create complacency. When your only real job is to say ‘OK’, it’s easy to start letting the corporation run itself.
The flip side to this is, frankly, corporations kinda like it that way. There are few things most employees (including me) hate more than having some guy looking over their shoulder asking a passel of damn-fool questions. Just let me do my job, OK? The “interfering councilmember” scenario is so prevalent that it is actually talked about in State RCW/:
“Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager”
Ah, but for me that clause “Except for the purpose of inquiry” is a biggee.
The Boeing debacle is an example of what happens when you have a Board that approves, but doesn’t actually “inquire” all that much. To the clueless Board, the company is making money; the employees seem happy; the investors seem happy. What could go wrong?
Now having watched and studied our Council for a while, my perspective is that when things are going well, we tend to give the City Manager and staff a tremendous amount of leeway–as we should, of course. So it’s easy for the Council to fall into a pattern of simply acting as well-meaning, part-time cheerleaders for Des Moines.
Cheerleading is good (especially in towns like ours, with no Chamber Of Commerce!) But as a Council, we also need to establish the kind of thorough oversight ‘hygiene’ that other cities already have in place. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to blind spots.
Boeing makes the most complex machines on the planet and they have done so for decades with an astounding track record of competence. But if a company with their track record can fall into complacency and not do the right things in terms of basic oversight? That should cause small cities like Des Moines to also consider how we might improve our processes.
Everyone in government uses words like ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ so often that they can become meaningless. But despite a lot of fine words, our city does not have a history of great oversight. And I hope to help change that. For what it’s worth, I hate the complaining even more than you do. 😀
Digging back into the cobwebs of history, I have researched several other appointment processes (we’ve had five in the past 25 years.) And there seems to have been a system for having eight (8) applicants which worked well. I’ve decided that this is my preferred process, not just because it seems fair, but because it has actually be implemented so no one can accuse me of proposing something untried. As I stated here, I am not happy with the process as it stands on the current Agenda. That’s why I’m proposing the following alternative. If you agree, I hope you will let all the Council know your feelings as soon as possible : citycouncil@desmoineswa.gov
The Suggested Process
There was a first City Council Meeting with interviews of all eight candidates. This process took the majority of the meeting, the balance of time being taken with an Executive Session which pared the list down to three finalists.
The next day, the finalists were informed of the Council’s decision and were invited to provide supplemental materials to bolster their cases before the following City Council Meeting.
At the following City Council Meeting, there was a second round of in-depth finalist interviews where questions were asked based on the applicants’ supplemental materials. Immediately following those interviews, the Council retired to Executive Session to discuss.They then re-appeared and had the final vote.
Summary
This seems like a pretty fair process to me because it gives the Council, the Applicants and the public a chance to provide a much fuller picture of the relative merits of each Applicant.
This is such an important decision. I believe the above process provides a much more deliberate way of determining the best person for the job and I strongly urge our Council to adopt it as the method for filling the current Council vacancy.
Thank you for stepping up to serve the City Of Des Moines.
Since you have applied for the open City Council position, you will be interviewed at the Thursday February 6 Study Session. According to the Agenda, I will have an opportunity to ask you one question.
I can’t tell you what question I will ask (I honestly don’t know yet.) But I can tell you that it may well involve the January 23rd City Council Meeting which was the last meeting of Vic Pennington (the position you will be filling.)
So, if you did not attend that meeting, I strongly urge you to watch that video because, as they say in school… “there may be a quiz.” 😀
If yer looking for my post on our the upcoming City Council appointment, it’s here.
This Week
This week I’ll be meeting with Police Guild President Justin Cripe. As a corporation the City Of Des Moines takes policing seriously. 46% of our budget goes to the Police Department. But way more than that, policing is the number one issue for about half of residents. It’s really important to me that all of us (Council and the public) have a great relationship with the police. I keep harping on the idea of public relations and the Police Department is no exception: the Police Department has made a tremendous amount of progress over the past few years but the public often doesn’t believe it. We have to do a better job of giving residents the full picture–which includes big reductions in many types of crime.
