Tag: election 2015

Mayor Murray

Murray Releases Revised $930 Million Transportation Levy Proposal

I’ll have more to say about the latest iteration of the ever-costlier Move Seattle levy (Mayor Ed Murray says the tacked-on $30 million will come from higher revenues from new housing), but I wanted to throw up a quick side-by-side comparison of the two proposals. (Original proposal here; latest version here.) My initial reaction (other than frustration that Murray refuses to release the full details of any new proposal, opting instead for a standard-issue series of blue-and-black handouts), is that this is a good proposal with something for everyone that will inevitably be “right-sized” by a council that’s largely aligned with the mayor but scared of imposing a major property tax increase.

I could be wrong, but last I checked, $275 (the amount a typical homeowner would have to pay per year) is more than $130 (the expiring Bridging the Gap levy’s annual price tag). Readers desperate for sidewalks in their neighborhood at any cost may find charges of “tax fatigue” tiresome (I know I do), but this is a big tax increase, and the council (five of whom are running for reelection) will surely have something to say about that.

My other reaction is that this proposal leans heavily on neighborhood greenways and segregated bike lanes, potentially at the expense of safer bike facilities on streets that already have heavy bike traffic. The recent Metro bus collision that put a cyclist in the hospital with life-threatening injuries happened at an intersection (12th and Jackson) where cyclists from Mount Baker, Capitol Hill, Beacon Hill, and many other parts of the city converge, and which may be even more dangerous now, with the streetcar tracks posing a new threat to cyclists.

Much the same could be said of high-bike-traffic intersections across the city. Yet the emphasis on neighborhood greenways (which were never meant to be major commuter corridors) could–and I say could, because the devil’s in the details of this still-somewhat-opaque proposal–come at the expense of streets that will always be filled with cyclists.

I have a call in to the mayor’s office for a more detailed project breakdown for the $930 million proposal.

Screen shot 2015-05-06 at 12.57.28 PM
Then…

 

... and now.
… and now.

 

Here are some other changes the new plan proposes:

• The new proposal reduces funding for maintaining and improving the city’s traffic signal, sign and marking system, reducing that line item from $67 million (with $20 million in additional leveraged funds*) to $37 million (with $7 million in leverage).

• It slightly reduces protected bike lane and greenway funding, which is down $2 million from $67 million; that money would pay for 50 miles of protected bike lanes and 60 miles of greenways.

• It includes an additional $1 million for curb ramp and crossing improvements.

• The proposal reduces funding to repave arterial streets by $20 million, from $255 million with $70 million in leverage to $235 million, with $50 million in leveraged funds, and reduces funds for repaving “targeted locations” (presumably this is the pothole line item) from $20 million to $15 million, with $5 million in projected leveraged funds for each level of funding. Even with reduced funding, the mayor’s proposal says the money would pay for the same amount of improvements—repaving “up to” 180 lane-miles of arterial streets (not the same thing as actual miles) and 65 targeted locations per year.

• Multimodal and “transit plus” improvements (i.e. RapidRide) get a bit more funding in the mayor’s latest plan—$100 million, compared to the original $75, with $246 million in leveraged dollars under each plan. The transit/”multimodal” improvements have been shuffled and consolidated in this latest plan, though, making it tough to tell how much was originally allocated for signal re-timing and “intelligent transportation system improvements,” for example (those items were lumped into larger categories in the original proposal) and whether the new numbers are an increase or a reduction.

• Sidewalks, the hottest topic at every council district forum, get more love under the latest plan, with $35 million in additional funding for sidewalks and improvements for streets without sidewalks, up to $61 million from the original $26 million (leveraged funds are the same under both expenditure levels, at $9 million).

• Neighborhood projects, vaguely defined, get $3 million more under this plan, with $26 million total compared to the initial $23.

• And South Park Broadview gets $8 million less for flood drainage.

Notice anything I missed? Feel free to let me know in the comments or on Twitter (@ericacbarnett).

 

City Council, Elections

Meet the Candidates for Council Positions 8 and 9

Screen shot 2015-04-18 at 8.50.18 PM

You could be forgiven for feeling utterly confused at last week’s 32nd and 46th District Democrats’ city council campaign forum (the description is a mouthful in itself), where no fewer than 15 candidates sat down at long card tables flocked by ostentatious bunting to churn out answers to North Seattle-focused questions posed by former KCTS9 public-affairs host Enrique Cerna. 

