Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Appointments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lynnwood Council appoints Robert Lutweiler to vacant Seat 5 after 5–1 vote

2703517 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lynnwood City Council voted 5–0 with one abstention to appoint Robert Lutweiler to fill council position No. 5; the meeting featured criticism of the appointment process and calls for broader representation.

The Lynnwood City Council voted to appoint Robert Lutweiler to fill the vacant council position No. 5 during a special business meeting on Wednesday, March 19, 2025.

Council member Hurst moved to appoint Lutweiler; the motion was seconded and passed with five votes in favor and one abstention. Council member Escamilla announced she would not support the appointment, saying her vote reflected concern about the process and representation rather than Mr. Lutweiler personally.

The appointment concluded with the council welcoming Lutweiler and staff saying they would contact him via email about next steps so he could take the oath and be seated at the next council meeting.

Why it matters: The council’s vote fills a seat that council members said is needed to restore a full seven-member body, but the appointment drew public attention and internal debate about how the city selects interim council members when vacancies occur.

Council member Hurst opened the formal action by saying, "I move to appoint Robert Lutweiler to city council position number 5." Council members then offered brief remarks before the roll-call vote.

Council member Bridal, who voted in favor, described the selection process as difficult and said the council should refine its procedures for future vacancies. "I think I've always been someone that's been staunchly consistent over the last couple weeks of saying that I believe that we should have more candidates from the pool brought up, to interview, to give more community members a chance to advocate for themselves," Bridal said, adding that despite personal grievances she would vote to restore a full council so members can "get to the business of the city."

Council member Escamilla said she would not vote for the appointment because of the process and its outcome, not because of the candidate. Escamilla cited city demographics while urging that governing bodies reflect community diversity: "Our city is made up of people from all backgrounds estimated at 50% white with over half female, 19 percent Asian, 14 percent Hispanic or Latino and 8% Black or African American, 11.3 percent with 2 or more races, 5.7 other races and less than 1% Native American, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian." She said, "So in good conscience, I cannot support an appointment that does not reflect the full spectrum of voices in our community."

After the vote was completed, the assistant city administrator (unnamed on the record) said staff would contact Lutweiler by email and that he was prepared to join the next meeting and be sworn in and seated immediately.

Votes at a glance: Motion to appoint Robert Lutweiler to council position No. 5 — Moved by Council member Hurst; second not specified in the record; outcome: approved (5 yes, 1 abstention). Yes: Hurst; Coelho; Bridal; Decker; Parcel. Abstain: Escamilla.

Public disruptions and chamber removal: During the meeting an individual identified in the transcript as "Miss Lensford" was asked by an officer to leave the chamber after a disturbance; council proceedings resumed and the roll call vote proceeded.

What did not happen: No ordinance, budget action, or other formal policy decision was made during the item; this meeting was convened specifically to consider the council vacancy and contained limited additional business.

Next steps: Staff will notify Lutweiler and arrange his oath and seating; the council did not specify further procedural changes to the appointment process at this meeting, though several members said they want to review and possibly revise the process for future vacancies.