Solution2022!™

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

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

They made it much worse.

February 2020

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

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

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

Solution 2022!™

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

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

Here is the final process:

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

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

My objections to Solution 2022!™

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

#1 All questions must be the same

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

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

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

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

#2 IMPOSSIBLE TO Do Separate interviews VIA ZOOM

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

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

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

#3 THEY’ve All been The Same

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

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

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

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

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

#4 PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS (NOT INTERVIEWS)

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

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

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

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

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

That is simply untrue.

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

#5 Executive Session

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a better solution

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

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

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

‘Pragmatism’

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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