Seattle City Council president Sara Nelson will face off with the return of an old nemesis Thursday afternoon as her Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee meets to debate proposed legislation that would turn the council’s ethics rules upside down and allow members to vote on bills in which they have a disclosed conflict of interest.
Former District 3 representative Kshama Sawant and her Workers Strike Back political group have made the proposed legislation a target, saying Nelson and the “conservative Democrats” on the council will use the change to roll back “renter victories” from the socialist council member’s three terms in office.
Last week, Sawant and supporters protested the proposed ethics bill during council public comment with Nelson leading the body to pause the proceedings over the cheering and chanting. More of the same has been promised during comment before Thursday’s session.
While Sawant ended her run at Seattle City Hall she said to build Workers Strike Back into a national labor movement, her focus has returned to the city this spring.
Under the proposal sponsored by Councilmember Cathy Moore and based on recommendations from directorWayne Barnett and the Seattle Ethics and Election Commission, council members would be required to disclose conflicts of interest but would still be eligible to vote on legislation related to any disclosed conflict. Currently, the SEEC must balance a challenging environment of advising the council members on potential conflicts and members with a recognized conflict must recuse themselves from related votes.
“This legislation’s specific goal is to ensure that more Councilmembers can participate in critical policy decisions,” the council report (PDF) on the legislation reads. “With the City having moved to a structure that includes seven Councilmembers elected on a district basis, the existing recusal requirements could mean that residents of some districts will only have their voices heard through the two city-wide Councilmembers on potentially significant policy issues.”
Multiple amendments are being considered including requirements that disclosures be made at both the committee and full council level.
A proposed amendment from D3 rep Joy Hollingsworth would provide greater definition for conflicts requiring an elected official “to recuse themselves when their own financial interests would be affected in a manner different than the class, group, or entity regulated by the legislative matter.” Hollingsworth is also bringing in a proposal requiring the SEEC to publish ethics complaints it receives and to authorize the SEEC “to review instances of recusal by elected officials, complaints filed by the public against both elected and unelected city officials, and the requests for opinions and make recommendations to the City Council for any ways in which public trust might be enhanced or city business conducted in a more transparent manner via reforms to our code of ethics.”
Thursday’s committee session (PDF) is scheduled to begin at 2 PM. You can attend in person of watch the proceedings live via the Seattle Channel.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
Okay, lemme get this straight…
““This legislation’s specific goal is to ensure that more Councilmembers can participate in critical policy decisions,” the council report (PDF) on the legislation reads. “With the City having moved to a structure that includes seven Councilmembers elected on a district basis, the existing recusal requirements could mean that residents of some districts will only have their voices heard through the two city-wide Councilmembers on potentially significant policy issues.”
So in plain English.
We have so many monied interests that we can’t vote for anything.
Right? The PUBLIC SERVANTS are the only ones who get to vote. If that’s 2…Then it’s 2.
Orrrr.
We have a system that evaluates it in the public interest.
Maybe? We should simply take money out of politics. Then the wealthy wouldn’t bother. They’d never vote for anything other than bike lanes.
This is a sad sad take on our political system. There’s too many deep conflicts of interests to govern under the current ethics rules. They knew that when they decided to run. Their mission is to demolish it and all othe rregulations. Especially the sticky icky regulations on ethics. Remove them as soon and as thoroughly as possible so we can ram through all the stuff wealthy people want and that’s US!!! Muwahahaha!
We are losing America to the mob, robber barons and useful idiots.
Turns out the only thing that holds the republic together is character.
I agree, we are losing America to the mob, useful idiots, and robber Barons. But this potential change to our local governing body is not an example of that. It is a minor change meant to ensure people are represented by their district Councilmember. Please set your hyperbole aside and try to keep things in perspective. Focus on those who are really trying to take your rights and liberty away. Because this ain’t it.
Don’t take Glenn’s bait. He’s just larping as a ‘reasonable’ person again.
I have not larped for lo so many years and I am in fact a reasonable person. Go figure.
Larping. Interesting word. Clearly anyone larping is to be avoided at all costs. There, I used it in a sentence too. If you’re looking to discount everything I might say, that seems like as good a reason as any. Much better to endorse the half baked borderline lunatic thoughts offered by many on this blog, who seem more often than not to be off their medications. Sorry world where reasonable is a dirty word.
So you agree then totally go the other direction?
No dude…Corruption is corruption. They KNEW before they were electicted about ethics rules. They also knew they were gonna kill the regulations.All they need’s a majority and they got it.
“Focus on those who are really trying to take your rights and liberty away. Because this ain’t it.”
Ummm I AM.
It’s you who is ignoring everything you know for money and a corrupt govt. Just because it personally affects you, you say “Hey! Let the monied interests have a win this time. We can appear to be pragmatic as we steal the money.
