Forget Netflix. If you crave drama, just turn to the Seattle City Council’s Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development meeting.
Thursday’s meeting had everything: bickering between council members, an impromptu press conference, attempts to remove people from the chamber, even a cameo from former city council member Kshama Sawant.
What warranted all this? The committee was discussing a proposal to amend the city’s ethics code, allowing council members to vote on legislation even if they have a financial interest in the outcome.
If the council’s ethics code is overturned, elected officials could openly vote on legislation even if it directly impacts their financial interests, clearing the way for landlords to vote against renter protections, restaurant owners to oppose minimum wage increases for delivery drivers, and developers to influence zoning laws that benefit their own projects. Critics argue that if Moore’s proposal passes, this shift would erode ethical safeguards, making it easier for council members to prioritize personal financial gain over public interest.
Moore only introduced the bill last week, and Thursday’s meeting was already the third public scrutinization of the controversial bill. Commenters—including former council member Kshama Sawant—voiced strong opposition to it at both Tuesday’s full city council meeting, and Wednesday’s Seattle Ethics and Elections meeting.
Cathy Moore, who introduced the bill, argues that the change arose out of concern for disenfranchising the voters represented by a council member who may have to recuse themselves due to perceived financial interests, such as what happened last year when Nelson’s push to roll back wage protections for app-based delivery drivers collapsed after ethics concerns forced former Councilmember Tanya Woo to recuse herself, stripping Nelson of the majority she needed. A similar fate met Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth’s proposal to extend tip credits for small businesses, as potential conflicts involving both Woo and Nelson emerged.
Under the current iteration of the bill, a council member would file a conflict of interest disclosure with both the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) and the city clerk, and then post it on the city website. Some of these requirements are preexisting.
“This bill doesn’t remove the disclosure requirement, it enhances it,” Moore said during Thursday’s meeting.
Tiffany McCoy, the co-executive director of House Our Neighbors, doesn’t buy the disenfranchised argument, nor the focus on additional disclosure being an adequate replacement for recusal. Every Seattle voter actually has three council members representing them: their district council member and then two at-large members, currently Council President Sara Nelson and Alexis Mercedes-Rinck. “No matter what neighborhood you live in, we are still all part of the city. I’d rather my city council member not take a vote that they’re going to benefit from financially,” says McCoy.
Landlords and homeowners are already disproportionately represented on the council. In a city where nearly 52% of the population are renters, its city council has only one lone renter on it, Mercedes-Rinck.
Elise Orlick, the Executive Director of FairVote Washington, says that the outpouring of public forums throughout the week should signal to both the city council and other jurisdictions across the state that there’s a renewed focus on governmental transparency and trust. “Ethics codes are a democracy protection,” says Orlick, who is an outspoken proponent of ranked-choice voting both nationally and locally. “We need a much broader array of financial interests and different types of diversity on council.”
Concern about this bill has made it all they way to Olympia. Ahead of Thursday’s meeting, Democratic chairs belonging to the 32nd, 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, and 46th Legislative Democrats sent a letter to city council members in strong opposition to the bill, stating, among other things, that they “will not stand by if you try to rig the system in your favor.” The letter continued: “To support this proposal is to declare ethics optional; that conflicts of interest should be no barrier to power, and that the public good is of no concern. This is the language of autocracy, and it has no place in Seattle.”
Thursday’s meeting was scheduled to end at 4 p.m. but didn’t finish until a little after 5 p.m. due to a rancorous back-and-forth between committee chair Sarah Nelson and former councilmember Kshama Sawant, an unplanned five-minute recess that members of Workers Strikes Back used as an impromptu pep rally, and a series of cantankerous exchanges between Nelson and councilmember Dan Strauss during a Q&A with Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission members.
Not one of the 28 people who spoke during the opening public comment period (21 in person and 7 online) spoke in favor of the legislation.
Many of the commenters brought up the fact that states such as California require recusals from their elected officials during any appearance of conflicts of interest. Others brought up the fact that the code had been unchanged for 45 years without incident, and others called out the timing of the change to coincide with impending votes on renter protections. One also told the council to prepare for mass protests should this bill pass.
As applause began to erupt after every commenter in opposition to the bill, committee chair Nelson told those in attendance to please refrain from clapping between speakers, but the directive made many in attendance clap louder after speakers, out of defiance. As clapping continued after each commenter, a visibly exasperated Nelson again addressed those in attendance, asking them to “be respectful.”
