Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Vacancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mukilteo staff outlines vacancy process; council debates "mock council" interview format
Summary
City staff reported seven applicants for the Mukilteo council vacancy (application window April 10–26), recommended a process of published questions and interviews, and asked councilmembers to submit one question by Wednesday. Council debated using a group "mock council" exercise versus traditional candidate statements and interviews.
City staff presented the process to fill Mukilteo’s vacant council seat and councilmembers debated formats and fairness at a work session on April 27.
City staff member Powers summarized the timeline: applications were accepted April 10–26 and seven candidates applied; staff provided a schedule modeled on the 2022 and 2020 processes and noted the city is not bound by a municipal code provision or a specific RCW rule for this appointment. If the process proceeds on the proposed schedule, interviews would be held on May 18 and the appointed person could take the oath of office at the June 1 council meeting (Powers, Speaker 9).
Powers said each councilmember — and the mayor — traditionally submits one predetermined interview question and staff reviews questions for overlap. He described prior practice: candidate statements, a shortlisting step, and timed interviews ("We've tried to hold those interviews to a maximum of 20 minutes," Powers said).
A councilmember (Speaker 5) proposed a live group exercise in which all candidates participate in a 20-minute simulated council discussion to observe collaboration and interaction. “If we created a situation where we're up there in the dais ... and then have the applicants here and do, like, a mock council meeting ... we can see their the way they collaborate, they interact,” the councilmember said.
Several councilmembers supported components of the idea as informative but raised concerns about logistics, fairness and the potential for the exercise to become a spectacle. Councilmembers discussed alternatives including 2–3 minute individual candidate statements, rotating question order to avoid first/last disadvantage, and reserving follow-up questions for a narrowed finalist group.
Staff asked councilmembers to submit their one interview question to staff by Wednesday so materials can be circulated ahead of the next meeting. No appointment was made at the work session; staff said they will follow the council’s direction for the next steps.