You ain’t good at politics either.
Bad take all around. The ones killing America are landlords and wealthy business owners like Nelson and her ilk. Not Kshama standing up for renters. Y’all are ass-backwards.
Yes we are losing America to the mob. We’ll and succinctly said.
Typo: well not we’ll so Geek doesnt rip me a new one.
Thanks brother. I don’t know what it said.
But the fact it’s “succinct” is rare territory for me! lol
You’re mad at a lady who yells and not the landlord wanting to pass laws that benefit her bank account? Stupid.
the lady who yells sent us to our depths of 2022 with rampant lawlessness, record homelessness, and graffiti everywhere
Those things didn’t exist before or after Sawant no sir
The current ethics language is ridiculously overbroad – Tanya Woo should NOT have had to recuse herself over a business her father owned. If there’s a real direct financial interest that’s one thing, but the current code is far too vague.
How’s about every renter on the Council having to recuse themselves for the savings that they’ll get from pro-renter legislation? Because the nexus to that is about exactly as vague as the current rules.
PS – I’ve been a Seattle renter for over 40 years.
What an absurd comment. Being a renter is already a precarious position in today’s US, so the idea that you’d see not owning property as a financial boon, in any way, is ludicrous. Also, pretty sure AMR is the only council member who is also a tenant…kinda weird of you to insinuate that there are more, when it’s *surprise surprise* our only non-conservative council member who rents.
Frankly, I don’t believe that you’re a renter, I believe you own property (like me). But instead of also seeing how the city is being strangled by greed and austerity (like me), you are just lying in a desperate attempt to shift the narrative to your material favor…AS A RENTER, WATERING DOWN THE ETHICS CODE DOES NOT HELP YOU. Yeah, let the landlord vote away rent caps, or let the business owner vote away minimum wage…GENIUS! No problems here I guess??? If by some chance you are really a renter though, get some class consciousness lol and wake the hell up. But yeah, I think you’re a liar.
Corrupt business interests will not be allowed to overtake the democratic process here, as meager as it may currently be.
“Tanya Woo should NOT have had to recuse herself over a business her father owned.”
That’s EXACTLY WHY WE NEED ETHICS LAWS!!!!
wow
How’s Trumps business doing? How about his kids? Family?
They all are getting richer by the day thanks to dada.
I agree with your comment about Tanya Woo. Also, when I vote to elect a business owner, part of what I’m voting for is their experience running a business. Folks may want to believe that business shouldn’t be at the table with the running of a city, but newsflash, they are a constituency. Their tax revenue funds SO MUCH of what we can do as a city. That a member of the council should be forced to recuse over such small margins to their individual business does not pass the sniff test for me. And as with the upcoming rental regulations, reporters are doing a good job of not mentioning the biggest drivers of the conversation are affordable housing providers. This isn’t about making big bad corporate landlords more money, or not protecting the majority. It’s about some small reform to what isn’t working. You know, typically running a city stuff. Not everything works perfectly all the time and you need to adjust.
You’re voting for the experience of a nepo baby, bro.
If a councilmember would have to recuse because of they’ve a vested interest, there’s a simple remedy. They can divest themselves of the conflict.
Your definition of “vested interest” is both inaccurate and legally indefensible.
For someone who purports to be about my age you post like a naive 22 year old.
Do better.
Your sauce is weak and – as usual – you’ve missed the point, but whatever.
PS – I’m guessing this didn’t occur to you but there are a LOT of folks who work for/in restaurants (especially FOH staff) who were adamantly opposed to a lot of the regulations the Sawant-era Council demagogued into existence, and who voted candidates like Nelson and Woo into office based on their understanding of their industry. Why do you want to disenfranchise them?
Dude,,,the current council was voted in the the ignorant, the hateful and the monied. Just like Trump.
I’m pretty baffled at this…Trump’s actions in office have much more in common with Sawant’s?
Go away, Kshama!
Yeah, I thought her plan was to go national to execute her grand Socialist Alternative and/or Marxist aims.. But no here she is again. Go away Sawant! Shoo!
she succeeded in getting trump elected and is now back to bring his policies to local politics as well
They should strengthen the ethics rules so grifters like Tammy Morales and Sawant get jail time for shady $3million no bid contracts to their biggest supporters.
Classic song reference man! You been watching the Howdy Doody reruns on Boomerang? How’s the world you’ve created for young folks been going??
309 million stolen from Jumpstart
How is Tammy a “grifter”?
He has no clue. The angry man on the boob tube told him and his critical thinking skills are equivalent to a gnat.
Probably one of the most honest council people ever lol what a whack statement
Oh no! The mean lady’s back!