Sitting in the audience and addressing Nelson directly, former city council member and current organizer with Workers Strike Back (WSB), Kshama Sawant, responded with, “Are you respecting workers?”
After agreeable shouts from WSB members in the audience, an irritated Nelson pounded her gavel saying, “I will repeat, please do not clap between speakers. This is disruptive behavior to interrupt the meeting.”
WSB members soon chanted, “When workers are under attack, what do we do? Fight back,” a chant that would be repeated sporadically throughout the remainder of public comment.
Having lost order, Nelson pounded her gavel calling a five-minute recess as she and other council members momentarily headed back to their offices.
Sawant and members of WSB took the opportunity to hold an impromptu press conference, standing in front of the public comment lectern. Sawant pointed at councilmember Bob Kettle as he walked back to his office, saying, “Look at this coward. Why don’t you stand and listen to people.” Clearly agitated, Kettle smirked and waved her off.
During her speech, Sawant called out Democrats both locally and nationally for their betrayal of the working class, saying they were carrying water for landlords who own real estate. She name-checked local real estate developers Greystar, AvalonBay, and Essex Property Trust. She then rattled off a list of local renter protections she said were under threat of being rolled back should Moore’s bill go into effect, allowing landlords on the council (Maritza Rivera and Mark Solomon) to not have to recuse themselves from votes, including: a prohibition on winter evictions, capping renter late fees at $10 a month, six months’ notice for rental increases, and requiring landlords to pay eviction rental assistance, and banning school-year evictions of children.
After Sawant finished her speech, Nelson and the other committee members returned to the dais, with Nelson warning the group that she would ask them to be removed if they continued to be disruptive.
Sawant then responded with, “You know what disrupts children’s lives? Eviction.”
Additional outbursts provoked Nelson to tell someone who appeared to be City Council security to remove her and other WSB members. But after a brief stalemate, when it became apparent neither Sawant nor WSB members planned to budge, the security person asked Nelson what she wanted to do.
She relented and resumed the meeting with Sawant and WSB members still in their seats.
Later in the meeting, the council was joined by a commissioner from the SEEC, along with its chair Zach Pekelis, and executive director Wayne Barnett.
Barnett laid out the current ethics code, contrasting it with Moore’s new bill. He told the committee (consisting of Nelson, vice-chair Kettle, Joy Hollingsworth, Solomon, and Rivera) that he felt our current ethics code was stricter here than in other places he had worked, including Boston. When it was Pekelis’s turn to speak, he raised concerns echoed by a public commenter from the previous day’s SEEC meeting. He suggested that if the bill were to pass, the council might consider delaying its effective date until 2028 to allow voters to decide if they should be re-elected under the new ethics codes, rather than changing the rules midway through their terms.
But shortly after, the meeting turned contentious once again. This time, the friction came between two council members, Dan Strauss, who though not on the committee was invited to ask questions of the SEEC representatives. While they’ve treated each other professionally the last few months, Strauss and Nelson have also been openly hostile to one another, with many interactions on the dais dripping with “go fuck yourself” subtext.
On Thursday, Nelson interjected several times while Strauss questioned Barnett and Pekelis about the proposed changes to the ethics code. Addressing Barnett, Strauss brought up an email exchange The Stranger reported on last November between Nelson, Barnett, and former councilmember Tanya Woo.
In the exchange, Nelson requested clarification on the Ethics Code’s recusal requirements, citing concerns over how financial interest is determined in council decisions, including future legislation on zoning and landlord-tenant laws. Nelson criticized Barrett for his request for Woo to recuse herself from legislation, calling his interpretation as too rigid and potentially setting a precedent she found problematic. Barnett stood by his decision, emphasizing that his rulings were based on a “plain meaning” interpretation of the law, while Nelson accused him of misconstruing her intent and ignoring her calls for clarity.
In reference to the email, Strauss asked Barnett if he feels like he’s “put in the middle at times,” when it comes to when a city councilmember’s desires bump up against the ethics code.
Barnett paused and responded that he feels like he’s “doing his job.”
Strauss replied back that, “From my perspective, it seems like you’re being put in a tough place.”
The line of questioning irked Nelson. “It seems like you’re trying to get into someone else’s mind,” she said. “Please be direct with your questions.”
She then chided Strauss, telling him to, “Please refrain from being disrespectful to your presenters.”
