Clyde Hill News: Prop 1 Questions
What are residents actually voting for or against?
I’m sending a somewhat different newsletter this week in response to a bunch of, well, political questions I’ve gotten from friends and residents:
What’s the point of Prop 1
How to make sense of statements from the groups “for” and “against” Prop 1
Why does the discourse seem so personal and nasty
I admit I’m surprised at how contentious the discourse around this ballot measure has become as well as the misleading information and misrepresentations that have circulated. The following is my attempt, as a resident, to play back and make sense of the issues.
First, a photo (from a recent trip) that came to mind while working through this newsletter:
One more item before our disclaimer: 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.
What’s the point of Prop 1
The ballot that Clyde Hill residents get later this month will ask them:
Shall the city of Clyde Hill adopt the council-manager form of government and abandon the mayor-council form of government beginning March 1, 2023?
From a resident’s point of view, I think Prop 1 boils down to:
“Who do residents choose to manage the person who actually runs the city?”
Let’s break that down…
The person who actually runs the city is not the mayor. Our municipal code (link) reads: “The mayor shall appoint a city administrator,” and the city administrator shall “act as the chief administrative officer and head of the administrative branch of the city government….”
How it works today: Clyde Hill residents choose a single person, the mayor, to manage (set goals for, provide feedback to, have the authority to dismiss) the city administrator.
What Prop 1 would change: Clyde Hill residents continue to choose city councilmembers who, in addition to making laws and approving budgets, would also manage (set goals for, provide feedback to, have the authority to dismiss) the person who actually runs the city: the city manager. The council would also choose a councilmember for the ceremonial role of mayor and to preside over meetings.
Please note that, as the explanatory statement from the Voter’s Pamphlet says:
By state law, the city council cannot interfere with the city manager’s administration (“separation of powers”), just as it cannot interfere with the current mayor’s administration.
So, the city council is not administering the city today and doesn’t become the administration if residents approve Prop 1. The city council doesn’t run anything, just as (at the Federal level) Congress doesn’t run anything under the President.
How to make sense of statements from the groups for and against Prop 1
Candidly, questions about making sense of the “for” and “against” statements have been a struggle to answer graciously.
Back in June, I wrote: To be clear, there are valid arguments for and against keeping the current form of government. Very few have been aired to date. (link)
For
The larger problem the “for” group is pointing out, I think, is that the city’s problems are consequences of having only one person (the mayor) provide oversight on the person who actually runs the city (the city administrator). That’s the point that Scott Moore, the city’s longest-serving councilmember at this time, raised in a guest post here last week (link):
The problem is […] with our current form of government…. Currently, checking bad judgment on the part of the executive is nearly impossible because power is so concentrated in the role of Mayor.
The “for” group has offered many uncomfortable, hard to dispute facts about how poorly things can go when there’s only one person (the mayor) providing oversight on the city executive:
Budget. The Administration’s proposed budget for 2023 includes a planned deficit of over $450,000 (link) while proposing additional staffing and a new city hall. The Administration reports that it expects to finish 2022 with a deficit in excess of $270,000; this follows deficits of ~$50,000 in 2021 and ~$100,000 in 2020 (link).
Supporting the police. For example, the public discussion of a recent police officer exit interview indicates “clear lack of trust in the administration” according to the people present at the interview (link). That the current city administrator addressed a police officer as “homeboy” (link) seems like a problem.
Getting stuff done. The Administration’s struggles with the flag code, stormwater issues, and code enforcement are painful to read across many issues of this newsletter. The easiest specific example to offer here, unfortunately, involves the Administration’s response to the ballot measure itself. The mayor surprised the city council with a bizarre estimate of the cost to change the form of government. After working with the mayor and making no progress, the city council approved a resolution calling the mayor’s cost estimate “inappropriate, non-factual, and thoroughly political.” (link)
Against
The “against” group has offered something a bit different in its arguments.
“It’s always been this way.” While “it’s aways been this way” is true, it’s not an argument for why it is a better way.
“You deserve the right to decide your executive.” If the mayor ran the city, this statement would make sense. This statement is misleading. The chief administrative officer, or the executive, running Clyde Hill is an appointed position. Prop 1 asks residents to chose whether to have a single elected official (the mayor) manage that executive or have a group of elected officials manage that executive.
(It’s worth noting that voters in Clyde Hill, for many, many years, have had only one candidate to choose from for the position of part-time mayor. While that worked well when we had a retired lawyer who could devote a lot of time to this work (the former mayor, George Martin), it’s clear from the examples above that it has not worked well since he retired.)The “against” group has also offered other statements that are somewhat misleading and bizarre. A resident asked me about the “against” side’s claim regarding the city’s large legal bills. From the “against” material: “Legal expenses have… [increased] under current Council’s direction” and “If this is any indication of what is to come under a council-controlled government, then no thank you.”
Let’s be clear. The council doesn’t direct or control or run anything — not even its own council meetings. The mayor does. The council is a deliberative, legislative body that only has authority when it meets in session. Talking about a “council-controlled” government is just misleading.
Complaints by the “against” side about Prop 1 increasing the cost of government while the current form of government is running a large and increasing budget deficit makes no sense at all.
I wrote about conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks after being the target of an attack (link). Earlier this week, I found out about another one: a complaint filed about me with Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission (link) regarding my 2021 election campaign. The complaint is bizarre, and specious, and signed by the same lawyer who made public records requests to the city — apparently on behalf of residents opposed to Prop 1.
Why does the discourse seem so personal and nasty
This problem has been going on for a while. Previously (link), I wrote that:
Back in June, Councilmember Steve Friedman politely noted that some residents in Clyde Hill were circulating “unvalidated conclusions, seemingly nonfactual” (link) on the topic of changing the form of government. In July, I wrote about misinformation on NextDoor (link) regarding the same topic.
I want to suggest that some of the discourse has to do with professional competence and execution, while other discourse has to do with innuendo, misleading representations, and making stuff up. I can’t answer “why” any better than you can.
I encourage you to consider the issues, not the noise. And if you’d like to discuss Prop 1, please let me know.
Thanks for reading all the way to the end! 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