City Atty: Conlin Didn't Impede Mayor's Authority


Wow. This city is getting really messed up. Holmes isn't even trying to say there is a basis in law for his giving the green light to Conlin. wow
Doesn't make the tunnel legal, though.

No public vote and it's still over the cap limit, so it can't proceed without a public vote of the people.

But, hey, what's $10,000 per household - renter or owner - in public debt for cost overruns between citizens who had their vote ignored, right?

Other than the cost of a car.

Or tuition.

Stuff like that.

Please let this be the last post on this non-story.
@3 not likely.

Not with massive budget cuts. Any MSM that doesn't dig in on this is basically not doing it's job, and for a local news blog to ignore it is basically an admission that they can't compete with the big boys.
Next the viaduct will collapse, Conlin will blame Cary Moon and the council will vote him in as the new mayor and send McGinn packing.

Damn. I love Baconcat.

Almost as much as I love Husky cupcakes eaten on a muggy day with rainbows.
Richard Conlin is going to prison.

I realize that there's no way President Obama wants his Justice Department lawyers prosecuting a loyal Democrat like Conlin, but this is such flagrant malfeasance. How can he ignore it? Any Deputy Attorney General would resign in disgust if Obama tried to order them to keep their hands off Conlin.

The die is cast and this is far more important than who is or isn't in co-lead status or who holds the power in the city of Seattle.

At stake here is the question: Does the rule of law hold, still, in the United States of America? Well does it?

Not as long as Richard Conlin remains free and unpunished for his crimes.
Wait, I thought we cut the budget ... let's just taser him a few dozen times and call it even ...
Excellent post, Dominic.

Holmes' statement is unlike any legal opinion that I have ever seen (and I have seen many.) Don't take it to Court.

But I am not positive that affirming "co-lead" status is inconsequential. I am not sure what co-lead means but if it is of no consequence then why did WSDOT and Conlin care so much? It could be that co-lead does have some real legal significance.
Can we please stop attaching "gate" to the end of the name of every scandal? Most of the people reading the Stranger were born long after the Watergate scandal.

Don't we deserve a new moniker?
To Devil's Island with all of them!
@9 I totally agree that all this reporting on who signed what and under what authority is obscuring the question of why the mayor seems so intent on losing co-lead status, and what effect that would have on the city's role in mitigating the effects of construction. Dominic, I think there is a story there. Why are you note telling it?
Roddy, @12, I think I may have been unclear.

I am NOT saying that McGinn has "intent on losing co-lead status" -- he may very well was just too busy and wanted to understand the document before he signed it and it seems undisputed that WSDOT had given McGinn the extra week. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

However as Nick Licata said publicly, whether co-lead status for Seattle is a good idea is a question worthy of discussion.

The irony (of Conlin's impetuous action) might well put the co-lead issue front-and-center: is co-lead status a good idea for Seattle?

Personally I have no idea. But the speed with which WSDOT put so much pressure on Conlin to close the deal makes me wonder: "Why the rush?"

So yes, I come to the same conclusion as you do, Roddy and hope that Dominic will examine what co-lead status means, the pros/cons of it etc etc.
Holmes cites no authority to back up Conlin's exercise of no authority. It's pretty straight forward. Love the breathless reporting, though!
tempest --- teapot

look for the council to continue to flex its muscle, showing more and more authority

leadership is not quaking in fear cause there is a new mayor, who seems quite obscure in most of his moves, and ill informed

at this moment, Conlin has more political currency than Mc Ginn - he is almost unique, with low negatives, and was first elected by the same greenies who like Mc Ginn - interesting

What Yo @14 said: It's been apparent all along that Conlin's signature had no binding effect. The State wanted his signature for whatever reason they wanted it, but Conlin's signature was the legal equivalent of jumping over a broom with the Governor. It doesn't bind anyone, and sure as hell doesn't violate the City Charter. The Mayor just proved his seemingly endless ignorance again. You're never going to get a legal opinion from the City Attorney that the President of the City Council lacks the authority to sign his name to some document in a manner that does not bind the City. Get over it!