Nelson and Moore have few allies so far. Even Mayor Bruce Harrell isn’t behind it, telling The Stranger in a statement: “As I made clear when a similar bill was previously considered in 2018, I do not support this proposal that appears to diminish the City’s strong ethics rules. As mayor now and as a former councilmember, I have always taken the rules of recusal very seriously. When legislative issues arise where an elected official stands to financially gain, there must be a clear, objective line to demonstrate to the community that decisions are being made solely with the public interest at heart. Simple disclosure does not accomplish this; recusal does. As trust in institutions continues to erode, Seattle must continue to set the example for strong ethics protections as a cornerstone of good governance.”
As the meeting finally ended an hour after it was scheduled to, the fate of the legislation remains up in the air. Nelson and Moore are likely in favor of it, with Strauss and Mercedes-Rinck likely against it. Other council members have yet to tip their hand on how they’ll vote.
“It’s a very heated, controversial topic,” Moore said during Thursday’s meeting. “We are trying to get work done and do the business of the city.”
If Thursday revealed anything, it’s that the business of this city is far more than the cold, calculated tug-of-war of process and policy. It’s a fierce struggle for the very right to shape the future. The question, then, isn’t just about getting things done; it’s about whose work is deemed worthy and whose voice is relegated to silence, dismissed like so much noise. In a city where power has a way of protecting itself, the demand for accountability isn’t a mere political stance, it’s a demand for democratic dignity. One far from being satiated in Seattle.
Couldn’t it be argued that Mercedes-Rinck should also be recused from voting on renter protection legislation because she is a renter?
“We are trying to get work done and do the business of the city.”
What transparent bullshit. I invite CM Moore et al to actually do the business of the city rather than trying to change ethics rules for the benefit of CMs’ personal business interests.
@1 not a bad question but I don’t know anyone here is qualified to answer it. Fortunately there are ethics professionals available to advise CMs as to recusal obligations. Unfortunately their advice in one particular instance appears to be what motivated some CMs to try to change the rules.
Please follow best practices Marcus and put a ‘Continue reading’ link after the first paragraph or two.
@1 The point is financial gain, not some broad definition of interest.
A landlord or restaurant owner might vote on legislation that financially benefits themselves at a cost to a renter or worker. Their potential enrichment if for something that is not a fundamental necessity of life, like shelter and work.
A renter or worker may have their own perspective/interest/bias, but their vote is about protecting the rights of a much larger group of Seattleites for necessities of life far, far, more than any theoretical financial gain.
But here is the kicker, captured by our current ethics laws: the renter or worker will be protecting the vast majority of Seattleites whereas the landlord or restaurant owner is enriching very few people.
@1 is exactly correct. If landlords would be expected to recuse themselves from rental issues, then certainly renters should also.
@6 That is simply not the way ethics laws work anywhere in the US: conflicts of interest that would require an elected to recuse themselves are specific to financial interests that are not shared by broad segments of the population. I get that you might value profit over peoples lives, but that is a different ethical discussion that you would also find yourself on the wrong side of.
Now, I know this is the Stranger, so blind fangirling over Sawant is required, but when she served on the City Council, her husband, Calvin Priest, received money and travel benefits from Socialist Alternative. The Executive Committee of Socialist Alternative told CM Sawant how to vote. How was this not a blatant conflict of interest?
@5: Love the pile of transparent b.s. with which you try to deny the completely obvious: if CM Rinck votes for a cap on residential rent increases, then she’s improving her own financial situation. Therefore, she should recuse herself from such a vote. The City Council should not change their own ethics rules in the manner this bill would, and the existing rules should apply to all CMs equally.
@6 & 8 by your logic we need to invalidate the muni code provisions criminalizing theft, because everyone owns property, so everyone has an interest in preventing it being misappropriated, so everyone was required to recuse themselves from enacting those ordinances
Tenny, tell me you’re a troll without telling me you’re a troll.
You’re obsession with Sawant is insane.
Those moobs need a manssiere.
@9: “…because everyone owns property, so everyone has an interest in preventing it being misappropriated,”
Assuming for the sake of argument that “everyone owns property,” then voting to protect property is, by definition, in everyone’s interest, and a CM gets what everyone else gets from a law protecting property, nothing more. As noted in the article, just over half of all residents of Seattle are renters, so any renter on the City Council who votes for a cap on rental increases will realize a financial benefit that about half the city’s residents will not. Hence the need for such a Council Member to recuse herself. It’s no different from a landlord recusing herself from the same vote, because many residents are not landlords.