I’ll also be meeting with City Attorney Tim George to get a tutorial on how to write a Resolution. This is a big deal to me because it is something that a lot of new councilmembers have avoided, sometimes waiting literally years before tackling. Frankly, we’re a divided Council now and it’s tough to get anything on the Agenda. But regardless, my job is to get my ideas on the record. Hopefully, I can get my peers to
But the majority of the week is pretty well consumed with Thursday’s Study Session to appoint a new City to replace Vic Pennington on Thursday. (By the way, a ‘Study Session’ is simply a City Council Meeting that is confined to a single issue.) I really want y’all to attend this one. I mean I really want you to attend this meeting. So much so that I have a separate post on this extremely important meeting. It’s here.
Last Week
I was Olympia three days last week. On Monday there we had a Stakeholders meeting with Tina Orwall on the whole Port Package Update bill. I’ve gotten a bunch of messages on this: some are upset that I’m ‘selling out’ (I get that a lot) and some that I’m too ‘angry’ (I get that even more). The original bill is so bare bones as to be meaningless. That was just to get the process rolling, whip support in the Legislature and get the Port on board. But that right there is a big accomplishment!
Now the real language will be fleshed out in two ways: the basic principles will be in the bill and the gritty details of implementation (who gets what, when) will be in a separate ‘Proviso Study’. This process actually makes me very happy because I was concerned that the bill was moving too fast; that it might be passed without giving real thought to the details. One big reason we have all these bad Port Packages is because the original program was crap. The last thing we want is a Rev 2.0 that has the same flaws. We need time to develop a system. Keep in mind that the Port no longer has the infrastructure to redo hundreds and hundreds of homes. We need that in place first.
Tuesday and Wednesday I was also in Olympia for the Association Of Washington Cities (AWC) events. I am now a huge believer in ‘the power of schmoozing’. Anyone who has met me knows that I was born without the ‘networking’ gene. But you get in a place where there are so many councilmembers and legislators from all over WA? You can’t help but learn a ton, share a ton and get things accomplished you could never do on yer own. In addition to talking about several bills I don’t have time to talk about today, I got a chance to lobby for Tina Orwall’s HB1775, a law to try to reduce human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children. It sounds like a no-brainer, but the thing about politics is that there are a zillion ‘no-brainers’ and the way we have these cockamamie ‘short sessions’, not enough time to get all the legislation passed that needs doing. So you need nobodies like you and me to lobby your Reps. to get them to pay attention to your bill over somebody else’s bill.
Thursday was Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) orientation session. The PSRC creates many of the regional planning rules we all have to live by (transportation, airports, housing, environment, etc.) One really good thing Des Moines has done in the last few years is to re-join after many years in absence. We felt that we were getting run over by larger cities and the Port Of Seattle so we quit. That was a mistake. You can’t change the situation if you’re not at the table. Our challenge now is how to get a bigger voice. Because PSRC is not all that ‘democratic’. Voting is based on size. Big cities like Seattle get 99 votes on any issue. The Port Of Seattle gets 52. Des Moines? We get one. Uno. So the trick is for us is to find other ways to gain larger influence. Right now some cities are doing well at that (Burien comes to mind.) We need to do the same. Traci Buxton is currently our only councilmember on the PSRC, but hopefully that will change. Soon.
I also met with several residents with bad Port Packages. Now that HB2315 is getting some press, more people are speaking up and that’s great. The recent people reporting don’t have the awful structural damage that originally got me started on this, but their issues are still real. Almost every home with issues has problems because of a slap-dash approach. It was just poor windows and doors. It’s usually that there’s only one vent when there should be two. Or no proper insulation when the plan clearly indicated that an attic or walls be filled. Fireplaces not mitigated. Windows left untreated. It’s so blatant it would be comic if it weren’t so frustrating. Anyhoo, if your home has problems like this, please contact https://seatacnoise.info. As I wrote above a whole lot of people are going to be in line for the program when it passes. My commitment is to do my best to make sure that people who have documented their problems with SeatacNoise.Info now will be given first look.
Normally I try not to bug you more than once a week, but the upcoming City Council Meeting (Thursday February 6 @ 7PM) is so important I want to strongly encourage you to attend. Agenda is here.
At that Meeting (referred to as a Study Session), the Council will take up a single issue: the vacant City Council position. At the meeting, all applicants will be given an ‘interview’.
Here’s why I want you to attend: I want you to ask the City Council to postpone voting on a replacement until the next meeting (a week later). Just one week. That’s all.