Some candidates took the opportunity—one minute per question, plus a second or two for “lightning round” questions that failed to produce a single spark—to rehearse for their stump speech. (Sandy Brown, John Roderick). Others treated the forum as a rare chance to rant in the general direction of a captive audience. (Alex Tsimerman, David Trotter). And still others seemed unaware that they were supposed to speak at a forum that night, (See the post immediately before this one). 

At last week’s candidate cotillion for Positions 8 and 9, the eight contenders for the two at-large city council seats (the other seven council members will now represent geographic districts) stretched out behind the same long table all nine of the candidates for North Seattle’s District 5 had recently vacated, with lone council incumbent Tim Burgess seated like a patriarch at the head of the table, looking a bit forlorn and confused about where he was and how he’d gotten there. (Lorena Gonzalez and Bill Bradburd, the only two Position 9 candidates who had declared at the time, were paired up on the right end of the table).

Burgess, of course, is a two-term council climber who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2013 and now, as council president, keeps the legislative troops in formation by quelling leaks and attempting to make sure that as few council decisions as possible become public before the vote is decided. A formidable fundraiser since his very first run (at the end of March, he had raised $115,449, including $6,200 from himself and will almost certainly report no April contributions until the May 5 deadline), Burgess is opposed by a five-man crew of council wannabes including a well-funded indie rocker, a Nazi-saluting council nagger, a tenants’ rights advocate who lives in a house his parents bought him on foreclosure; a lefty activist named David Trotter whose website begins “trotterearthwind,” and a sincere-seeming longshoreman named John Persak.

Of those five, Roderick seems likely to be the heaviest hitter, because of both his significant name recognition and his sincerity as a candidate. Roderick can raise out of town money without lifting a finger (the vast majority of his latest, $42,000, haul came from outside Seattle), and his self-positioning as a reasonable-but-super-lefty guy (a likable lefty like Nick Licata) makes him appealing to young, earnest Seattle voters and an ideological foil to Burgess, who has been cast as the city council’s “conservative,” which in Seattle seems to mean an oil train opponent who went to the mat for universal preschool.

Screen shot 2015-04-18 at 8.10.19 PM

Roderick’s voluble (seriously; check out his campaign website or just ask him why he’s running and grab a seat) and seems accessible in a way that Burgess does not. The other viable contender, Tenants Union head Jon Grant (that’s right, there are three Jo[h]ns in this race) has a good issue (affordable housing for the truly needy) but will have trouble drowning out the two alpha males in the race and may have hit his fundraising ceiling. And the three remaining candidates—the aforementioned Nazi saluter, Alex Tsimerman, who refused to participate in the yes/no “lightning round because “I do not believe in this bullshit election,” along with Trotter, who mentioned a lawsuit he has going against the city, and Persak, who chimed a cautionary note against banning oil trains at the expense of jobs—will be this race’s also-rans.

Roderick’s rhetoric of consensus (as in, “The wonderful thing about living in a one-party system as we do here in Seattle is that we don’t have to debate whether climate change is real [or] whether the earth was created in seven days”) didn’t seem to rattle Burgess, who sat impassively, in his purple pullover and jeans, waiting his turn at the end of the table while Roderick went on about the city’s “broad consensus” on virtually every issue.

He did seem a bit rattled, however, when Grant pointed out that Burgess had chaired the council’s public safety committee when the Department of Justice handed down its consent decree, mandating that the Seattle Police Department address its problems with biased policing and excessive use of force. And he bristled a bit when his opponents suggested he hadn’t done enough to put the police under public scrutiny and ensure that most officers are hired from inside city limits. “The problem is the suburbanization of the police department,” Roderick said. “The police commute into the city (with their “Issaquah values,” he later suggested) and and think of the city as a separate country and in some places enemy territory.”

“We need to have as much surveillance on the police as we possibly can,” he concluded. Burgess responded, a bit defensively, “As a former police officer, I know a lot about this issue. … I met with the U.S. attorney the day after her report came out, trying to get the city to take a cooperative posture to solve this, and we’re now actually making progress on police reform.”

In the less-hotly-contested (and open) Position 9, Lorena Gonzalez, Mayor Ed Murray’s legal counsel and the attorney who represented the man who was beat up, infamously, by two officers who threatened to beat the “Mexican piss” out of him, squared off against opponent Bill Bradburd, a neighborhood activist who has fought against increased density from microhousing and taller buildings in low-rise areas.

