Public Service Announcements
This Week
Tuesday: Port Of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda)
Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda)
Friday: South King County Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) Executive Board (Agenda)
City Manager Pay Increase
The City Manager is asking for a step increase from †M49D, which is $224k plus various benefits to M49E $235k, plus benis; a 5% increase. Last year he chose not to accept any increase due to COVID. Page 45 of the Agenda Packet includes a report he submitted listing his accomplishments.
Here is the City Manager’s current contract: January 23, 2020 City Council Packet. (As I’ve mentioned, it seems to require two performance reviews each year. That second one has not happened in either of my years on the Council.)
On page 44, the motion describing his Performance Review says
“Overall, across 28 performance metrics, the City Manager received 22 scores of “EXCELLENT” and 6 scores of “GOOD.” He did not receive any final ratings of “ACCEPTABLE,” “POOR” or “UNACCEPTABLE.””
This is one of those statements that is accurate, but not exactly true. So some background on the review process might be helpful.
- Performance Reviews begin with the City Attorney sending that list of accomplishments to the City Council along with a questionnaire with 28 Rating Categories and room for comments on each category.
- Those written reviews are then compiled by the City Attorney and we see that compilation before the meeting. This provides the talking points for the in-person review.
- Councilmember Martinelli did not submit a written review. This is his second no-review.
- My ratings were 8 Unacceptable, 2 Poor, 2 Acceptable, 1 Good. The vast majority I left blank simply because I had no way to answer in any meaningful way. The majority of my review was in the form of commentary. I’ll publish the full compilation (including my colleagues) as soon as I hear back from the City.
- The actual ‘review’ is then done in a private Executive Session. This allows for a candid discussion of those talking points.
- The City Manager is present for the entire discussion. There is never a moment where it’s just the seven of us. (In fact, since I have been on the City Council there has never been a moment like that.)
- Based on the above parameters (including, let’s just say ‘personal experience’) I had concerns that things might not go in an exactly high-minded fashion. 😀 So ahead of the meeting I sent this e-mail to the City Attorney. I received no response.
- Councilmember Martinelli, who was present for the public portion of the meeting, did not attend the E/S.
- The E/S was scheduled for sixty minutes. It ended after about thirty because, frankly, people ran out of praise. There was no ‘discussion’ of specific items, good, bad, indifferent. (Although, as occasionally happens, I got hints about various ‘projects’ that others are aware of, but not moi–and certainly not the public.)
To summarise, there were five reviews that can only be described as radiant; one no-show; and one that describes “100 violations of the International City/County Management Association Code Of Ethics.”
In statistics, if the overwhelming majority of the samples go one way, one might be tempted to dismiss a single ‘outlier’. But this is not statistics. It’s seven electeds whose concerns are supposed to carry equal weight. Despite the severity and specificity of my concerns, none were or ever have been addressed. In other words, the ‘outlier’ was not evaluated; it was simply discarded.
On the contrary, my five present colleagues were glowing in their praise to the extent that two were moved to tears.
About those Tears…
At that last pay raise discussion on January 23, 2020, Deputy Mayor Vic Pennington (who was resigning) also cried in paying a final tribute to the City Manager. In this video, he said If we lose [Michael Matthias], we lose this city. After wiping his tears, he then pulled out a piece of paper and read a motion from the dais increasing the City Manager’s severance package from six to eighteen months.
Now, you may find my tone a bit snarky. But (4)I do not believe that one should ever suggest that the success of a government depends on a single person. So if you see any tears on Thursday, hang onto yer wallet.
Last Week
Tuesday: 9AM. Port Of Seattle, State Of The Port This is a pre-recorded presentation. The Port is rolling in cash. 🙂
Tuesday: Police Advisory Committee. There was talk from a couple of residents about ways to keep the police aware about specific neighbourhoods. I’m starting to nag everyone about phones. We should be able to reach the public and they should be able to reach the police easily. Reason #327 on why we need a better web site.