The Process
1. We as councilmembers did not receive any instructions on how the process of choosing would work ahead of time. Nor were we given any input into that process. Everyone (except the Mayor) were informed the same way you as a resident might: by looking at the Agenda available on the City’s web site. The only reference to the process (which is on the Agenda) is that it was the same process as was used on the last two appointments. Frankly, I don’t care how it was done in the past. I want all my fellow councilmembers to have a chance to decide on the process.
2. Applications are due by end of business on February 3rd. That gives us as councilmembers only two days to review the resumes of all the applicants!
3. At the Study Session, applicants will each have three minutes to make a presentation. And after that, each councilmember will be allowed to ask only one question of each applicant. Just one.
4. After that ‘interview’ process, we may vote to go into Executive Session to discuss the applicants. Frankly, I personally don’t favour doing any of the selection process in private, but in the past two appointments that was what happened.
5. After that optional Executive Session, we will most likely vote on the new replacement. All in the same night. With no time to think about the process.
Why This Matters
Now, those of you who have owned businesses or hired people for important jobs. Have you made that kind of a decision all in one sitting? Every person I have ever hired for anything other than a minimum-wage job, I took several days to make up my mind. A typical election campaign takes six months to decide. A position this consequential should not be decided in under three hours!
Also, by voting in the same evening, I won’t be able to obtain valuable input from the people I represent. I believe that you deserve an opportunity to weigh in with your thoughts.
Finally, although the Agenda states that the current appointment is being done like the past two appointments, that’s not strictly true. In 2013, Jeremy Nutting was interviewed on the April 25, 2013 City Council Meeting and then voted at the following May 2, 2013 meeting. However, Luisa Bangs was interviewed then voted on at the same meeting in 2015. This ‘all-in-one-night’ approach is exactly what we should avoid.
Postpone
To sum it up, councilmembers have had no input on the selection process. We have only two days to review applications. And then we are expected to interview and make our final decision with only one question a piece in about three hours with a big chunk of the process in private Executive Session. Does that sound like best practice for someone who will be helping to lead your city?
For all these reasons I’m asking you to show up for this meeting and demand that, after the interview process, the Council moves to postpone the final vote on the applicants for a week until the next Council Meeting (Febuary 13). Just one week so that we make the best decision possible for the next two years.
Thanks for your time and your support for transparent government!
I said much of what I have to say on this from the dais. But since so many people keep asking me about it (or are unaware of what happened), and since my peer on the Council Traci Buxton put out a blizzard of comments in defense of the votes, I figured I’d try to put my thoughts in a more organised fashion.
(By the way–I voted ‘no’ on both motions to increase Mr. Matthias’ salary. At the risk of sounding whatever it kinda saddens me that people read my comments and think I voted for the increases. C’mon, people! 😀 )
The issue begins at 2:13:00
My comments start at 3:04:00
The proposed change was a 5% step automatic increase, which was on the Agenda for a formal vote. I said from the dais that I do not believe in automatic raises beyond COLA. I believe that one’s salary should never ‘automatically’ increase; a new rate should be up for negotiation only after a proper review. So the problem is ongoing. Mr. Matthias is now at the extreme top end of salaries for a City of our size. Next year his salary will reach that of Cities many times larger than Des Moines, such as Tacoma! And it will continue to expand with each passing year. That is simply unacceptable, regardless of the quality of his work.
However, an even greater change to his compensation was the ad hoc motion by departing Councilmember Pennington to literally triple his severance package. That was the cash equivalent of over $200,000 approved with no staff research or prior notice (as always happens with an Agenda Item). No expenditure of that magnitude should ever occur without being on the official Agenda. Even during an emergency (like the recent Woodmont slide), an official memo will be presented for the Council to vote on. Worst of all, this motion was completely pre-planned by the five members of the majority to be presented this way, at the last moments of the meeting. This motion was unethical and damaged both our City’s reputation and the public’s trust in us.
The five members of the majority wanted the increase in severance pay not only to reward Mr. Matthias for his work (a sort of bonus), but specifically to make it difficult for future Councils to make a change. They said, from the dais, that they were concerned that a future Council might (foolishly) attempt to undo what they consider his indispensable work. The arrogance of this is truly profound. Mr. Matthias is the City’s Economic Development Director. That was his original position before being elevated to City Manager. Should a future Council wish to make a change in Economic Development, we’re now saddled with a large payout which would, indeed, make it harder to make a change–even if it’s in the best interest of our City. The current majority has thus handcuffed the flexibility of a future Council because ‘they know better’. This sets a terrible precedent.