 

City Council, City Hall, Elections

Meet the Candidates in North Seattle’s Council District 5

Screen shot 2015-04-15 at 10.41.07 PM

You could be forgiven for feeling utterly confused at last night’s 32nd and 46th District Democrats’ city council campaign forum (the description is a mouthful in itself), where no fewer than 15 candidates sat down at long card tables flocked by ostentatious bunting to churn out answers to North Seattle-focused questions posed by former KCTS9 public-affairs host Enrique Cerna. 

Some candidates took the opportunity—one minute per question, plus a second or two for “lightning round” questions that failed to produce a single spark—to rehearse for their stump speech. (Sandy Brown, John Roderick). Others treated the forum as a rare chance to rant in the general direction of a captive audience. (Alex Tsimerman, David Trotter). And still others seemed unaware that they were supposed to speak at a forum that night. (Mian Rice, but more on that later.)

The first cattle call brought together all the candidates for the wide-open District 5 position, which will represent the northernmost neighborhoods of Seattle.

They include, from left to right: Sandy Brown; Debadutta Dash; Mercedes Elizalde; Mian Rice; David Toledo; and Halei Watkins.

Instead of going through the questions one by one (they were, without exception, about exactly the same topics you’d expect at a North Seattle forum, namely sidewalks, density, oil trains, homelessness, police accountability), here are a few of my initial impressions of the candidates for North Seattle’s council district.

• Mercedes Elizalde, a Low Income Housing Institute employee by day and self-professed housing activist by night, may be a no-shot candidate, but she’s also a fiery, well-spoken advocate for her issue, which is low-income housing. (She also bears a slight but noticeable resemblance to another passionate candidate of yore, the one and only Christal Wood.)

Asked about the lack of affordable housing in Seattle, Elizalde responded that she had just helped a family move a formerly homeless family into an apartment—”I lifted their bags and moved them in”—and later said that the city’s current affordable housing programs are untenable because they cater to people making $25 an hour or more, in a city that is just now raising its minimum wage to a still-unlivable $11 an hour. (She also wore a red-and-black scarf “in honor of Equal Pay Day,” the date each year when the average working woman’s pay catches up to what the equivalent male worker made in the previous year.)

The slogan on Elizalde’s campaign lit: “Bringing a Neighborhood Perspective Back to the City Council.”

• The Rev. Sandy Brown, a Methodist minister and leading member of the Committee to End Homelessness, was a standout among the seven District 5 contenders, speaking eloquently and thoughtfully about everything from Seattle’s homeless, to the need for sidewalks in North Seattle, to gun control, to rent stabilization. Brown had a specific, seemingly heartfelt response to every question, but seemed most passionate about homelessness, which he suggested was going to require “a locally-based rent subsidy program” and possibly a municipal bank to provide loans for low-income houising developments.

I picked up a Brown door-hanger but dropped it, so let’s just say it said he was the most prepared, accessible candidate in this crowded race.

• Halei Watkins, the young Planned Parenthood organizer seen as a long shot in this race, came across as confident and well-informed, but my guess is that she’ll get sidelined pretty quickly by other, better-funded candidates. (Watkins appears to be hitting a fundraising wall). That’s too bad, because Watkins seems to have a nuanced take on issues like homelessness and affordable housing, and can speak publicly with much more confidence than some of her competitors. (Her campaign lit is headlined simply, “Vote Halei Watkins for Seattle City Council.”

Which brings us to…

• Mian Rice, son-of-ex-mayor Norm and perhaps—there is no other way to say it—the most uncomfortable, ill-prepared public speaker I’ve seen in a city race since Tom Rasmussen ran for the first time in 2003. I’m not saying Rice has no views on the issues—as a frontrunner who’s thought about running for a while, he surely does—but he sure wasn’t revealing any of those views last night. Instead, he answered almost every question by restating the topic of the question (deadpan voice: “Homelessness.” “Sidewalks.” “Coal trains.”) as if competing in a spelling bee. And when he got past that first apparent stumbling block, his answers were vague and confusing, full of platitudes along the lines of “I will work with diverse stakeholders to solve the common problems facing the people of Seattle in these times.”

