By Erica C. Barnett
In a vote that Councilmember Tammy Morales called a “foregone conclusion,” the city council appointed Tanya Woo to fill the vacant Position 8 council seat on Tuesday. Woo—a Chinatown-International District activist who recently led a successful campaign to stop the expansion of a Salvation Army shelter in SoDo—lost to District 2 (Southeast Seattle) incumbent Tammy Morales in November; now, she’ll represent the entire city.
The council’s choice for this seat was never truly in question, giving the meeting a pro forma, deflated air. Fewer than half the seats in council chambers were full, and almost no one offered public comment in favor of candidates other than Woo; PubliCola spoke briefly with also-rans Linh Thai and Steve Strand before the meeting, and both were in good spirits but resigned to the inevitable. Strand said he was surprised by how much outright campaigning was involved in seeking a council appointment; Thai said the experience had been positive and renewed his faith in ordinary Seattleites.
The vote, which in past council appointments stretched into multiple “rounds” as council members nominated their own preferred candidates, had a scripted feel, with Dan Strauss and Joy Hollingsworth casting courtesy votes for Vivian Song and Thai, respectively; their votes, along with Morales’ vote for Mari Sugiyama, were just enough to ensure that Woo received a five-vote majority on the first round without taking the decision into contested territory.
During her campaign, Woo touted her experience advocating for the CID community, including elderly residents who don’t speak English, as the leader of a community watch group and a co-owner of the Louisa Hotel, a low-income apartment building. Opponents criticized her for failing to vote in local elections for decades (“I come from a community that does not vote,” Woo said at a recent forum) and for seeking appointment to the citywide seat immediately after losing a single-district election.
The councilmember who won that election expressed disappointment in the process that installed her recent election opponent on the council, noting that as much as her new centrist colleagues talked about collaboration and collegiality, they nominated two people who ran against her in a general election—Woo and SPD crime prevention coordinator Mark Solomon—as finalists for the open seat.
“This appointment process should have been set up to give all candidates a fair shake,” Morales said. “But instead, it did become about big business telling donors that they earned the right to tell this council who to choose. And that is deeply problematic, and it is anti-democratic. Seattle voters have been clear, over and over again, that they reject the notion that special interests have a right to buy our elections.”
As PubliCola was first to report last week, political consultant Tim Ceis sent a letter to the funders of the independent expenditure campaigns that swept five new centrist councilmembers into office that their success in those races had “earned you the right to let the Council know not to offer the left the consolation prize of this Council seat” by appointing Seattle School Board member (and former Goldman Sachs analyst) Vivian Song.
Speaking to reporters after the vote, Woo said she thought it was “great that District 2 will have two representatives to serve that district”—herself and Morales. “That district—south Seattle—has been marginalized and, I believe, underserved. It will be great to get double coverage and to be able to work on these issues together,” she said.
Council president Sara Nelson also brought up Ceis’ letter, appearing to blame the media (for the second day in a row) for “the weaponization of a leaked third-party email,” which she called “an effort to cast doubt on the integrity of this process and the outcome of our decision today” as well as “disrespectful” to city council staff and “insulting” to the council itself. In fact, reporting on newsworthy information that politicians would rather keep secret is part of the basic job description of any political reporter, and communications between lobbyists and donors are not government secrets.
Speaking to reporters after the vote, Woo said she thought it was “great that District 2 will have two representatives to serve that district”—herself and Morales. “That district—south Seattle—has been marginalized and, I believe, underserved. It will be great to get double coverage and to be able to work on these issues together,” she said.
Woo will face a citywide election in November; already, one finalist, Bloodworks Northwest government affairs director Juan Cotto, has said he plans to run, and Song told PubliCola after the meeting that she would decide within the next week or so. Asked whether it would be a challenge to run a campaign and be a full-time councilmember, Woo said, “I ran a campaign before, so I think I have that experience. … Doing the work [of a council member] at the same time and expanding that [campaign] to the entire city…. I’m confident that I can do it going forward.”
The ignorance that has informed Barnett’s biased reporting against Tanya Woo and the ethnocentric disdain against the non-English speaking residents of the CID that has been demonstrated by a supposed “progressive” is disgusting, but also instructive.
“Hey, what about Vivian Song? She’s progressive and Asian. See? We can’t be anti-Asian because we like her!”
Right, because all Asians are the same? What a joke. It’s the lack of cognitive dissonance when you blow racist dog-whistles at the overall hypocrisy behind your affectation of morality that really galls. White progressives, like Barnett, are “anti-racist” when it is useful rhetorical and when their non-white “cause” does their bidding.
Many Chinese people came to America so that we’d not have to kowtow anymore. Tanya Woo stands up for her community, the one that has been here for generations and in that time faced unrelenting hostility and constant betrayal. Woo is the real progressive, not you bougie transplant liberal posers; you ought to take lesson about what the struggle is really about.
Publicola readers should know better, but it’s also time for the average person to be better informed. Democracy doesn’t just happen on one November day every 2 or 4 years. You have to stand up and fight for it. On a regular basis. And it requires effort.
Somehow it’s hard for Seattleites to understand that with our off-year elections you just need to know it’s November and there’s an election. And that a Primary almost always happens in advance. I mean, ballots are literally mailed directly to you and you don’t even need a stamp now to send it in to be counted.