@10: Sawant was one of 28 speakers, at a meeting which lasted for hours. How many paragraphs did the Stranger spend on her, including to lovingly recount her name-calling personal attack upon a sitting CM? And you say I’m obsessed?
Sawant presumed to lecture actual CMs on ethics. When she was a CM, her household realized significant income from a private organization, Socialist Alternative, which dictated her City Council votes to her. How was that not pay-for-play? (Don’t worry: just as the Stranger don’t ask, you don’t tell.)
Look, I know any accurate description of Sawant’s real actions will reveal her words as nothing more than risibly pitiable hypocrisy, and you who always believe her words will suffer excruciating agony, as a result of the eternal conflict between what she says and what she does. But that’s your problem, not mine, and no amount of your screaming in agony here will change that.
@8 I get that rhetoric, not understanding, is your specialty and what you live for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant. Read the actual SMC (you won’t) to understand it is exactly as I stated: in Seattle conflicts of interest that would require an elected to recuse themselves are specific to financial interests that are not shared by broad segments of the population. Well over 50% of Seattleites are now renters so your example is moot, besides being idiotic. As I already suggested, if you think that an interest in maintaining the necessities of life are equal to an interest in increasing profit, then you are a heartless person devoid of empathy. But, go for it tensorna, dig yourself in deeper.
@13: I make no apologies for expecting higher ethical standards from elected officials.
On the topic of your unsourced pronouncements, you told the members of the Seattle Human Rights Commission their commission had the powers of an independent body, and therefore could pursue litigation without the supervision of the City Attorney’s Office, correct
Or did you simply not correct them when they presumed they did?
Of did you not know enough about the Seattle City Charter to say?
Alexis Mercedes-Rinck, as a renter should absolutely recuse herself on any ordinance concerning the renter-landlord relationship. Require landlords to pay interest on deposits? Rinck would benefit and should recuse herself.
“During her speech, Sawant called out Democrats both locally and nationally for their betrayal of the working class, saying they were carrying water for landlords who own real estate.”
Why the hell is The Stranger providing fawning coverage to someone who supported Donald Trump in 2024?
Instead of giving Trump-supporting Sawant another City Council platform for her self-promoting, Democrat-hating nonsense, the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee should have issued her a subpoena. They then could have asked her about her own practice of voting the way Socialist Alternative told her to, and her husband’s good-paying job there. Watching the Stranger try to make her evasions, refusals, and silence sound heroic would’ve been great fun, and having her testify under penalty of perjury would have saved everyone else plenty of time, too.
@14 tensorna, you predictably take the bait and then choke on it. You take yourself so seriously, yet you ignore the simplest of facts. Being so serious you can’t even be a competent troll. Is your only raison d’être to be a jerk?
You say “On the topic of your unsourced pronouncements”: SMC 4.16.070(A)(3) & SMC 4.16.070(A)(4) provide the factual basis in law for my “pronouncement,” see: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT4PE_CH4.16COET_4.16.070PRCO
You say that I “told the members of the Seattle Human Rights Commission their commission had the powers of an independent body, and therefore could pursue litigation without the supervision of the City Attorney’s Office.” Absolutely false. The incident you are referring to regards a request I made to SHRC to file an amicus curiae brief with the Federal Court concerning the ongoing consent decree for federal oversight of the SPD. An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation. Any entity or individual has the ability to file an amicus curiae brief, including the SHRC. Not complicated if one attends to facts.
https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I4cf8469eef2a11e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Amicus-Curiae?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
The irony here is that you can look up my pubic statements and actions — all of which I very proudly stand by — because I use my actual name. I imagine that you, tensorna, have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.
I’ve called CM Moore’s office again to say that we want her proposal for loosening the ethics rules to be withdrawn. It’s not in the public interest and there is no coherent justification for it.
What a disgrace – with so many hardships and problems waiting to be solved in this city, that any council member would choose to waste time, energy and what little credibility they have on this hypocritical nonsense. Withdraw this insane proposal.
@1 The difference between a renter and a landlord voting on things that effect rental properties is that only the landlord is generating a profit from the transaction. Given that there are vastly more Seattle voters who are tenants than are commercial landlords, being a renter does not create the conflict of interest that being a landlord does. This might be a hard concept for you to understand, but the issue of conflict of interest is about having a personal financial that puts the person at odds with the people they serve.
