This is an over-the-top polemic that isn't worthy of the time needed to read it. Comparing the current situation in City Hall with Watergate is a tactic worthy of the worst right-wing shock jocks, connecting completely unrelated things for psychological effect. It's also known as propaganda.

Regionally, over time, I've watched one city after another go through a period of civic upheaval, dysfunction and disarray. They usually right themselves after an election or two. Mr. Valdez pretty much shot any slim bit of credibility he might have had by slyly suggesting that Council President Richard Conlin might be subject to a recall. While this constitutes a completely silly proposal, on its face (lack of any credible basis) ... it would be a political waste of time, since the majority of the council would have to be recalled for it to have any impact of Mr. Valdez' apparent issue.

I have no idea who the "Party of the Future" is, nor how that is a "project of the Friends of Seattle." But if this is illustrative of their efforts ... geesh.

I'm with Deb.

It's easy to see why tunnel opponents are trying to blow this detail up as large as possible, when we remember what they're trying to make us forget.

The draft statement has been available for months, with McGinn pretending he would sign it so the City Council wouldn't go directly to an ordnance to pass it. Even on the fatal Thursday, McGinn continued to pretend he would sign it, until quite literally the last hour, when he finally admitted that even if allowed another week, he would not sign. He hoped that it would be too late for the Council to salvage the agreements that hung on the signature.

And what did McGinn hope to accomplish? He knew a veto-proof majority on the Council would go ahead with the tunnel. All that he could hope to do by not signing is to add delay and expense to the process- and create another angry talking point for his supporters to shout about.

As for the "arrogance of power", I have to give that prize to McGinn, who began his term by hiring a convicted felon to run polls and tell him where best to pander to the emotion of the moment (this was undoubtedly the pollster who told McGinn to promise he wouldn't oppose the tunnel just before the election) and shortly after blind-sided the Council by demanding a special vote on the seawall. Most recently, McGinn seems to have decided that, as Mayor, he has the power to tear up any contract he disagrees with, such as the city contract with MOHAI.

(Roger also seems to have a hazy understanding, or perhaps none at all, of the 'Cromwellian Commonwealth'. The problem with Cromwell's reign was not that Parliament had too much power, but that it had too little- especially after Cromwell dismissed them and tried to rule on his own.)

The bottom line here is pretty plain- McGinn was trying to destroy Seattle's influence in the planning process, so he could then claim Seattle didn't have enough influence in the planning process. This is all part of the victimhood narrative McGinn supporters love to tell, where sinister outside forces and mysterious cabals try to take advantage of poor defenseless Seattle.

So, let's see now, a city council that's been elected and passed laws for years with no particular controversy or power grabs, or Mike McGinn, who since his election has made unilateral demands intended to alarm us all (The Seawall Will Fail!), says he doesn't need to honor a contract if he doesn't agree with it, and tried to trick the Council into missing a deadline and letting costs and delays increase on the tunnel, so McGinn could then claim that the project has too many delays and too much cost.

I'm not having any trouble at all in deciding who looks like Cromwell in this picture.

Roger Valdez seems to be on his way to becoming the Glen Beck of the anti-tunnel party.

Richard Conlin appears to have done the right thing and has been completely transparent about it.

McGinn, now with some haze from Roger, appears to be the one promoting a deception in this case.

I agree with Jan. The author seems to be grasping at straws to support his dislike of a state project. Maybe if it was a City of Seattle project it might be appropriate. It's not. It is a state of Washington highway. The state is being rather nice and trying to work with the City. They could be heavy handed and go in and do the project without dealing with the city. McGinn's last minute theatrics is worthy of the Three Stooges.

This is the most ludicrous piece of writing I've ever seen here.

"Conlin folded under pressure and signed the document"

What pressure? Pressure from whom?

Folks, please try to separate your love for the tunnel (about which reasonable people can --or used to? -- disagree) and City governance. Imagine if McGinn had proclaimed a new law?

Of course it's somewhat overdrawn but Valdez has it basically correct.

1. Conlin is clearly wrong, legally.
2. Council ratification can't be done in one day anyway.
3. Conlin's error, now compounded by Bagshaw and WSDOT, lead to lack of confidence in general and make the situation worse than it was before last Thursday and presages further delay -- now there is another time-delaying issue.

As the sayings go, "haste makes waste" and "do it right the first time."

However, I wouldA like to read is exactly what Conlin wrote. Not paraphrased. The actual document. Is that available.

Sorry, Roger, I couldn't make it through this puffed-up nonsense. Conlin equals Nixon: got it.

Can you write one comparing him to Hitler?

Since McGinn and the council each endorse solutions that will damage the transportation matrix of the city for the foreseeable future, it’s irrelevant who might prevail. I would rather see some journalistic force applied to the object to learn the real story about how this enormously expensive, wrong-headed project ever came to be.

Valdez's argument convinces me that our City Attorney Peter Holmes is actually making a wise choice in this. Unlike Roger, who apparently believes the rules are more important than the interests of the City of Seattle, Mr. Holmes understands that the Council can and will validate Conlin's signature and that in a matter of hours the "crisis" of Conlin's signing will be behind us with a authorizing ordinance from a Mayor-trumping Council super-majority. So he's wisely asked what the long-term issue is and, of course, recognized it's the question of how Seattle will best be represented in the design and construction of the tunnel.

Sorry David. This piece not worthy of Crosscut and/or your objective of pursuing readers interested in (relatively) unbiased analysis.