Tuesday: 5:30PM Behavioural Health Forum. Sen. Keiser, Sen. Wilson and Rep. Orwall attended, along with other electeds and community health care providers. I learned about a number of resources in Kent which is good.
Wednesday: Salmon Count at McSorley Creek. After some initially very optimistic results, things have dropped off (sigh).
Wednesday: Sea-Tac Airport Roundtable (StART)
Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) (Video)
City Council Meeting Recap
Human Services Advisory Committee Presentation
The majority of the meeting you saw involved presentations by two very worthy organisations we help fund through our Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC). I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I have singled out the HSAC for a great deal of attention as to what is wrong with our government, not because it is more problematic than other aspects, but because it demonstrates what the Mayor calls ‘the proof is in the pudding’.
The ‘pudding’ we see is not the problem. The two presenters, Teenlink and Anew are doing great work that anyone can get behind. The problem is that neither the public (or the Council) sees how the Committee works.
Not to torture the metaphor, but I used to own a small restaurant. Using Mayor Pina’s analogy, so long as the pudding looks good, the costs, the ingredients, the suppliers are irrelevant.
It’s shameless because it makes anyone who asks to see the back of the house look both heartless and suspicious. It’s a shield against a basic standard of accountability for public money. And that’s the mantra I have repeated for two years: any attempt to require the most basic standards of accountability are met with defensiveness. In fact, you can’t even talk about this because it implies some ‘guilt by association’. No matter how hard I try to compliment the organisations we support and the members of the HSAC, all most of you will remember is the complaint I’m making about the process. It’s insidious.
And it reminds me a bit of things like property crime or airplane noise. This sort of low-level funny business has become so chronic that even mentioning it makes one sound like a whiner. “Hey, that’s just how things are, man.” It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that:
- This is not how things work in cities literally next door to us.
- The chronic exposure to bad process makes one numb to what it is doing to us as a government and as a community. I’m always struck by how many people will go on holiday somewhere. And when they return they’re like, “Wow, it’s really LOUD here!” 😀 That’s what low-level corruption is like. You can’t understand what it’s doing to you unless you’re able to get away from it for a while.
Downtown Alley
This project is, in a nutshell, to underground the utility poles and repave the alley behind Marine View Drive from 223rd to 227th. The Consent Agenda item was to authorise a $163,000 increase to the project from $541,000 to $704,000.
And again, this is where to you I probably look pissy. But the Transportation Committee was told on November 18 that “there might be a dynamic change order.” But we were given neither a description of what that entails or the possible cost.
I guess the property owners wanted some adjustments? Fine. But instead of bringing those concerns and costs to the Transportation Committee for a discussion, the City simply drops $163,000 onto the Consent Agenda.
But if you look at the packet, the administration knew exactly what the change was and the cost because the invoice from Puget Sound Electric is right there. The Transportation Committee never got to see or discuss the change order because it had already happened.
The City Council is supposed to approve costs above $50,000. Which means that we’re supposed to decide before the City spends large amounts of money. That did not happen. The Administration must have had some form of communication with PSE along the lines of, “Just do it. The Council vote is just a formality.” So there was no discussion as to whether or not it was even a good idea. The Administration bypasses the process because they know there will be no objection.
During the meeting, I asked if this was the final cost? And I was told that this is the end of Phase 1. The problem is that I have no idea what ‘Phase 2’ means. And I was just gonna let it go. I do it all the time. Cause I’m nice. 🙂
But one of my colleagues (see I did not mention that person by name 😀 ) just had to pipe up and talk about how, even with a one third increase, it was still a good deal because ‘roads cost a million dollars a mile.’
OK, now you’re annoying me. It’s not a mile. And it’s not a public road. It’s five blocks. Of re-paving. And undergrounding. In a service alley. For commercial property owners. It serves no public benefit.
