I struggled to not publish this. I ran for office in 2019 to improve transparency and reduce the rubber stamping. But after almost two and a half years, I gotta say, things may actually be getting worse. But this has become truly alarming. Perhaps my colleagues are simply unaware of how business is supposed to be conducted. I urge both the public, potential candidates, and my colleagues to attend other city meetings and judge for themselves. We have become true outliers.
Today’s Publice Safety/Emergency Management Committee Meeting was the first in-person Council meeting of any kind since 2020. So hopefully you can forgive whoever forgot to activate some of my colleagues’ microphones. Getting back to ‘normal’ takes some practice. (If you’re having trouble hearing, I added subtitles.)
Although committee meetings are probably more important to the decision making process than the full meetings, I don’t usually write about them in detail because it’s just too much detail for most people. (Eg. there was a very important discussion regarding Flock Cameras which will soon be deployed to constantly scan people’s license plates in key areas.) But the process for both the issues I’ll cover was terrible. I’ve had people tell me they do not understand exactly what I mean by that and why it matters. These are two issues people care about a lot so it seemed like a good way to make the idea of ‘bad process’ concrete.
Animal Control
Background
The City and Police Chief have wanted to move from an Animal Control Officer to outsourcing the process to Burien C.A.R.E.S. The public has been unaware of this, but the Chief has been selling this hard internally for at least two years. As my predecessor said, “it was always a luxury and one we can no longer afford.”
Another reason this has been so quiet is that the administration had asked the Council not to respond to public concerns about the proposal because it might impact contract negotiations with the Police Guild. Somehow. During the update w learned that had not turned out to be problematic after all.
Lucky break.
The Chief did brief the Council on the proposal at the last full meeting. He provided a Powerpoint of cost savings and benefits, but no supporting evidence. That’s the problem before the problem: He bypassed the committee and went straight to the Council. And the Committee let him. In a better world, any of the committee members would have moved to stop him and remand his presentation to the committee–where it belonged in the first place.
Mistake #1: Never bypass the committee.
Presentation
Speaking for the Police Department was not the Chief, but rather Commander Patti Richards. And that right there is politics. Our Council rarely gives leadership a hard time. But no elected wants to be ‘that guy’ and grill a subordinate. Which is why I object to anyone but the Chief or City Manager presenting anything that might be controversial.
Mistake #2: Never bypass the committee.
So the Committee asked some perfunctory questions, but did not address the much more substantial concerns I heard from residents. I’m not sure whether or not my colleagues heard those same concerns.
The Commander indicated that the City had already worked with Legal, PD and Burien C.A.R.E.S to prepare a draft contract, but did not have that contract for review. Instead, she assured the committee that all their concerns had been addressed. The draft contract would be sent to the full Council for approval.
Mistake #3: Never bypass the committee.
In past years, the Committee would normally see that draft contract, provide notes, which the City Attorney would take back for polishing, come back for final committee approval and then send it fully baked to the Council for a vote. Despite their obvious differences, Councilmembers Bangs and Martinelli did just that on at least two PSEM ordinances in 2021.
Towing Ordinance
The committee spent a few minutes talking over Councilmember Steinmetz’s concerns over the recent 72 Hour Towing Ordinance. I voted against that ordinance for that reason and because it lacked a zoning provision which would have offered a good revenue stream and safety on certain streets. These tweaks could have easily been added and done right the first time.
Mistake #1: There is almost nothing that can’t wait a couple of weeks.
Instead, CM Steinmetz voted for it and *afterwards met privately with the Asst. City Attorney, hoping to work out some new language.
Mistake #2: Get it in writing. It’s a public process. If you want the committee to consider your idea, have an actual amendment. And print copies for the audience while yer at it. 🙂
But at the committee meeting, City Attorney Tim George told the committee that in his mind, the ordinance the Council approved was fine as is. And the other members of the committee agreed. Chair Traci Buxton suggested that we should wait and see if there is a public outcry and then it would surely be easy to fix.
Mistake #3: Nothing in government is easy to fix.
Measure twice, cut once…
Governments rarely re-visit legislation unless something is really wrong. Nor should they. It’s always onto the next thing. Think about it: we get a couple of hours twice a month. And this year? We’re four months behind schedule.
That is why I never vote to invoke 2Rule 26a and approve any ordinance in one night.
You wanna make sure it’s right the first time for at least two reasons:
- Assuming everyone is willing to stop and re-visit your pet issue again, you’re creating more work for everybody than doing it proper the first time.
- We owe it to future Councils to leave things as tidy as possible for them. Because they will surely have plenty of their own messes to deal with.
If we had simply waited two weeks until the next meeting, we could have made the tweaks both CM Steinmetz and I wanted and we’d never have to worry about it again. It would be done. And in fact the ‘urgency’ is almost always artificial. We’d waited years without an ordinance, what was two more weeks?
Takeaways…
Council
This is the second time this year that the PSEM has allowed the administration to take an ordinance directly to the full Council. And both times have been a mistake. Other cities do not take these shortcuts. And in previous years, neither did we.
The whole point of having committees is to provide the hard review (and yes oversight) so that legislation is fully baked before it goes to the full Council. It is not supposed to be a rubber stamp before another rubber stamp.
Public
Over the past several months I’ve spoken to about a dozen residents who told me passionately how very much wanted to retain our own Animal Control Officer (ACO). I gave them my thoughts on how to make it happen and, as usual, they listened politely and then did something else. 😀
I love you Des Moines, but you also have to stop trying to do things in private. It’s a PITA, but you gotta start speaking up. Because every time you yell at me and then act so ‘chill’ to the majority, you send a message to the Council that they can listen to your polite complaints, do whatever they want and pay no price. And you’re making me not want to listen to your complaining either frankly. 😀
City
These committee meetings are OPMA public meetings. First the Council was told the meetings would be in the North Conference Room. (The Agenda says so.) Then we’re told it’s via Zoom, but I see no public notice. Then I get an email saying it’s in the Council Chambers and on Channel 21. But it’s not. I did find it on Youtube but it took a day for it to appear without a deep search. Then I watch it and find the mics aren’t on and there are no captions for our large number of hearing impaired residents. Come on.
Postscript
I’m sorry, but this strikes me as pretend government at the moment. We’re all so used to ‘just working things out’, we can’t even run a meeting as if it matters. Because frankly? It doesn’t.
Luke 16:10
*Something I am not permitted to do, by the way. Also known as straight up corruption.
2Ordinances are required two separate readings (votes) in order to become law. Rule 26a is a motion that can be used to override that and pass a law in one vote. I never vote for it, not only for the above reason, but also because it gives the public almost no chance to engage on the issue.