Last December the same majority members of the Council were concerned that comments from the dais were going on too long. So they voted to add timers to limit comment to 4 minutes. 😀 Which is ironic since four of my peers went on for 1 hr and 12 minutes defending the salary increase. (That was the longest discussion period since last year’s salary increase.) And here’s my point: If you feel like you have to work that hard to convince the public to buy something? Maybe you should re-consider what yer tryin’ to sell. Even this weekend, Councilmember Buxton has been going full-throttle to defend the decision on social media. Fair play. My only objection to that is that she presents her views not as opinion, but as ‘transparency’. The word ‘transparency’ implies an objective presentation of facts, not merely the ones which support one’s viewpoint.
Finally, during the Council’s hour-long defense/sales pitch, they repeatedly used phrases such as:
“This town won’t succeed without Michael.”.
“If we lose Michael, we’ll go back to the way things were 25 years ago.”
“We’ve got to protect Michael no matter what it takes.”
Look, one always strives for a great working relationship, but there is a certain professional distance that one must maintain between any CEO and their supervisors for the good of the City. But the majority’s praise for our City Manager was so effusive as to cross that line entirely. Even if I agreed that Mr. Matthias’ accomplishments were as grand as they say, no one should be thought of, or presented to the public, as being indispensable to an organisation, and certainly not our city.
You’ll notice that I have not commented on the quality of Mr. Matthias’ work. I had several objections to his salary increases, based not on his work as an Administrator, but on his other official positions, as Chairman of our Aviation Advisory Committee and as his position as Economic Development Director. I do not think the City’s business and retail environment have gone in the right direction and I know that the City has not done a great job in improving the problems we are experiencing from Sea-Tac Airport. But most of my objections to the contract changes have nothing to do with performance and everything to do with the process. During my campaign I railed against a City Council that acts in a high-handed manner, without concern for the public’s opinion. Since the election, my peers have asked me about this. They have seemed genuinely confused as to what I was talking about. Well, this whole affair is exactly what I was talking about. And the fact that the current majority cannot recognise how tone deaf they are being to the public’s feelings means that we still have a lot of work to do in improving our relationship with our residents.
Mr. Matthias has done exemplary work in many areas (as I’ve said many times). The point of this post was not to complain about his performance or to impune his character. But the manner in which his Performance Review was handled was simply outrageous.
If yer looking for my post on our City Manager’s raise, it’s here
This Week
Monday I’ll be Olympia again, at a Stakeholders meeting with Tina Orwall on the whole Port Package Update bill. Some details here.
Tuesday and Wednesday, I’ll also be in Olympia for the Association Of Washington Cities (AWC) events. Tuesday is a training session on parliamentary techniques, which sounds boring but if yer in the minority on a City Council, you need to learn all the rules in order to have any chance of making a difference. Wednesday is called ‘Legislative Day’ and it’s a chance for noobs like me to meet with not just Senators and Representatives, but also the people who run important departments like Transportation, Ecology, State, etc.
Tuesday at noon is a Port Of Seattle Commission Meeting at Sea-Tac Airport. I urge anyone interested in airport issues to attend or watch the LiveStream as there will be an update on the whole SAMP (airport expansion) projects. I wish I could be there.
Thursday is yet another all day schmoozefest–an annual Puget Sound Regional Council get-together in Seattle. Again, relationship building.
Somewhere in there will be a bunch of meetings with residents and our cousin Councilmembers in neighbour cities. 🙂
Last Week
Monday I met with Kent Councilmember Satwinder Kaur. She’s on the Sound Cities Association (SCA) Puget Sound Clean Air Committee and has done fantastic things with their local parks–including clean up and beautification efforts similar to what we’ve done at Midway Park. We talked about how we can work together to get pollution monitors installed around Sea-Tac Airport–something that was supposed to be part of the Third Runway mitigation program but somehow never got done. (Gee, I wonder why?) Without sounding too cynical, the reason it never happened is that, as I often say, “If there’s no data, there’s no problem.” Without pollution monitors, there’s no ‘official’ data. And without official data, there can be no State or Federal funding or legal action to improve the situation.