What I have not been able to properly communicate to my colleagues or to the public is that, NEWSFLASH: the City Of Des Moines does print money.
So every dollar we spend has to come from somewhere else. And in this case, that $163,000 is coming out of street repaving. I’ve seen troll posts on social media saying “Harris should worry more about fixing pot holes and stop complaining!”
Look, we just made concessions to property owners. And that sounds very nice of us. But to do so, we took $163,000 which is supposed to be used to fix your potholes, Mr. Smarty Pants. And we did that without a proper discussion. And whether you agree with this or not, I think we can all agree that $163,000 fixes a lot of pot holes.
Really explore the space…
What I’ve been trying to get at for two years is: Why are we doing this project? I think (which is not in any actual, you know, document, just word of mouth) is that the ‘concept’ is an alley, originally meant for delivery trucks, is transformed into a hip walking place with clubs and restaurants that connects people to both ends of the Marina. If I’m wrong? Not my fault. I have asked.
But references have been made to Post Alley in Seattle. I am also visualising something akin to where I used to live, in lower Manhattan (West SOHO) Either would be, as the kids say, totally awesome.
Post Alley and SOHO developed organically over about a hundred years because the existing architecture favoured the outcome. Without those historic brick buildings with entrances that face into the alley you do not get a Kells or a Pink Door. It’s the reason people like me were/are willing to walk up four flights of stairs to live in what are basically run down buildings. Charm and history are big selling points.
Please take a walk down our alley from 227th to 223rd. In the immortal words of Bruce Dickinson, “Really explore the space.” Do you see that five block stretch morphing into Post Alley or SOHO any time soon?
I keep harping on this kinda stuff because, even staunch supporters of the Administration acknowledge any number of these cognitive dissonances. But it never seems to occur to anyone that if that idea doesn’t sound fully baked, why should any of the other proposals (boutique hotel, adaptive purpose building) be any more legit? Luke 16:10.
City Manager Performance Review
One last thing about this. This is a big deal for me because aside from all the lofty ‘legislation and oversight’ functions, the two big pillar jobs of a councilmember are: pass a budget and manage the City Manager.
If you sense a recurring ‘theme’ in this week’s ranting, it is purely coincidental. Every meeting we scrupulously follow certain formalities–like taking a pointless vote to Adjourn The Meeting. It all looks very official. And I think that it just serves to cover up the fact that we are chronically avoiding the processes that actually mean something.
*I mention it because it has not been reserved for Mr. Matthias. When I first started attending City Council meetings here I would hear that level of reverence for a variety of people. I was told (and am still told) that it is “just the normal political exaggeration.” That is simply untrue. I do not hear that level of excess in other governments. And I believe that, over time, it has further eroded our ability to tell truth to power. When that sort of flattery is normative, basically any form of questioning becomes threatening.
†aka ‘throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.’ 😀
‡And if you don’t get the Bruce Dickinson reference, you may want to leave the creation of a hip downtown alley to someone else.
4For anyone who reads down this far and watches Vic Pennington’s statement, I actually agree with his remarks from 2:36:06 to 2:36:20 or so. The City was in just terrible shape for the entire time Vic and Pina were on the Council. He’s not exaggerating that bit at all. But surrounding that? Hoo boy. There’s just so much to unpack. The statements about the City Manager’s effectiveness re. Sea-Tac Airport? Even the bit about how the public did not want Des Moines to be broken up? Nonsense. If one had taken a vote in 2015 and actually gave voters a choice on various ‘Annexation Do-Overs’, in some neighbourhoods the vote would have been very close. I’m thrilled we did not go down that road, but…
Thank you JC for the update. Ludicrous decision on this alley project when lots of city streets need repaving.
You continue to do the real job we need Communication with the Public .Keep trying !!
a nice event , I and another Des Moines woman wrapped Christmas toys for Phenomenal She an incredible group in Federal way. They have hundreds of new toys !!