@20 Why would that be hard for me to understand?
Enjoying the show
but missing the
popcorn:
@18 — “tensorna, you predictably
take the bait and then
choke on it.
You take yourself
so seriously, yet you ignore
the simplest of facts. Being so
serious you can’t even be a compe-
tent troll. Is your only raison d’être to be a jerk?”
–@HJGale
@13 — “I get that
rhetoric, not understanding,
is your specialty and what you live
for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant.”
@13 — “I get that
rhetoric, not understanding,
is your specialty and what you live
for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant.”
@12 — “But that’s your
problem, not mine, and no amount
of your screaming in agony here will change that.”
–@the Wormtongue
aka tentsores
aka🚮
also @18 — “The irony here is that you can look up my [public] statements and actions — all of which I very proudly stand by — because I use my actual name. I imagine that you, tensorna, have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.”
Thank you, HJGale
for helping to make
Seattle more Liveable.
@18: So, how do those sections of the SMC prevent the City Council from writing a stricter Code of Ethics for Council Members? Show your work, or no credit. I’m guessing that will go about as well as your other point did:
“An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation.”
Too bad the City Attorney’s Office didn’t agree with you on that, isn’t it?
“Any entity or individual has the ability to file an amicus curiae brief, including the SHRC.”
Except that, per SMC 3.14.931, the SHRC exists to act merely in an advisory capacity; it lacks the authority to act as an independent body, and therefore, under the City Charter, the City Attorney’s Office has “full supervisory control” of any litigation the SHRC attempts:
Article XIII, Section 3 of the Seattle City Charter: “DUTIES OF CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney shall have full supervisory control of all the litigation of the City, or in which the City or any of its departments are interested, and shall perform such other duties as are or shall be prescribed by ordinance.”
Which is why the City Attorney’s Office swiftly and permanently smacked down your little impertinent attempt to use the SHRC to intervene in the CIty’s legal affairs.
@20: “…only the landlord is generating a profit from the transaction.”
Consider the example @15, where CM Rinck, as a renter, votes to require landlords to pay interest on deposits. How then would she not be “generating a profit from the transaction”?
@22: Is “kristofarian” on your birth certificate? Or do you “hide behind a phony moniker”? Do tell.
oh wormmy
my litttle
Troll
if Anyone
Knows ‘Phony’
it’s our Wormtongue
o Twister of words
denier of Facts
bender of
Truth
mouthpiece of
the Status
Quosians
fuck
off
you and your
little dog
too.
@24: So, per Gale’s logic, you “have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.”
Good to see you defer to his wisdom!
@25
oh wormmy
my litttle
Troll
if Anyone
Knows ‘Phony’
it’s our Wormtongue
O!Twister of words
denier of Facts
bender of
Truth
mouthpiece of
the Status
Quosians
fuck
off
you and your
little dog
too.
@24, @26: We’ll take that as your admission of acceptance for Gale’s logic. Now back to your embarrassment and hiding, already in progress.
He’s having better luck with you than he did with the City Attorney’s Office! 😉
@27
“we’ll”?
you’ve got Another
Turd you’ve been Polishing
in your hot little pocket, wormmy?
oh, and just to Refresh:
“I get that rhetoric,
not understanding, is your specialty and
what you live for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant.”
–@HJGale, above, both
Eloquently and Spot-
Fawking-On.
Bravo, eh, wormmmy?
now, where Was I . . .
oh, right:
oh wormmy
my litttle
Troll!
if Anyone
Knows ‘Phony’
it’s our Wormtongue
O! Twister of words
denier of Facts
bender of
Truth
mouthpiece of
the Status
Quosians
fuck
off
you and your
little dog
too.
ok, wormmy
I’m about played
out. you’re gonna hafta
heep shitposting sans ol’ kristo
remember:
if your fingertips
ain’t Bleeding you’re
not Truly trolling/trying.
@28: Yes, I get it. You fell completely for everything Gale was shoveling. (The City Attorney’s Office did not.) Quelle surprise.