Tuesday I was at the South King County Transportation Board (SCATbd) along with Councilmember Mahoney. The PSRC (you’ll soon learn that they’re everywhere in these updates) is offering grants for bike and walking trails and at the last City Council Meeting I suggested that we apply for a portion of those to finish the Barnes Creek Trail and connect Kent Des Moines Road all the way to 200th! 😀
On Wednesday, I was back in Olympia to testify on behalf of the House Bill on Port Package Updates (HB 2315 ) introduced by Tina Orwall. The good news is that the bill passed out of Committee and is now seems to be moving forward with support from all sides. Fingers crossed!
Wednesday I had my first weekly meeting with the City Manager, Michael Matthias. There was some ‘air-clearing’. I claimed during the campaign that I had heard him make several dishonest statements. Accusing someone of dishonesty is a huge deal, of course so I completely understand why he’d be more than a little dis-chuffed. One of those involved a ‘Tree In Lieu Program’, which I said did not exist. He gave me a copy of the City Tree Regulations which describes this program. So I guess I stand corrected. I’ll just add this: I went to the City’s web site to look for the text from the printed page he gave me. I was really upset that I might have falsely accused him of something based on laziness on my part. However, I could not find the same text on the web site. So perhaps this is all a terrible misunderstanding. I do know that I’d be a lot more contrite if I knew why I couldn’t find the text on that web page. Perhaps this just underscores what I’ve been saying all along: We need a better web site. The inability to find information can not only be annoying, it can cause serious problems. Regardless, he has my sincere apology.
Wednesday was also the Highline Forum and the Port Of Seattle presented several items where they say they are trying to be more helpful on airport issues. I am (as always) skeptical due to decades of bad faith on their part. However, I must admit that the newer Commissioners have made more of an effort at communication. Is it enough? HELL NO! But compared to the way it was back ten years ago where Commissioners did not even pretend to care about the community, it represents at least some progress. So I try to tell activists: you’re not going all ‘Uncle Tom’ by trying to talk.
Thursday I met with our King County Councilmember Dave Upthegrove. He is big on transit and we discussed ways to expand the Commuter Shuttle program to the entire City and to improve routes in the South end of town (Highline college to 272nd.) He fully acknowledges that current bus service is pretty out of whack: most of the routes are in the North end of town while most of the people who want to ride are in the South. This is another of those ‘gravity’ issues I often speak about. We must move the focus of key City programs southward–to where the people who need them are.
And then there was our City Council Meeting at 7pm. Video here.
That was so much fun I even made a separate post on it. 😀 By the way, I’m starting to notice now that a certain percentage of residents either don’t seem to get or fully appreciate my world-class sense of humour. So where I just wrote, “so much fun” what I was really saying is, “bloody fuckin’ horrible, mate.” 😀 But I don’t say that out loud because, you know, I’m a very polite guy. 🙂
Friday I met with Mayor Jim Ferrell of Federal Way and his (kinda) new Strategic Advisor, Bill Vadino. Speaking candidly (is there any other way?) Federal Way had not been getting great reviews from activists on its efforts to improve the noise and pollution from Sea-Tac Airport. All I can tell you is that Mayor Ferrell seemed engaged in the situation and clearly frustrated with the lack of progress. In other words, he is not happy with the status quo. He fully recognises that we’ve been spinning our wheels and says that he is willing to think about a new approach. We’ll see!
I’m not special, but the Staff certainly is!
I want to make a general comment on civic engagement. Last week, I got big ‘Thank you!’ moments from three residents that really I did not deserve. They had some really annoying complaints and reached out to me. A couple of days later? PRESTO! Problem solved. I’m a magician. Apparently, I run this town.
All I do is write down their complaint, then I go home and do what you (or they) could do: I call the City (206-878-4595), or fill out the on-line form and… A couple of days later? PRESTO! Problem solved.
See, I have no ‘pull’ with the City on day to day affairs. No councilmember does. Again, all I do is do what you can do.
I bring this up because I think there is a sense sometimes that nothing in government works well and you have to ‘know a guy’ to get anything done. Not true in Des Moines. In fact, a lot of routine issues get resolved very efficiently by our staff. You just have to know the City phone number (Again, that’s 206-878-4595 🙂 )
I think one thing that makes some people think that nothing works in government is because there are often lots of kerfuffles involving politics (see below). But the City staff who help our residents is not involved in any of that junk. Whatever shenanigans are going wrong with ‘big’ issues, you can count on the day to day stuff to be handled pretty well. (And in the unlikely event it isn’t I do want to hear about it.)