Look, I get it: It sucks to have to speak in front of crowds when public speaking makes you nervous. That’s why nervous campaigners—and there are many—hire a speech coach to work them through the hardest parts of it. If that isn’t in Rice’s budget, I suggest the old imagine-they’re-all-naked trick.

Rice’s campaign lit reads: “I’m ready to hit the ground running to work for District #5.”

• Deborah Juarez, a Native American-Hispanic attorney who grew up in poverty on “the rez,” had an impressive resumé (King County Superior Court judge, an aide to former governors Gary Locke and Mike Lowry, “building casinos”) but didn’t light my fire with her talk about rent control and more tent cities. She gave a shoutout to David Axelrod, the Obama confidante whose new book, Believer, is about his decades as a political consultant, and mentioned that her tribe, the Blackfeet Nation, banned coal trains from their tribal lands.

The 25-year North Seattle resident’s campaign literature begins: “Finally, a Voice for North Seattle.”

• Debadutta Dash, who just declared last Friday but started armed with endorsements from two prominent non-district residents, U.S. Congressman Adam Smith (WA-9) and state Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-11), responded to questions with all-over-the-map responses—stating, for example, that since “even a fifth-grader [knows] that sidewalk[s are] an important part of civic life … and I am smarter than a fifth-grader,” he could get sidewalks built in neighborhoods that haven’t had new sidewalks for decades. Dash also said he wanted to get youth involved with, and increase cultural diversity in, Seattle’s civic processes, and require “corporations” to provide housing for low-income people.

He isn’t going to win, but he does have ideas and a yard-sign-friendly name.

The headline on Dash’s campaign handout: “Let’s build a better North Seattle.”

• Finally, I’ve saved the wild-card candidate for last. David Toledo, who’s lived here forever and worked in elder services and low-income housing for much of his life, is the kind of kooky also-ran you want to see in council races; unlike angry, Nazi-saluting Alex Tsimerman (read more about him tomorrow, when I cover the races for council Positions 8 and 9), Toledo filters slightly wacky opinions and sincerely held beliefs through a kaleidoscopic lens that produces campaign postcards showing him holding his daughter, a Coke, and a hamburger in front of a wall of very artistically designed David Toledo cartoons in various styles, as well as his take on “Meet the Beatles”:

Screen shot 2015-04-15 at 10.53.51 PM

Toledo’s angry, but in the way of a man who’s lived in a place for decades and is frustrated by the lack of improvements in the things that are wrong with that place. He’s mad about the lack of sidewalks (“Sally Clark said, ‘Sidewalks, sidewalks, sidewalks,’ and we haven’t gotten new sidewalks for the past 40 years“);  mad at people who oversimplify the coal train issue (yes, he said, we need more regulations on trains transporting dirty, dangerous cargo, but “we’ve got people here that are hurting for jobs”); and mad about human trafficking (in an unfortunate analogy, he compared women who turn tricks on Aurora to the Nigerian victims of Boko Haram, which has abducted hundreds of girls and reportedly sold many of them as sex slaves).

Overall, Toledo came across as a regular guy with a sense of humor about himself and a working-class sensibility. He won’t win either (he even threw his hat in the ring for the council vacancy created when Clark left to take a more stable job at the UW, despite the fact that the person who gets that seat is theoretically supposed to promise they won’t run again), but it’ll be fun to watch him campaign.

Toledo’s campaign literature (including the aforementioned postcard and a bumper sticker) is headlined: “I’ve been your North Seattle neighbor for over 40 years!”

Stay tuned for Positions 8 and 9 tomorrow.

City Hall, Elections

March Money Madness

Among many other goals (neighborhood representation, “a voice for the people” at City Hall, closer council contact with constituents), one of the aims of district elections, in which every citizen has a council member from their general geographic area, was to reduce the role of money in local politics, by removing some of the barriers to entry that blocked ordinary citizens from running for city council. If candidates have to reach fewer people, the logic went, they shouldn’t have to spend as much money on fancy consultants, citywide mailings, and TV, radio, and print ads.

Did it work? With the filing deadline still more than a month away, it’s obviously too soon to say whether money will cease being the defining characteristic of successful council candidates, but it is clear that in races where incumbents are seeking reelection, challengers are finding it much harder to woo contributors. Chalk that up to the power of incumbency or the desire for some institutional knowledge on a council that will soon be filled with first-timers and political novices.