A careful reader would have noticed he didn’t support anything he claimed. Furthermore, his effort with the Seattle Human Rights Commission got smacked down so hard, it was still causing them serious trouble almost year later, https://southseattleemerald.org/news/2023/03/01/like-an-ambush-human-rights-commissioners-detail-pressure-from-council-cpc-not-to-pursue-amicus-status
But you accepted his logic, by which you “have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.” So you’re stuck with it. Your calling me names does nothing to refute what he wrote about you. Enjoy!
@23 tensorna says “So, how do those sections of the SMC prevent the City Council from writing a stricter Code of Ethics for Council Members?” Where did I ever propose that as a topic of debate or discussion? Absolutely nowhere, except for, obviously, in your imagination. My reply will, therefore, also take place in your imagination.
I said “An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation,” and your response is “Too bad the City Attorney’s Office didn’t agree with you on that, isn’t it?” Powerful argument. Your rhetorical skills — absent facts or logic — should make you eligible for a high level job in the Trump administration.
You said “Except that, per SMC 3.14.931, the SHRC exists to act merely in an advisory capacity; it lacks the authority to act as an independent body, and therefore, under the City Charter, the City Attorney’s Office has “full supervisory control” of any litigation the SHRC attempt.”
First, once more, an amicus curiae brief is definitively not litigation. You will not find a single legal definition or court case that says otherwise. In fact, the Seattle Community Police Commission has routinely, for many years, submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Federal Court without any involvement by the City Attorneys Office.
Second, SMC 3.14.931(C) & (D) states:
C. As appropriate, recommend policies to all departments and offices of the City in matters affecting civil rights and equal opportunity, and recommend legislation for the implementation of such policies;
D. Encourage understanding between all protected classes and the larger Seattle community, through long range projects;
This was precisely the governing provisions that the SHRC was operating under. After the SHRC failed to get anywhere with the Seattle Community Police Commission and the Mayor’s office or City Council they took the next logical step. SMC 3.14.931 does not — either expressly, by inference, or by virtue of other statutes — prevent the SHRC from taking actions such as submitting an amicus curiae brief. Again, this was not litigation, hence your recitals of the Seattle Charter are irrelevant.
Lets also consider the patent absurdity of your statement “the SHRC exists to act merely in an advisory capacity; it lacks the authority to act as an independent body.” It is, by definition, an independent body, or else it would not be able to advise! You fail to understand that “act” broadly defined means making statements, giving advice, proposing legislation or other actions, etc.
It is not just facts and logic that elude you, but also the simple meaning of words and legal terms.
If they vote in favor of it, vote them out. Easy peasy.
@30 — “It is
not just facts and logic
that elude you, but also the
simple meaning of words and legal terms.”
weird, innit, how
wormmy’s Always Ac-
cusing everyone Else of
Exactly the Same behavior!
Our most masterful Projectionist,
wormmy Certainly Missed his
Calling, down to the local
Multiplex.
@16, @17 “Trump-supporting”
I can’t wait to see how the blame-casting pans out when we go to ranked choice voting.
no shit
sherlock.
when untaxed
Billionaires can afford
to spend Vast sums on pro-
moting Their Choice, rest Assured
we’ll Know where tf to point them fingers
no shit
sherlock.
when untaxed
Billionaires can afford
to spend Vast sums on pro-
moting Their Choice, rest Assured
we’ll Know where tf to point them fingers
damn
twitchy
pointy finger!
already
getting a
Head start.
@30: Oh, I see your problem now. You don’t understand the meaning of the word “independent” in this context. For example, you mentioned how “… the Seattle Community Police Commission has routinely, for many years, submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Federal Court without any involvement by the City Attorneys Office.” Here’s the enabling legislation covering the CPC:
“3.29.030 Independent and collaborative oversight
“A. OPA, OIG, and CPC have an obligation to exercise independent judgment and
offer critical analysis in the performance of their duties under this Chapter 3.29. These oversight
entities shall exercise their responsibilities under this Chapter 3.29 without interference from any
person, group, or organization, including the Chief, other SPD employees, or other City officials.”
(https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CommunityPoliceCommission/Administration/Ordinance/Ordinance_APPROVED_052217_ALL_STRIKEOUTS_REMOVED.pdf)
Note the use of the term, “independent,” and the phrase, “without interference from any
person, group, or organization, including the Chief, other SPD employees, or other City officials.” Note also the total lack of those terms and phrases in the enabling legislation of the Seattle Human Rights Commission, which you’d quoted above. See the difference? By contrast, “recommend policies”, “recommend legislation”, and “Encourage understanding” are all dependent functions, which is why the Seattle Human Rights Commission is not independent.