That said, I am happy to hear your concerns and make a call or fill out a form for you. In fact, I am glad to do it because it helps me know what’s going on in Des Moines! But I just want to make it clear that I have no special superpower. You get exactly the same service and I encourage you to give it a shot, then tell your neighbours. My goal is to build confidence in our City’s customer service and its great staff.
Monday: Happy Martin Luther King Day! Meeting with Councilmember Satwinder Kaur of Kent. She’s on the Sound Cities Association (SCA) Puget Sound Clean Air Committee. Regional organizations like this are something Des Moines needs to get more involved with. Just one, kind of a weedsy detail: there are no pollution monitors around Sea-Tac Airport! The closest one is in Georgetown, eight miles away. Small cities like DM never almost never get enough attention from regional planners unless we have our electeds on these committees. And that means housing, environment, transportation. We started engaging with SCA and PSRC tw years ago after a long absence–which is good, but we’ve got a lot of ground to make up.
Tuesday is another regional committee I’ve mentioned: South King County Transportation Board (SCATbd) ‘skate-board’. They cover all things transportation related. If you’re concerned about getting better bus service in DM, SR509, the airport… anything like that? SeaTac City Hall. 9:00AM.
On Wednesday, I’ll be in Olympia (again) to give public comment again on the House Bill on Port Package Updates (HB 2315 ) introduced by Tina Orwall. You can introduce a bill on either the House or the Senate side. Or you can introduce basically the same bill on both sides as Senator Karen Keiser and Rep. Orwall have done. This can increase the chances that the bill will pass, not least of all because it indicates that you can muster support in both houses. As with companion bill SB6214 my testimony will be to make sure that lawmakers understand that this bill is meant to help homeowners with real damage to their homes from poor installs–not just get people ‘new doors and windows’.
Wednesday is also my weekly meeting with the City Manager, Michael Matthias. A lot of this job is simply being made aware of what is going on and this is the chance to cover items that can’t easily be done via e-mail.
Wednesday is also the Highline Forum, a group of electeds from all the airport communities plus the Port Of Seattle started waaaay back in 2005. It meets every other month (is that bi-monthly or semi-monthly? 😀 ) The original purpose (I guess) was to foster good relations between the Port and the communities in the aftermath of the Third Runway Lawsuit. I think there has always been some hope (at least on the community side) that it would evolve into something more. What it is is basically information sharing and there is increasing talk of ditching the whole thing. (To give you a notion of where I stand on this, three years ago, I made a speech where I advised all City electeds to immediately adjourn to the IHOP across the street, and start a new group (without the Port) with the explicit purpose of negotiating a deal with the Port for ongoing compensation. Needless to say, that is not the official position of participating Cities. 😀 But it should be.)
Thursday I’m meeting with our King County Councilmember Dave Upthegrove. And then there is our City Council Meeting at 7pm. Agenda here. There will be the annual performance review of our City Manager, which of course, is done in Executive Session. More on that below.
Friday I’ll be meeting with Mayor Jim Ferrell of Federal Way and his (kinda) new Strategic Advisor. (It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody you’ll read here is someone I’m meeting for the first time. I’ve been annoying electeds throughout King County for years. 😀 ) All I’m trying to do now is tell people, “Hey, I want to engage with you on shared issues besides the airport. And by the way… did you know thisabout the airport? 😀 )
Last Week
On Wednesday I attended a Reach Out Des Moines meeting at Pacific Middle School. As I said last time, this is a wide group of people who are involved with teens in every possible context, including Des Moines Community Service Officer Tonya Seaberry. The primary goal includes reducing juvenile violence in the Pac Ridge neighbourhood and nearby schools. But there are so many benefits to the program because the tools used to achieve this goal also end up improving school attendance, reducing hunger and on and on. Just one stat that CSO Seaberry presented: Juvenile Crime in Des Moines has gone down from 68 arrests in 2013 to only 17 in 2019. That’s truly amazing! And I hope the City can find ways to further their efforts.
On Thursday I was in Olympia to give public comment on SB6214. I wrote more about that (including a link to the view) here.
