Hey, that 'splains it!

I kept wondering why the push for a city manager. I mean, not only will it cost money to even vote on the issue, but none of the arguments are strong enough to demand the change now. We are in a fiscal crisis, but Mr. Plunkett feels the need to spend time pushing a change in government. (In fact he already nominated a person for the position in a letter to the papers, without telling that person, and while that person was out of town. Stay classy Michael.)

Removing the strong mayor reduces tax payer’s direct representation while empowering an already fractious and divided city council. It demands more money for salary from a position that is often held for less time than a four year mayoral term leading to more turnover and less continuity. The city manager is often hired from outside while the mayor must be a citizen who is directly affected by the council and the decisions that they make.

So why now? Why is our system failing us?

Turns out that it it isn’t. However the republican party had put forth to it’s minions to lead the charge to a city manager in cities that it does not think it has a chance to take and hold in future elections. Cue Jim Smith in Lynnwood and Michael Plunkett in Edmonds.

Hey, that explains why Mr. Plunkett says Lynnwood is exploring the idea, like it is the wave of the future.

Do your own research. www.mrsc.org is a great place to start. It is a Seattle based nonprofit dedicated to excellence in government. Search “strong mayor-council” and the “council-city manager” on google or yahoo to help determine your thoughts. Although I think the timing is horrible and misguided, chances are we will have to vote on this. (At least we only have to pay about $.50 a person to let our voices be heard) I think Edmonds will vote to keep their mayor, but at least Michael Plunkett can go back to his Republican sith lords and declare that he got it on the ballot.

Maybe this explains why Mr. Plunkett demands three to four public hearings on every other subject to hear from the voters fully what is on their minds, but is content to have but one on this dramatic, not very timely or relevant, and very much done for personal gains, subject.

City Manager?

Can anyone tell me why we are having discussions regarding switching to a city manager form of government? Is this really necessary now?

Putting this on the regular ballot will cost 20 grand. A special election will cost over 100 thousand bucks. Wouldn't it be just as effective a waste of money and as dramatic of a statement for certain council members to light cigars with burning $100 bills while cackling and rubbing their hands together like Snidley Whiplash???

City Council Vacancy

17 people submitted applications for the city council position vacated by Dave Orvis. In order of submittal they are:

- Stacy Gardea
- Amy Walker
- Carl Brecht
- Lora Petso
- Todd Cloutier
- Andrew Eccleshall
- Deborah Anderson
- Paul Anderson
- Don Fiene
- Richard Senderoff
- Harry Gatjens
- Frank Yamamoto
- Alvin Rutledge
- Cyndi Correnti
- Jeff Wilson
- Frank Demme
- Roger Hertrich

There are some pretty qualified names on that list. However I am pretty sure this is all a formality. Remember the last appointment where there was no discussion, one round of nominations and one round of voting to put Diane Buckshnis on the council? It almost looked like the fix was in.

(This may be an appropriate time to remind people that Mr. Bernheim stated he couldn't support appointing someone who lost a recent election, and then did; of the inappropriate quorum after that meeting; Mr. Bernheim's statement of "You haven't seen anything yet" after being called out on it; and members of the council attacking a citizen for having concerns regarding their inappropriate, if not illegal, or at least unethical, quorum. You have thus been reminded.)

So my guess is we will see the same blatant flaunting of power by the majority who will deny the citizens even a sham of pretending to consider the applicants carefully and they will seat Richard Senderoff on the first vote.

Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope so.

It's good to know our City Council treats it's citizens with respect. Oh wait!

From Approved City Council Minutes of May 25, 2010.

Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to email communication with Councilmember Buckshnis prompted by a levy proposal he sent to Councilmember on May 11. He qualified his proposal with three assumptions, 1) approximately $600,000 in Fire District 1 receipts would be returned to the General Fund, 2) pay increases for 2011 and 2012 be limited to 2.5% versus the 3.5% in the forecast, and 3) the ending balance for each year would be no lower than $3 million. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with his assumptions, stating that was how misinformation got disseminated. He acknowledged
Councilmember Buckshnis’ right to disagree with his assumptions; however, in the context they were provided, they were not misinformation.

In a series of emails that followed, that was the last reference to the levy proposal and Councilmember Buckshnis proceeded to criticize him for other alleged failings including why he had not audited the Fire District 1 numbers and that if he had listened to her and others it may have been possible to save the City $1 – $1½ million. Councilmember Buckshnis arrived at that conclusion via a flawed analysis by totaling expenses that included compensation and not other expenses incurred by Fire District 1. He suggested if Councilmember Buckshnis audited Fire District 1 costs, she would find the contract with Fire District 1 was a bargain for Edmonds. Next, he disagreed with Councilmember Buckshnis’ assertion that $400,000 was removed from the REET fund, commenting she did not understand the 2009 REET statement. Finally she insulted him with a statement that it was no wonder he did not get past the primary and speculated he had a problem with intelligent women.

He quoted from an email by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, “do not waste your time Diane with him, he still thinks he is on Council as evident by attending every event and meeting possible...you need to consider his age and his need to remain involved no matter if he is correct or not. Kind of sad.” Mr. Wambolt invited the public to email him at RRWambolt@msn.com to read the emails.

Does this look familiar to anyone? (and it is under three minutes)

What a week - a few thoughts

• Good luck with the new job Gary. I know the county will benefit from your experience and leadership, although I fear for our new mayor. (If it is one of the current apparent pretenders: be careful what you wish fir) Whether you like Gary or not, and for the record I think he was and still is a superb mayor, I think everyone can admit he sets the bar for an elected official. He has an amazing ability to put up with continued abuse and defamation and let it roll off his back with a smile. I don't envy him the last few years, and I think the city is poorer for his loss.
• How is it we can offer $1.2 million dollars for a piece of land with no appraisal, no plans and no funds but suddenly we can't afford a $15,000 contract with Climate Solutions to address environmental issues including energy efficiency, clean energy financing, distributed renewable technologies, smart grids, and electric cars.
  
• On that note, I am disturbed by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas waffling on this vote. Again, she was set to spend money the city didn't have on a giant albatross last month, but wants to "sit back" and see "what the budget looks like" before making up her mind, after making it up, then unmaking it, before making it up again. I have no problem with someone changing their mind after considered debate and discussion. In fact I think that shows a sign of intelligence and strength. Two weeks and a few citizens yelping is not considered debate and discussion.