What’s also clear is that district elections have lowered the barriers to entry at least somewhat: Four years ago, when five incumbents were up for reelection, they drew a total of eight challengers. This year, six council incumbents (excluding the three open seats) have drawn 14 challengers.

(The total often cited as proof that districts shake up the system—40 candidates running in all—ignores the fact that there are open seats, although three of those seats arguably might not be open if it weren’t for district elections.)

Overall, the candidates, including both challengers and incumbents, are generally on par with where comparable contenders were at this time four years ago

I’ll go district by district, look at the money so far, and say what I think the numbers might indicate at this early stage. I’ll point out in advance that I’ve excluded candidates who aren’t likely to go far or raise much money; Alex Tsimerman fans, you can stop reading now.

In District 1, West Seattle, the hasty departure of three-term incumbent Tom Rasmussen has created a vacuum that ten candidates (previously 11) have volunteered to fill, more than a couple of them credible.

Screen shot 2015-04-13 at 3.59.32 PM
West Seattle’s District 1 has drawn 10 candidates … so far.

Shannon Braddock, a legislative aide to West Seattle’s representative on the King County Council, Joe McDermott, brought in $10,880 this month, for a total raised of $19,993, with $8,103 on hand. Lisa Herbold (who—full disclosure—is a longtime friend whom I’m supporting) brought in a comparable $10,324, for a total of $23,273 on hand. Brianna Thomas, a lefty housing advocate who worked on the $15 minimum wage campaign in SeaTac, raised $5,111 in March for a total of $16,034, with $11,576 on hand. And Charles (Chaz) Redmond, the first candidate to declare his intentions, back in late 2013), raised just $900 in March, for a total of $4,134 with $2,679 on hand.

Herbold and Braddock seem like the top contenders in this race, now that business owner Dave Montoure—owner of the West 5 bar and opponent of the $15 minimum—has dropped out.

In Southeast Seattle’s second district, incumbent Bruce Harrell has, as expected, far outraised challenger Tammy Morales, a food-systems advocate and principal at Urban Food Link. This past month, Harrell brought in $17,565, for a total of $96,421 raised with $75,662 on hand. In comparison, Morales raised $4,323 in March, for a total of $28,653 but with just $4,115 on hand. For Morales, success will be a strong showing against fundraising juggernaut Harrell, positioning her to run for an open seat in the future.

Screen shot 2015-04-13 at 4.02.12 PM
In Seattle’s District 3, three are challenging popular incumbent Kshama Sawant.

Over in Capitol Hill and central Seattle’s District 3, the realm of internationally popular Socialist council member Kshama Sawant, challenger Pamela Banks, formerly of the Urban League, raised $17,785 in March—her first month of fundraising—and has $6,460 on hand. Fellow challenger Rod Hearne, former director of the gay-rights group Equal Rights Washington, brought in $9,180 for a total of $30,295, with $14,536 on hand, while self-proclaimed women’s rights advocate Morgan Beach raised $2,587 in March, for a total of $8,406 with $5,340 on hand.

Incumbent Sawant, meanwhile, brought in more money than any of her challengers—$26,998, for a total of $51,329 with $7,677 on hand. Expect Banks to quickly catch up on Sawant in the money race, but remember that even big spending and an endorsement from Sawant’s turncoat colleague Harrell may not be enough to combat Sawant’s cult of personality.

Up in Northeast Seattle’s District 4, incumbent Jean Godden continue to spend money as fast as she raised it, bringing in $15,329 for a total of $63,152, but with just $21,451 on hand. (This month alone, more than $5,100 went to consultant Cathy Allen’s Connections Group, including $3,000 for consulting and thousands more for miscellaneous expenses. Godden spent another $2,000 on a fundraising consultant, McKenna Hartman).

Challenger Rob Johnson, longtime director of Transportation Choices Coalition, raised a comparatively meager $7,901, for a total of $38,293, but had almost as much as Godden—$18,497—on hand. Democratic Party activist and parks advocate Michael Maddux brought in $2,605 for a total of $9,845, with $5,619 on hand.

Further north in District 5, the only district in which no sitting city council members lives, no candidate has massively outraised any other (making the case, I suppose, that districts suppress the influence of money in this one, very specific, instance), four of the seven candidates raised any significant amount of cash.