On Saturday I met with our new State Rep. Jesse Johnson (30th D) who was just appointed. He was previously on the Federal Way City Council and his background and passion is for education. When he ran for City Council he doorbelled over 8,000 homes. RESPECT! I gave him a rundown on airport issues (of course) and a little about the south end of Des Moines. He told me that, as a kid he used to train for track meets by running the Boardwalk. So he knows Redondo. 🙂
I also met with Mayor Matt Pina and newly elected Deputy Mayor Matt Mahoney. It was my second meeting with Mayor Pina since the election. The original purpose was to discuss Committee Assignments. As I said after the first CC Meeting, in our City, the Mayor chooses which committees each CC is on and that’s a big deal. The obvious way to choose people would be based on their desire and expertise on relevant issues. But, frankly, the Mayor could also choose people whose agree with his policy agenda and exclude CCs who do not. I am not saying that’s what’s currently going on in DM. I’m just telling you one potential concern I have with the current system and why I wish it were different.
It’s all about Timing, son
The thing I want to mention about the City Manager Performance Review is ‘timing’. Mr. Matthias’ contract says that any changes of terms (salary, benefits, etc.) should take effect in January. So the Council has previously done the annual review in December. But because there would be two new members on the Council, the previous Council thought best to wait until we were seated to give us noobs a voice in the review–for which I am very grateful.
However, it does put us new guys in an awkward position. We’re expected to review his performance with almost no time on the job–and that may make other Councilmembers feel like our opinions don’t matter as much. Of course I have real opinions about his performance in public settings because I have been so engaged in local politics over the years. However, I’m the first to acknowledge that that is far from a complete picture.
It would be better, in my opinion, to move these reviews (for all employees subject to Council oversight) further into the year–perhaps as part of the Budget process, so that new members of the Council have time to get a feel for the people.
On Wednesday, I’ll be having a weekly meeting with the City Manager, Michael Matthias. All Councilmembers try to have weekly contact to go over questions, concerns. I prefer to do these face to face.
I’ll also be attending a Reach Out Des Moines meeting at Pacific Middle School. This is a group of teachers and Des Moines Community Service Officer Tonya Seaberry, chaired by CHI Franciscan’s Cynthia Ricks-Macottan. The goals are to provide human services for children in the area–particularly Pacific Ridge. Programs include uniforms, camping, advocating for improved school bus service, etc.
Last Week
On Monday I attended the Dept. Of Commerce Study On Sea-Tac Airport Impacts.
Tuesday was the first Port Of Seattle Commission Meeting of the year. New Commissioner Sam Cho was sworn in. They had a party. The cake was merely OK. My public (and later private) comment, concerned enhancing the Port’s Noise Monitor Reporting system. This allows the public to track flights and their noise impacts. We need accurate tracking of noise impacts in order to pressure the airlines for meaningful changes to flight times and paths.
Tuesday afternoon I also attended the first Water District #54 Commission Meeting of the year. Relations with all the local utilities have been strained in recent years and I think they appreciated having a chat about how we can work together better. One issue, which I brought up at the City Council meeting, is our aging infra-structure. The Water Commissioners brought up the chronic complaints from residents on clogged drains, issues with pipes–all things the City can help with. And as the recent Woodmont landslides showed we need to work together to prevent future problems. (The City responded in a heroic way to that incident. But our goal needs to make sure we’re not repeating that heroism too often.)
Wednesday was my first meeting with the entire City Senior Staff. I have to say it was about 55 minutes of Councilmember Martinelli and I listening and about 5 minutes of me asking a couple of questions. As I said last time, I hope this is not an example of things to come.
Thursday I attended the State Second Airport Siting Committee. Des Moines is ably represented by Steve Edmiston as a (non-voting) Citizen Member, plus Sen. Karen Keiser and Rep. Tina Orwall. Just one stat: According to the State’s recent Aviation Capacity Study, the State will need at least the capacity of another Sea-Tac Airport by 2050. And if one were to build a new airport with the same capacity as Sea-Tac it would require at least 4,600 acres of land. Guess how much land Sea-Tac covers? 2,500. That’s right. The 8th largest airport in the country squeezes all those flights onto a footprint that is about half the size it should be. As decision-makers realized thirty years ago when they did the last second airport study, finding 4,600 acres of land anywhere was very difficult–which is why they gave up. Now? It will be impossible. I’m telling you this because I want Des Moines residents to recognize that, although we will likely get a second airport somewhere it will provide us with no relief. And I’ve been screaming about this for several years because that search distracts attention from other efforts that can help us. So let’s stop thinking about that study and move on.