Of course, people like to say they don’t vote because they don’t like anyone on the ballot. But we wouldn’t have this less progressive Council if young voters had actually turned out like usual. What were they doing? Too busy shutting down freeways and supporting terrorist groups?
Folks have to lobby for laws ahead of votes. They need to help recruit candidates. Or donate money. Or volunteer on campaigns if they want to see good candidates. We have democracy vouchers for local elections, It’s literally “free” money for you to use to support a candidate. And you don’t even have to be a registered voter or a citizen—just a Seattle taxpayer.
So the reality here is that the political jockeying for Woo happened back in November and December, not this Tuesday or last Friday. And if progressives really wanted to see a different replacement then they should have pressured Mosqueda to resign BEFORE January so that the old Council would have been able to choose the replacement.
If more people learned how politics are played—just like they learn the plots of their favorite shows or the rules of their favorite video game—then maybe things would be better.
Woo is a good candidate. So are all the other new council members and incumbents that won their races. Just because you don’t like a candidate doesn’t mean they are not a good candidate.
How is it that you are framing Tanya Woo, as are most of the commenters, as “a business interest plant?“ I and dozens of acquaintances in my community wrote in in support of Tonya. A handful of us run a small home business. None of us are corporate powers All of us recognize that if you do not have public safety, you cannot have enjoyment of your city, true equity of opportunity or successful business. The public safety crisis on the streets is affecting the freedom of all of our citizens to move safely through the city. we believe Tonya will actually do something about public safety. She has been working with the unhoused and dealing actively with the criminal population in the CID for three years. I would call that your much prized “lived experience“.
The majority of the Seattle’s crime victims are in the central and international district and the south end, and the majority of victims are people of color. So here we have an aggrieved protest against the first Chinese representative from the part of the city formally called Chinatown, instead of a celebration that finally there will be someone on the City Council who will look out not just for the interests of the city, but for the CID.
As for not feeling represented because you didn’t get to vote for her or you voted against her? Mosqueda herself created the situation by abandoning her position to reach for higher political spoils. In this situation the position is appointed, and you didn’t get to vote for any of them. I should also point out that Tanya Woo unequivocally supports protecting and growing our tree canopy. This is essential if we are to combat global warming and survive the coming, warm seasons, and the increasingly intense rains.
It’s really very easy. 1) Ceis openly called for the business interests to push their only candidate who didn’t win for the open seat. 2) Their only candidate who didn’t win was appointed.
Business interests are going to business interest, no matter what it takes.
@Samm The rules were clear – the council gets to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. There was no fix. No rule violated. Nothing unethical. The council did exactly what the law allows them to do.
You should be mad at Mosqueda – she should have ran for KCC only and left her seat open. Then you could have voted for your beloved “Progressive.” Instead, you voted for nothing because Mosqueda was clearly going to abandon the seat and, even more important, it was CLEAR AS DAY that the election was going to shift to the center, not the far let. Your anger is misplaced.
The salty tears from Erika and The Stranger sure are tasty.
One doesn’t need to look past the last school board meeting to understand the impact Song’s residency issues caused for Seattle Public Schools board, families and community. This issue really needs coverage and scrutiny- especially considering the candidate is looking for higher office.
Conflict of interest issues should be explored, as well.
I lot of hyperbole against Woo is generated because she isn’t White and yet, she’s not carrying water for the Left. This makes the Left really mad…. just like Harrell won the mayor’s race. The Left likes to think they’re the soul voice for BIPOC…. but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Interesting how Seattle City Council and their owners are quite open about the whole thing. Of the business interests, by the business interests, for the business interests. Let the “moderate” blitz commence.
Woo is not the first Seattle City Councilmember appointed after losing an election.
Let’s note also that “the process” that Morales is now whining about is a process that was changed by previous appointee Kirsten Harris-Talley, when she was appointed to the Council vacancy created when Tim Burgess (who had already announced he wasn’t running for re-election) was appointed as fill-in Mayor, when Ed Murray resigned. The process is more public than it had been previously, when KHT’s appointment truly was a behind-the-scenes deal by Progressives on that Council.
Erica, as a political reporter, you were scooped by the Seattle Times on the fraud Vivian Song committed to get a seat on the Seattle School Board (https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/seattle-city-council-candidate-has-residency-conflict-in-school-board-role/). Because there is a whole lot more fraud that Song committed. She and her husband, who serves on the Board of The Urbanist (why you may have a big conflict of interest in your non-reporting), together own more than a dozen businesses. But only one is listed on Song’s required PDC F1 Financial Affairs form. People who are married must report these joint assets (as Sara Nelson has done!). But, just as she lied about her residency, Song has lied about her wealth and conflicts of interest.
Reporters across Seattle did a really poor job covering the strengths, weaknesses, and backgrounds of the 8 Council finalists. Maybe you should learn from this and listen to more than those with whom you have an obvious relationship with.
Lol. Love to vote in an election. Sometimes you vote against a candidate, that candidate loses the vote, but they get the spot anyway.
Really makes me feel good about the state of democracy.
This is exactly right. Apparently some city officials need a reminder.
“In fact, reporting on newsworthy information that politicians would rather keep secret is part of the basic job description of any political reporter, and communications between lobbyists and donors are not government secrets.”
Morales got 400 more votes. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement, or a slap to the face to appoint Woo.
What illogic. Of course it’s a slap to the face. Might as well say “losing by 400 votes is basically winning, so they’ve done us all a favor.”
Well this was a surprise. What is the point of even having public testimony?