Sandy Brown, former director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, raised $7,015 this month for a total of $42,768 with $8,846 on hand. Former mayor Norm Rice’s son, Port of Seattle manager Mian Rice, raised $9,191 in March, for a total of $35,340 with $9,701 on hand. Low-income housing advocate Mercedes Elizalde, meanwhile, raised just $381 this month, for a total of $3,106 with $2,975 on hand; and Planned Parenthood organizer Halei Watkins had the unlucky distinction of being the only person in the race (and one of just a few in all nine races) with a negative balance: $1,770 raised in March, for a total of $9,704 raised, and negative $1,535 on hand.

Mike O’Brien, the incumbent council member and Fremont resident now running in District 6, started raising money in earnest this month after a quiet January and February, raising $21,805 in March to bring his total to $23,814, with $19,702 on hand. His opponent, City Neighborhood Council co-chair Catherine Weatbrook, brought in $8,641, for a total of $9,903, with $6,342 on hand.

In the downtown-to-Magnolia seventh district, council incumbent Sally Bagshaw continues, inexplicably, to draw no opponents, but also continues to raise money at a slow but respectable pace. In March, the downtown resident raised $$8,796, for a total of $52,247, with $24,043 on hand.

In the first of the two citywide council seats, council incumbent Tim Burgess, a formidable fundraiser in his previous, at-large, races, brought in $36,004 this month—more than any other candidate in any race—for  total of $115,449, with a whopping $96,493 on hand. (Last time, when he ran at large and did not have a credible opponent, Burgess raised $253,964.) Tenants Union director Jonathan Grant, who is running on an affordable-housing platform, raised a fraction of Burgess’ haul, bringing in $2,485 for a total of $21,127 with $19,358 on hand. John Persak, a lefty longshoreman’s union member, raised $3,160 for a total of $20,690, with $16,024 on hand, and Long Winters frontman John Roderick, who just announced his candidacy early this month, had raised a nominal $300, for a total of $1,000 with $209 on hand.

Finally, in the completely open race for the second at-large seat nine (council member Sally Clark withdrew from the race and subsequently resigned from the council), Mayor Ed Murray’s legal counsel, Lorena Gonzalez, raised more than her two leading opponents, though both will likely give her a run for her money. In March, Gonzalez raised $21,003, for a total of $42,108 with $36,108 on hand, while neighborhood gadfly and density opponent Bill Bradburd raised $13,175 for a total of $36,878, with a very competitive $32,268 on hand. EDITED TO ADD: And James Keblas, former director of the city’s office of film and music, has dropped out of the race after just two weeks in it.

None of those numbers count liabilities (debts and obligations that candidates can either repay or forgive by the end of their campaigns), and the candidate rankings are obviously subject to change in the coming months. New candidates may emerge before the May 15 filing deadline, throwing off the dynamics of still-fluid races, and some single-issue candidates may hit their natural fundraising limit. Stay tuned; we still have four months to go before the first city Election Day.

City Hall, Elections

Gender-Inclusive Restrooms Proposed as LGBT Members Depart City Council
Image via City of Seattle.
Image via City of Seattle.

Outgoing member Sally Clark, who is leaving the council this month for a fancy-ish communications gig (you and me both, sister) at UW, said last week that she hopes her successor, whoever he or she may be, will continue pursuing issues important to LGBT Seattleites, even though the council will likely no longer have a single gay or lesbian member. (Tom Rasmussen is the other LGBT council member; former Equal Rights Washington director Rod Hearne EDITED TO ADD: and Michael Maddux are the only viable gay candidates running, against popular incumbent Kshama Sawant in the new 3rd council district and Jean Godden in the new 4th, respectively.

For example, Clark says the council is currently working on a law requiring all businesses with single-stall restrooms to provide gender-neutral signage, indicating that the restrooms may be used by people of any gender. “With the growth of trans visibility and power, you get a lot of people who say, ‘Why should I be walking into a restaurant or other place of public accommodation and have them say, “Hey, that’s not your restroom!”‘”

What the council would like, Clark says, “is to say, ‘You have a certain amount of time to changes your signage'” to accommodate transgender people. (The council is deliberately not taking on the issue of gender-inclusive multi-stall restrooms, which would be much more controversial). The change would also make it easier for people with disabilities who travel with an aide of another gender to use the restroom without getting weird looks from other customers, Clark says.

The only potential problem Clark sees is that some business owners with more than one single-stall restroom may grouse that they have to install a urinal in each one. But she points out: “They manage to pee in a toilet at home, I’m sure they can manage it when they’re out” in public.

