Clyde Hill News: Mayor, Police impasse
Local impact of transitional housing legislation; also, updated fee schedule
The Mayor’s plan to address the many trust problems at City Hall is the topic from this week’s council meeting most likely to interest residents. This week’s issue focuses on how we got here and what’s ahead.
Also of interest to residents: legislation regarding “transitional and permanent supportive housing” and Clyde Hill’s land use code, along with an update to the schedule of fees residents pay for city services.
If you find this newsletter useful or interesting, please forward it to your Clyde Hill neighbors and friends. Thank you!
Disclaimer: while I am a councilmember on the Clyde Hill City Council, I write this newsletter in my capacity as an individual resident. Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the position of the City. The information and references here are from public sources. I welcome email responses — and if the topic is about City business I will respond from my City email account.
The Trust Problems at City Hall
Tuesday night, the Mayor described her plans to address the ongoing trust issues between the Administration’s leadership (the Mayor and the City Administrator) and the rest of the Administration (police and city staff).
Last month, the Council unanimously approved a statement about the
“serious problem in the relationship between Administration leadership and the police for some time, that this problem has had an impact on police morale and has caused a danger to the community.” (link)
and asking for a report on the plan and next steps to address the problem.
Because this topic involves public safety (an important issue for the Clyde Hill community) and is complex to begin with, let’s break it down:
What’s the evidence of a problem
What did the Mayor and City Administrator commit to
What happens next
Evidence of a problem
In September, public evidence of trust issues hit a tipping point when an exit interview with a departing Clyde Hill police officer indicated “a clear lack of trust in the administration” (link). The Mayor indicated that she would evaluate and respond to what she called “allegations.”
In October, the union representing Clyde Hill police officers expressed serious concerns about the Administration, including misrepresenting facts to the police and mishandling City documents (link). A public letter from the union alleged “dereliction of duty” by the Mayor and City Administrator.
In October, in response to the exit interview and the letter, the City Council unanimously approved a resolution asking the Mayor and City Administrator to acknowledge and address the ongoing “serious problem” between them and Clyde Hill’s police officers. (link) The Mayor acknowledged the Council resolution and the need to report back on progress.
Later in October, the Chair of Clyde Hill’s Civil Service Commission wrote that “We risk losing more Clyde Hill police officers” unless Administration leadership addresses the serious problem between them and Clyde Hill’s police officers. (link)
Back in May, this newsletter reported (“Police Investigate City Hall Harassment Claims,” link) on an investigation of City Administrator Dean Rohla regarding a complaint of harassment. The gist of the complaint involved reports of bullying and intimidation as well as allegations of other abusive and unprofessional behavior.
Earlier in the year, councilmembers asked the Mayor to investigate “specific concerns regarding Administration/Police relations” based on “concerns expressed from individual officers” (link). There has been no report out from the Mayor on these complaints.
These incidents are separate from the “City Administrator called an officer ‘homeboy’” incident. There is no formal or written evidence of this incident or a disciplinary follow up in City Hall personnel files. (link).
Separately, I am following up on an unconfirmed report that a city staffer attempted to file an HR complaint and was refused.
The Plan…
The gist of the Mayor’s plan involves discussions between her and city staff.
Additionally, the Mayor described other actions being considered:
“looking at leadership training and opportunities either as individuals or as groups… we have looked at HR training and competency refreshers as well… I have made contact with individuals who will be poised to help out with a level of mediation and facilitation… setting up for a very solid listening session — facilitated listening session — amongst myself and the police…”
The Mayor did not share any written plan or dates or deadlines.
You can hear the Mayor describe her plan here; there has been no communication from the City Administrator about his plan or role in addressing these problems:
… and concerns
The Mayor expressed her concern that “no one’s willing or has yet to step forward and tell me to my face what am I doing, what am I not doing.”
She described her “right to know that,” as well as how her “side of the story” is not being heard, how no one is helping her fix the problem, and how people are being negative.
I strongly recommend listening to her reflect on the situation in her own words:
During the discussion, three councilmembers acknowledged the Mayor’s commitment to improve, and also pointed out reasonable concerns on the part of city staff regarding retaliation. Here’s Cm Steve Friedman:
“we’ve been informing you for months and your assumption that someone would walk up and tell you that you have a problem… I mean these are these are people who would have fear for their job and their livelihood….”
Later in the discussion, Cm Friedman suggested to the Mayor:
“you can’t go down and do the blame game here… that’s counterproductive and doesn’t facilitate a working relationship with the staff”
and warned that by trying to sweep the problem
“under the rug… you’re risking the safety — with respect to the police department, especially — you’re risking the safety of the community and that’s dangerous.”
The Mayor’s response was
“I don't know what I am doing that is making them feel like I'm going to retaliate and do something negative… if I've done something that's retaliatory [or] negative I wish they would tell me so I would know.”
What’s next
The Mayor’s plan starts Monday morning at City Hall with a staff meeting.
The plan appears to involve updates at Council meetings. Again, there is nothing written, and it’s not clear what the City Administrator’s plan is.
You can watch video of the full discussion here (link).
Transitional housing in Clyde Hill?
Clyde Hill will “update its land use code to allow the development of permanent supportive and transitional housing” (link) for the homeless in order to comply with Washington State law.
According to the new law, passed in 2021, cities “may not prohibit transitional or permanent supportive housing in any zones where residential dwellings or hotels are allowed,” according to the slide deck from the City’s consultants.
Earlier this year, the City of Medina updated its municipal code to limit this kind of housing (link). The plan appears to be to restrict and limit, as much as possible, what can’t be prohibited. The consultant noted that actual development of such housing in Clyde Hill is unlikely given the expense of land here.
Resident Fees
The City updated its fee schedule, increasing building and inspection fees and making a key change: “The new resolution specifies that residents may not be charged for actual costs incurred by the City for work performed by the city attorney.” (link)
This policy change formalizes guidance from the current City Attorney.
For context and full disclosure here: in my capacity as a resident before I was elected, I filed an appeal with the City regarding a permitting decision.1 The Administration ran up a ~$10,000 legal bill trying different arguments and approaches. After I dropped the appeal, the City sent me the bulk of its legal bill.
The City rescinded its bill based on guidance from its current attorney, following similar guidance from its interim attorneys as well as a government support organization (MRSC.org).
I pushed to formalize this policy change so that no resident would face this, well, malarkey.
There’s more work to do in 2023 around the fee schedule. Some residents have reached out to me with concerns they’d like to see addressed. If you have questions or comments, I hope to hear from you.
And the rest
The Council approved the budget amendment proposed by the Administration, reflecting the City’s increased spending in 2022, along with an IT contract, a small drainage program expenditure, and a contract for a public records specialist to fulfill public records requests while the city staffer who usually does that work is on an extended leave.
The Council did not approve the Administration’s request to permit increased spending with Blueline, the consulting group working on the City’s comprehensive plan.
The Mayor asked for a motion to consider it and — no one on the Council made the motion. This was the first time I’ve seen this happen… there’s a message and signal in not even having the discussion and vote on the topic.
Thanks for reading! Please forward and share with your friends and neighbors, and if you are not already getting this newsletter, subscribing is both easy and free.
Dean Hachamovitch
I asked for a meeting to get the City’s feedback so I could adjust the application. I was told to file a legal appeal in order to have that meeting. After filing the appeal, I asked for a meeting and was told that no meeting could occur because the appeal was in process.