Just two hours ago I outlined the fight brewing over the city's pre-K plan. The city council did indeed pass the ordinance to put their demonstration project, for what is set to become a taxpayer-funded universal pre-K program, on the fall's ballot. And the way they voted it through, they forced it to be in opposition to a union-backed measure, also on the ballot, that raises child-care workers' minimum wage and creates what would likely be a union-affiliated professional-development institute. The unions behind the initiative have said they hoped both could go on the ballot as complementary measures that seek to do different things. The city creates a pre-K program, and their initiative helps regulate it. But a majority of the council says they had no choice but to declare them competing measures on the same topic, and so only one can pass this fall.

Now comes this, from the Yes for Success campaign for Initiative 107, that union-backed initiative:

An ethics complaint was just filed with the PDC, State Auditor and Seattle Elections & Ethics Commission. The complaint asks for an investigation into the use of City of Seattle resources and taxpayer funds to campaign against a citizen initiative, I-107, as well as holding policy and political discussions during the City Council executive sessions, in contradiction of open meetings rules.

You can read the full ethics complaint for yourself right here in a PDF. The basic arguments and allegations: That the city unfairly used its resources to oppose their initiative by procuring what they call "a biased legal memo" instead of a "neutral legal analysis," "[using] this taxpayer-funded memo for campaign purposes," creating a fiscal analysis based on that flawed memo, and deliberately leaking these documents and talking points to the Seattle Times. They call it "the 'swift boating' of I-107."

The complaint also mentions an alleged "whisper campaign" against I-107 at city hall, and alleges that the council discussed things in closed "executive sessions" that should've been discussed in open session.

Um, did I mention that this was gonna be a big ol' fight that lasts a long time and that the council could perhaps have handled it a little better? (Yeah, I guess I did.)

In other news: The council passed their pre-K plan with a couple of good amendments, one that would start a race and social justice analysis as soon as possible, and another that would raise the income threshold so that families making under 300 percent of the federal poverty level get full, free tuition. (It used to be only 200 percent.)

For all the drama of the competing initiatives, it is so hopeful to get started on universal pre-K in this city. It may be harder to celebrate because of the complications, but it would be nice not to completely lose the opportunity to celebrate the beginning of a historic city program.

UPDATE: I should mention: I called both the city council and mayor's office for comment and have not yet heard back. Will update or post anew when I get a response from them.