Again, your repeated claim that filing a brief with a court is not litigation, whilst utterly failing to pass even a lay person’s giggle test, also utterly failed to pass the City Attorney’s Office’s test under the City Charter. That’s why the SHRC got smacked down completely when it sought status to file an amicus curiae brief with the court.
wormmy, who once argued On These Pages
(‘twas one for The Ages), argued Against
His own SELF and Won [so sayeth
the sages] BOTH. Sides!
well, Sometimes
wormmy
lurking holding
back holding on
slipping in unnoticed
when all the rest
have long gone
Home.
This is too removed from anything that matters. It should be expected that council members will be somewhat financially impacted by some votes. More important is the will of the voters, and we shouldn’t decide policy based on disenfranchising votes of impacted people. Voters generally know corruption when they see it. Voting for or against rental policies shouldn’t be prohibited if you are a landlord or renter.
This outrage is more about the policy, and the far left grasping at anything to advance their pet policies (absurd interventions into rental markets that have made landlords flee and worsened the homeless crisis) over the will of the voters. And that’s why democrats lose.
and Then
there’s Vulture
Capitalists/Capitalism
wringing Every Last Dime
outta the Citizenry, Even if it Kills ’em.
End Housing as Commodity
or we’ll end up with ALL
Housing in the greedy
little hands of the 1%
and The rest of us in
Concentration
Camps
fighting over
delicious
little
rats
@38: “And that’s why democrats lose.”
Wait! What? When did the Democrats ever lose in Seattle (and consequently Washington State).
@40 The Democratic Party is split between people who are socially liberal and fiscally moderate and people who are more communistic or anarchistic (you know, the Hamas supporters and UW vandals). Democratic voters in Seattle lose when the majority (that first group) is thwarted by that second group.
@41 — “thwarted.” lol!
the “Democratic” party*
is Anything but
democratic
*LLC, bitches!
Beholden to
Themselves,
Solely!
anyone Else’s
either a Commie an
Anarchist the Antichrist
or a “fucking Socialist.” btw
that Reminds me: Bernie represents
ME. and 7/5 of America’s Progressives
but you’ll Never hear That
from Corporate “Centrist”
feckless dems. they Love
the Abyss and cannot
Wait to take the
Plunge into
fascism.
not “crazy” dem?
yeah. I don’t
Think so
“Hamas supporters”?
fuck you.
@41: True. But that “thwarting” may come in the form of greater support for splinter groups by the change in election processes. Both parties (Dems and GOP) are effectively coalition groups today. RCV will just formalize that. But our current form of government isn’t well suited to breaking up disfunctional coalitions. Once representatives have their seats, it takes a major effort to remove them.
We may need to adopt some of the parlimentarian tools, like votes of no confidence and calls for interim elections.
@43: Rising to your usual eloquent standard of erudite civic dialog, I see.
The full phrase @41 reads, “…the Hamas supporters and UW vandals…” SUPER UW, en route to their hateful trashing of the UW’s new Interdisciplinary Engineering Building, issued a “Manifesto,” the very first sentence of which praises Hamas’ slaughter of unarmed civilians on 10/7:
“We are taking this building amidst the current and renewed wave of the student Intifada, following the uprising of student action for Palestine after the heroic victory of Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7th, which shattered the illusion of zionist-imperialist domination and brought Palestine to the forefront for all justice-loving people of the world.”
(https://medium.com/@super.uw.seattle/we-demand-uw-will-no-longer-be-complicit-in-genocide-0099dc761f92)
So, there’s no doubt the SUPER UW vandals were, indeed, “Hamas supporters.”
Now, if you want to quote your own words, condemning Hamas (note: not condemning other commenters’ mentions of Hamas!) you’re free to do so. As usual quotes, URLS will suffice.
Ha, ha, ha….
oh fuck off
but before you Do:
“‘Now the Heritage contingent
was in Israel, in part, to discuss
another contentious policy paper:*
Project Esther,
the foundation’s proposal to
rapidly dismantle the pro-Palestinian movement
in the United States, along with its support
at schools and universities, at progressive
organizations and in Congress.’
Remind you of anyone posting here?”
–@angryone on May 20, 2025 at 12:22 AM
oh.
you mean
The Wormtongue?
and his
sidekick ai
siksokbott?
so he’s from Heritage.