As for whether a lack of gay representation will affect the council’s focus on LGBT issues, Clark is hesitant. “I would love to think that it doesn’t matter anymore, but I think there are still issues that come up in municipal government for LGBT people,” she says—like “how do single, older LGBT people find appropriate staff and housing, how are LGBT people treated in the shelter system? It does bother me that there most likely won’t be an LGBT person serving” on the council, Clark says.

There’s still time. The filing deadline for the August 4 primary election is Friday, May 15.

City Hall

No Circus In Store for This Council Appointment

civic

City Council member Sally Clark’s abrupt announcement this morning (as a panelist at last night’s Civic Cocktail, held at the Palace ballroom downtown, she betrayed no inkling of her planned bombshell) that she will step down from the council on April 12 set a series of events in motion that we haven’t seen since 2005, when then-council member Jim Compton resigned under the shadow of Strippergate, a scandal involving bundled contributions from strip-club impresario Frank Colucurcio.

Unlike that raucous three-ring event, the process of replacing Clark promises to be a fairly swift, streamlined affair. No more “individuals seeking congruity in the oneness of our city.” No more candidates bragging that their main qualification is that they’re totally unqualified. No more candidates endorsing other candidates. No more (I assume) Pete Holmes and Roger Valdez seeking the same elective office. 

Instead, the council—helmed by council president Tim Burgess, who’s losing a frequent ally in Clark—will publish the final list of applicants and their qualifications on April 14, when the application period closes, pick three finalists in executive session, announce them on the 20th, and hold a public hearing—at which the rejected candidates will have their only opportunity to address the council, in the one minute allotted during public comments—before picking the winner, who is supposed to pledge to serve only the remainder of Clark’s term.

Burgess has also said the candidate should “understand city government and the public policy issues associated with the Council’s Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency; demonstrate a commitment to social justice and the ability to communicate and collaborate effectively across cultures and with diverse populations; and [have a] desire to serve the people of Seattle and assume the responsibilities and accountability inherent in the work of a Councilmember.”

So many questions. Why not vet the candidates in public like the last time, and let the public in on the process of selecting one of its representatives? Why not take a little more time with the vetting process (the city charter’s “requirement” that a vacancy be filled within 20 days of a council member’s departure, by May 2 in Clark’s case, allows the council to keep deliberating as long as they do so every day, publicly, until they decide)? And why all the mandatory-seeming “qualifications,” like experience with health and human services (Clark’s committee) and the promise not to run for reelection?

Nothing in the charter says that a council appointee must take the committee of the person she’s replacing; the only possible reasons to insist on that tradition are to ensure continuity amid chaos, or to lock other council members out of the job.

The first is obvious: The last council appointment was a circus that made the council appear weak and disorganized, and still produced council member Sally Clark. Why go through all the hassle when so many more virtual eyes will be on the council (and its now-weakened president Burgess) this time around?

As for the second and third: In short, the council wants to get this done quickly and have someone who can “hit the ground running” because of the upcoming districted elections, in which five incumbents will be fighting to keep their seats; plus, a lame duck council member won’t threaten candidates like Mayor Murray’s legal counsel, Lorena Gonzalez, who have already announced for the new at-large position for which Clark had declared.

Another wrinkle: The “qualifications”—housing and human-services expertise—presume that whoever takes Clark’s seat will also take over her committee, which is telling in itself. Other incumbents, including Kshama Sawant (currently making socialist pronouncements from the dais as City Light committee chair) might want that relatively high-profile assignment. Nothing in the charter says that a council appointee must take the committee of the person she’s replacing; the only possible reasons to insist on that tradition are to ensure continuity amid chaos, or to lock other council members out of the job.

Say what you will about the sometimes anarchic character of the 2006 process, it was one of the first times we’ve ever seen the council really process in public, and it may well be one of the last. When the council appointed Clark, Twitter hadn’t even been founded, and blogs like the one I was writing for (where Josh Feit and I foreshadowed Twitter by liveblogging the nearly five-hour-long public vetting) were just getting their sea legs. The council wasn’t quite as media-savvy and insistent on controlling the message (plus, there weren’t as many web sites covering city politics and policy, and meetings weren’t yet broadcast online), which left some breathing room for interesting, unpredictable things to happen. Yes, we would have probably gotten Sally Clark with or without the parade of weirdos. But it wouldn’t have been nearly as much fun.