They protect their own.

But it does fortify the argument that McGinn's early mayoral problems were due, at least in part, to obstructionism at the hands of the city council.

I'm still going with "complete and utter lack of political skills."
And here I thought that "cut public service funding and then complain about poor public service performance" was a Republican strategy!
How does that money get approved? Does the "budget committee" just submit it and that's it, or does the Council have to vote on it?
@seandr: And thus the permanence of the career politician in government is forever sealed.
When Mitch McConnell set out to weaken America so Obama's presidency would be a failure, we had the sense to call him a traitor. Somehow the smiling do-gooders on our City Council never get judged by that standard.

Given the past actions of members of our so-called "non-partisan" Council, what makes you think many of them AREN'T Republicans?
Yep, you have genuflect to the establishment or it'll work to sabotage your campaign or administration. Party politics can be very petty and destructive. McGinn was never part of the 'in-crowd,' and the city's ego-driven power brokers could never quite control him like they will Murray. I am actually surprised though at how petty the Seattle City Council is. Pretty ugly. Not a proud moment for the city of Seattle.
Hot late Friday story, hope this gets a bump in the slog weekend recap.
Just wow. Thanks for this Cienna.
What programs are being cut while they throw money at the mayor's office?
Challengers in two years need to call them to account on this.
Disgusting. I hope half those bastards lose their jobs next time around.
I hope you keep after council staff (I see Ben Noble's name on the green sheet, and he's still got a reputation as being on the up-and-up, doesn't he?).

As for the politicking at the time, I well remember that long before the Council put out this budget McGinn flatly announced he was going to fire 200 senior staffers to be named later. That's a move he since acknowledged (even here) was a huge mistake that brought him a firestorm of pushback from all City departments. It took him months of clarification, rephrasing, and ultimately complete retreat to untangle his mess.

So the idea that early in that process the council cut 500K out of that year's $3.6M mayoral budget as part of that pushback? Not unimaginable.

And if in all the years since then McGinn never stooped low enough to ask for it back, or could never strategize a bargaining chip to get it back? Neither of those is beyond the realm of imagining either.

But that's just idle speculation. Go get someone on record! And thanks for spotting this,
With all the money saved from McGinn using the office as his campaign headquarters and bully pulpit with the press, with his wasting of taxpayers money with arena deals (over $1m in admin costs so far) and the costs driven up due to his inability to effectively communicate with anyone who hasn't drunk his Kool Aid, there is more than enough savings for 2014 to restore that funding. Shit, Mike O'Brien could probably even have his own pony on the 2nd floor.
Tip o' the iceberg.

There are many ways in which Council did this. If McGinn tried to highlight some of them, most of the media would just deride him as a cry baby, and denounce him as divisive. It was actually really ugly in many ways. To hear those same people then complain that McGinn was the problem and that they were the adults was an outrageous insult. But few people cared enough to look at how obstructionist the Council, and the City Attorney, too, btw, were being. These are stories that will never get told. And while we can say that a Mayor should be above this, should be able to push through it all, many in this City made it their personal mission to force his failure and then claimed to have the best of intentions. History, once again, is written by the powerful.
So this is what happens when you don't act like a self deluded and self important dickhead. Good lesson to know in politics

"These are stories that will never get told."

Put up or shut up. This is an open forum. Tell away.
Is the city attorney an elected postition? If not, I don't see why not.
@21 It is. Why?
@21 yes and you just voted to re-elect him in a landslide; and he came closer to outright personal hatred of McGinn than anyone.

alas poor McGinn... Oh how The Stranger elected him... and he accomplished nothing; and how that was everyone else's fault (except for the stuff other folks did for which he took credit) let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings.

trust me, The Stranger will find cause to hate folks on Murray's behalf before too much longer - such is politics.
Don't worry. Ed will piss them off and they'll cut it again next year.
Seattle isn't the rational town it only pretends to be. This is pure emotionally-driven tribalism.
Yes, indeed. If that churlish City Council had only given McGinn the money he wanted/needed, his entire administration would've been a model of accomplishment and smooth running. Yeah, uh-huh….
Wow. Pathetic. Couldn't they have forked the cash over to Metro to prevent that agency's looming closures or to social services? If it was enough for the last mayor...
I'm from the South. I know a Mississippi Burning town when I see one. Seattle continually reminds me of that nest of awful white girls from the movie The Help. I want to think I'm seeing this through my own cultural filter, but then my impressions get confirmed by actions and behavior just like the ones described in the article.
@27 Murray ought to fork that money over to Metro, and secure his re-election for the next few rounds.
So in addition to 53.58% of Seattle citizens being uninformed voters who clearly voted for the wrong person, the Seattle City Council are also clueless dicks who NEED to be voted out office asap! Bring me solo and the wookie, they will pay for this outrage! /s
Rumor has it there was a recession going on.
And now, not so much.

Also, McGinn might have treated the budget like other things, Sugary drink tax, an idea without meaningful scope and plan for implementation, for example.
So the fire department has to cut the battalion chief stationed on capitol hill, the busiest one in the department, because of funding cuts, which leaves chiefs to cover downtown from either Beacon Hill or the U District. But the city council has $750k lying around -- aka about what it would cost to restore the cuts to necessary fire service -- to blow on staffers in the mayor's office?

Seattle is such a joke sometimes.
Told you Downtown hated our Mayor.

Utterly shameful.
I think you almost got your explanation right. Four years ago, the city was in the midst of a financial crisis; hard cuts had to be made, yada, yada, yada. However, by the time the economy "slowly bounced back" the council hated the mayor. In other words, he had time to make connections, and work with people. But he didn't, and now he is out of a job. Interestingly enough, one of the few members of the council that didn't run against him or endorse someone else was Richard Conlin. It's no wonder he wants to get out of this mess (and he may get his with a couple years earlier than he wanted). It used to be enough to do a good job and make the tough decisions to move the progressive agenda forward. Now, I guess you have to get in with the right crowd (and he somehow missed The Stranger get together).
The words you're looking for are: PATRONAGE JOBS. The argument that Ed Murray is "superior" politically to McGinn is true in the sense that he owes a lot of people favors now. He was always willing to play the game which is why he's mayor and McGinn's not.
What stretches credulity is the notion that petty politicking isn't going to be the primary thrust of everything the sore losers at the Stranger write about the Ed Murray's administration for the next four years. It must be tough to have spent 11 months being nothing but shrill lapdogs to an ineffective bozo only to have the rest of the world see through your charlatanism and vote your guy to the (newly painted) curb. Get a therapist. I for one am thrilled to see the council funding efforts to make the next administration more successful than the last.
Note: many recession era cuts will be restored, thank god, from parks to libraries to street repair to social services to city hall operations. Motive, none. Reason it is possible, tax money flowing in much, much better, spending gets sales tax revenue, building boom equals jobs and fees, very low unemployment in general.
Wow. They're not even trying to hide it. Pathetic.
Wow, this is about the most yellow journalism I have seen in a long time. I must say, even for The Stranger with its heavy-handed partisanship, this sinks to a new long. I guess we are readying the 'Stabbed in the Back' rationale for McGinn's failures.

Cienna, your research is either incompetent or dishonest. The 2010 Endorsed Budget for the Mayor's Office (basically the starting point in the budget process) was $3.1 million. What the Council approved was $3.7 million, an almost 20% INCREASE. The cuts they made to the Nickels' budget still left a substantial increase.

At this point, I personally believe The Stranger's political reporting is so broken they should leave that to the grownups and focus on subjects they can understand, like Drunk of the Week.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.