I thought he was
AIPAC/IOF.
livenlearn.
Thanks, angryone.
we should All be.
–@kristofarian on May 20, 2025 at 5:16 AM
[mostly]
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/project-esther-heritage-foundation-palestine.html
https://www.thestranger.com/slog-am/2025/05/19/80063716/slog-am-biden-has-cancer-3-dead-in-pioneer-square-shooting-oregon-spent-drug-treatment-money-on-cops/comments
sic ’em,
Heritage boy.
Sic ’em.
@46-47: Well, that only took you four whole days. (Found amphetamines, have we?)
“so he’s from Heritage.
“I thought he was
AIPAC/IOF.”
Must you choose? I mean, a cornerstone of paranoid-conspiricist ‘thought’ holds that The Enemy is Everywhere, All The Time, insidiously shape-shifting, ever simultaneously both skulkingly weak, AND immensely powerful, right?
As you seem to have missed it completely, my answer to angryone’s abject nonsense is here, https://www.thestranger.com/slog-am/2025/05/19/80063716/slog-am-biden-has-cancer-3-dead-in-pioneer-square-shooting-oregon-spent-drug-treatment-money-on-cops/comments/52
In particular,
“Oh, how I long for the days when I was on George Soros’ payroll. Or so I was told, many many times…”
Twenty years ago, that was the story right-wing commenters told about me. You tell it now. Because Horseshoe Theory! (Plus, twenty years is your dead-flat minimum time for rapid assembly on the weakest and palest of imitations…)
Speaking of War Crimes
Land Grabs and
Gen-O-Cide:
nyt:
Israel’s
Allies Condemn
Expansion of Gaza War
Britain, France and Canada
called the Israeli plans for escalation
“disproportionate” and “egregious” at a time
when the U.N. is warning the population is at risk of famine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/world/middleeast/israel-allies-denounce-gaza-offensive.html
feel Free to Condemn Israel
Wormtongue, or count
Yourself as an Enthus-
iastic Supporter.
some comments on the article:
“This is a war of civilization over barbarism,”
Mr. Netanyahu said on social media.
Mr. Netanyahu needs to look at
himself in the mirror. What
we are seeing is civilization
falling back into barbarism.
What civilized country uses
starvation as a tool of war?
–@Serban; Miller Place NY 11764
@Serban — What the Israelis fail to realize
is that as time marches on, your average
person is going to associate Israel less
as a safe haven for Jews and more as
a modern nation state that is violent,
steals land and is willing to starve a
city of 2 million people to death.
–@Doublas; Germany
[at wormmy: this is a point I’ve
brought up Numerous times
to be scoffed at by you and
your sicsokbotts & cohorts
here @ts — your Denials to
the contrary are certainly
Notwithstanding. This’ll
Not be good for Jews
Anywhere on this
fucking Planet.]
@Serban — I read that particular statement as one
of clearest demonstrations yet that Israel has
in the end become a mirror of the horrors
that were inflicted on the Jewish people
in the first place.
“Civilization” vs “barbarism”
is exactly the kind of language that
people promoting western supremacy
have used in the past, all the way back to
the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 30s.
Even though in this case we know
that many Israelis are ethnically similar
to the Gazans they are persecuting, still the idea
that there is a certain kind of people who represent
the latter and another the former is inherently dehumanizing.
–@Miles Parker; Nelson, BC
Killing
a mosquito
with a 500-pound
[bomb] is beyond reason.
People who do not
see that are be-
yond reason.
-@Seriphussr; United States Of The Socialist Republic
Oodles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/world/middleeast/israel-allies-denounce-gaza-offensive.html#commentsContainer
Denounce Israeli Terror
wormmy – otherwise
your Silence makes
YOU Complicit.
/.
Your
tax dollar$$$
working fucking Overtime.
oh, the fucking humanity:
where
did it
Go?
but
tell us
about the
Definitions
Wormtongue
and how a Senator
disagrees with 2/3
of Planet Earth.
48
kudos
on your
Pity Party
tell us why
you turned
180 degrees
& joined the
Dark Side.
did those mean
Regressives &
Repressives
force your
hands?
@50: “and how a Senator
disagrees with 2/3
of Planet Earth.”
Surveyed all 8 billion of us personally, did you?
Thanks for reminding everyone you equate being popular with being right. Puts all of your endless moralistic posturing in proper perspective. (Hurts, don’t it?)