Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snohomish County Council delays vote on Charter Review coordinator after commissioners raise conflict concerns
Summary
Public-commenting Charter Review commissioners raised undisclosed ties between the recommended coordinator and developer lobbyists; after council members questioned the process and the executive’s role, the council voted 3-1 to continue consideration of motion 26-0-85 to next Tuesday.
Demi Chatters and Robin McGee, both members of the county's Charter Review Commission, urged Snohomish County Council to reject the commission's recommended coordinator, saying the candidate’s connections to developers were not disclosed and posed a conflict of interest.
Chatters, who identified herself as a Charter Review Commissioner for District 2, told the council she had been informed that the recommended coordinator was employed by the brother of a fellow commissioner as a paid lobbyist for a firm that works on behalf of developers in Snohomish County. “This was never disclosed to the full commission and should have been a disqualifying factor,” Chatters said, arguing that hiring a lobbyist for a public commission “creates an obvious conflict of interest that undermines public trust.”
Robin McGee, also a Charter Review Commissioner, described the commission’s hiring process and said she was not aware the candidate was a paid lobbyist and an elected official who serves with another commissioner; she urged the council to reject the candidate and send the commission back to recruit more impartial candidates.
Heidi Bizzizzo, speaking for staff, said the commission’s hiring committee had interviewed candidates and forwarded a proposed professional services agreement for the recommended coordinator, Peter Condoleezza, under motion 26-0-85. Bizzizzo told the council the commission had authorized its hiring committee to select and forward a candidate for the council and executive to consider.
Council members questioned staff about the council’s authority over an independent, elected commission and whether the county executive could refuse to sign the agreement. Staff said the council could continue the item and request the Charter Review Commission reconsider if members believed the commission’s decision had been made without complete information.
After discussion, a council member moved to continue consideration of motion 26-0-85 to the next administrative-session meeting so the Charter Review Commission could review the public comments and potentially reconsider. The motion to continue passed on a voice vote, 3-1, with the chair opposing.
The council did not approve the recommended contract at this meeting. The item will return to the administrative agenda at the council’s next meeting for further action or consideration by the commission.