Thursday was the first City Council Meeting of the year and the debut of Anthony Martinelli and moi. THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO SHOWED UP! 🙂
As expected, Matt Pina was re-elected as Mayor and Matt Mahoney was elected as our new Deputy Mayor, replacing outgoing Councilmember Vic Pennington. Councilmember Martinelli and I abstained. We both indicated that this was not a lack of confidence in either person; it was the fact that we both feel that the process is bad. I promised to give my complete support to Mayor Pina’s office–and I meant it.
However, what the public does not generally know is that councilmembers are not allowed to discuss the whole election process before the meeting. And after the nominations, the vote happens immediately. There is no campaign. No opportunity to interview the nominees. Which suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. No other ‘election’ you can think of happens that way.
Now: why do you think the rules are set up like that? Because the whole idea of a Weak Mayor system is that the Mayor is supposed to be a ‘ceremonial’ function. There is no accommodation for campaigning because the thinking is that the Mayor doesn’t really have any special ‘powers’, so what’s the diff?
Unfortunately, in practice, this could not be further from the truth. In practice the Weak Mayor system has evolved a bit like how the Senate and Congress have rules which give key figures (Senate Majority Leader, Speaker Of The House) tremendous control never imagined in the Constitution. More below.
My Take: Weak Mayor?
A key moment of the City Council Meeting was the comments by Mayor Pina. For some reason, the Mayor decided to respond for over nine minutes on three items which he implied were made by Councilmember Martinelli and I, although neither of us said anything like what he was talking about. I’m willing to attribute this to his being sick. But his comments were pretty extraordinary and bear mentioning…
Strong Mayor vs. Weak Mayor
The Mayor talked about why he feels we should not have a Strong Mayor system in Des Moines. The thing is: both Councilmember Martinelli and I agree. Strong Mayor? Bad idea. Neither of us advocated for such a thing. We specifically objected to the process by which the mayor is elected; not our system of government. Why Mayor Pina decided to do a tutorial on this is mysterious.
Executive Session
Second, two members of the public commented on the notion that too many decisions are made in secret. The Mayor responded by giving another tutorial on the process of ‘Executive Session’, using this ‘lecture’ to tell the public that their concerns were completely unfounded. I think this was a mistake. Although the public may have gotten some of the details wrong, their concerns about transparency are legitimate. During my campaign, even people who did not support me agreed that the Council often operates in a very secretive fashion. The Mayor could have responded by offering to really think about their concerns. More than a missed opportunity in my opinion.
Special powers of our Weak Mayor
Finally, when explaining his reasons for abstaining in the Mayoral Election, Councilmember Martinelli spoke eloquently about the special powers of the current so-called ‘Weak’ mayor system.
The Mayor controls the Agenda of every meeting (ie. the items that are discussed and then voted on; if it’s not on the agenda? It never gets a public discussion and it never has a chance to become law.) So that is huge. No other Councilmember has the ability to get an item on the Agenda without the Mayor or the City Manager’s OK. A group of three councilmembers can also get an item on the agenda, but in real life this rarely occurs unless sponsored by a particular committee.
Speaking of which, under our current rules, the Mayor has sole control over committee assignments–which is the other way that items get on the Agenda. So, regardless of one’s expertise, one may not be assigned to the committees that are the best fit. And if one is not on the appropriate committee, your ideas don’t get on the Agenda. The upshot of all this is that, if you aren’t on the Mayor’s good side, you may well never get your proposal to any kind of public discussion.
As with our current Congress, the Weak Mayor system has developed an elaborate set of rules which were not part of the original notion of that form of governance. And these rules afford a tremendous amount of parliamentary control to the Mayor and his majority. The rules were designed simply to keep meetings ordered, which is great, but they can also be used to concentrate power and limit the full range of expression of Councilmembers. Ultimately, I would like to see the rules return to their original format: a weaker Weak Mayor system–meaning a Council of seven equals where each member has the chance to get a full public hearing on ideas they think important.
Say it three times
For the third time ( 😀 ) , Mayor Pina will have my full support in his office. I bring all this up because none of it was mentioned by our City Attorney in describing the Office of Mayor. And I think the public deserves to understand that there is a lot more to the office than was described.