This is nonsense. The author has the legal obligations of the parties under the Charter exactly backwards: McGinn reports to, is accountable to, and implements policy at the direction of, the Council, NOT the other way around. Regardless of how you feel about the issues, at least keep the players straight.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

@PennyBuddy: I'd say this piece is about worthy of Crosscut, and about as credible, as the recent anti-1098 screed from Judith Runstad.

When disrupted, scurrying mice appear abnormally large.

serial_catowner hit the nail and the mayor on the head. Cromwell indeed.
Let's keep the journalism at a higher level than this particular desperation pass. Thank you serial_catowner for telling it like it is.

mountainhigh

My inexpert read on the legalities of the situation is that Conlin's actions are not entirely kosher but not far out of bounds either. The council can and will legitimate this in due time, and frankly at this point I'm not too concerned about whether the proper number of hearings are held. Normally I would oppose actions that are not strictly by the book, but the mayor's obstructionism on the tunnel is so frustrating that I fear that we'll never get the viaduct replaced unless someone steps forward and takes a bold action.

I will echo what others have commented: comparisons to Watergate, the Cromwellion Commonwealth (!), and discussions of recalls are not reasonable.

Obviously no lawyers here.

@ David

Or historians.

Enough already! Enough dramatic hyperbole. We just endured years of process that brought about a hard won compromise that would REPLACE a vital transportation link and to build a world class waterfront. Enough dithering! Let's not have another monorail embarrassment. Get on with it! Build it!!

From the piece:

"[The city charter says] the mayor “shall direct and control all subordinate officers of the City.” Actions of the legislative branch, the Seattle City Council, “shall be by ordinance.”"

Let's assume that's a correct statement of the law, and let's put it in these terms: the mayor is in charge of administrative acts by city employees, and the city council sets policy for the city. Anyone disagree so far?

I took a look at what the SR 520 replacement project DEIS looks like, you can see the signature blocks for it here:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9BCDCAFF-54C6-4D78-8C89-369C4D293FDA/0/00_SR520DEIS_CoverIntro.pdf

It was signed by 3 officials (environmental officers and compliance officals, employed by the FTA, WSDOT and ST).

That leads me to the following conclusion. McGinn (or some environmental compliance officer employed by the city), and not Conlin, should sign a city DEIS.

The mayor has all the staff reporting to him regarding whether that administrative matter has been completed properly (that is, was the DEIS checklist followed, were hearings held, reports submitted, etc.). The mayor's in charge of those responsible for that. The buck stops with him on those matters.

In contrast, nobody's reporting to Conlin about that, and he isn't in the chain of command over the staff that did the work and supervised the outside firms who assisted with that DEIS document's preparation.

Conlin's just a city councilmember who needs to act as part of that body to set and/or change policies. Signing a DEIS is an administrative act, not a policy act, and individual members of the city council lack administrative authority.

Now let's hear from all the megaproject-loving Nickels supporters who hate McGinn - tear my reasoning here to shreds. Go for it.

Right on the nose, crossrip! People are letting their love or hate of the tunnel get in the way of the facts. Do we really want to tear down the city charter just to 'get things done' ? Where do we stop with that kind of argument? What is the next 'bold action'?

Also, speaking of journalism, none of the commentators have actually attacked the main points in the article. It has just been a string of ad hominum and other rhetorical drivel.

I'm officially embarassed for this author. Roger, I think you have jumped the shark.

And as far as the 'Party of the Future', in less than 39 months, you should be the Party of the Past.

Andy and Crossrip have nailed it.

Many people here are frustrated and angry and want to see "something happen" and law and order can be set aside by expediency.

I am saddened for Seattle.

"The mayor has all the staff reporting to him regarding whether that administrative matter has been completed properly..."

Crossrip, it's precisely because the mayor has all those staff (16 dedicated to the tunnel project and paid for by WSDOT) that he should've been fully informed about the DEIS and whether or not it was worthy of a signature by the SDOT director. Weren't they using all the preliminary drafts to keep him informed? No more excuses, please.

Crossrip only reported on a small portion of the city charter.

Had he referenced Article V. Executive Department; Section 9, he would have read the following: "In the case of the absence of the Mayor from the City, or if he or she from any cause be incapacitated from acting, the President, or in the case of his or her disability or absensce, the acting president of the City Council shall act as Mayor, and for the time being exercise all his or her powers."

Clearly the mayor, in this case was incapacitated, whether by poor judgement, political obstructionism, moral belief, or whatever from responding to a critical state imposed deadline for the Tunnel DEIS. All other jurisdictions had to meet this deadline, but our apprentice mayor felt otherwise, potentially jeopardizing city input and its ability to respond to those commenting on this critical document. Failure to sign, after having months to review it clearly shows recklessness on the administration's part, may be seen by many as malfeasance.

Many of us already consider the mayor incapacititated in his ability to deal with the highway 99 tunnel because of his often stated objections to the state's compromise, reached after years of delay. Given the stakes that the tunnel could fail in the next major earthquake (it straddles a major fault)and, therefore, time is of the essence in replacing it, few would blame the council president for signing the DEIS so as not to further jeopardize the city position.

For those who have previously suggested that the mayor be removed, reference should be made to Article V. Executive Department; Section 10. Removal of the Mayor. It speaks of any "willful violation of duty" among other causes.

-Knute000

knute000 you gasbag - Conlin didn't sign that DEIS under the auspices of Art. V sec. 9. He explained to city attorney Pete Holmes he signed it as a political gesture.

DEIS filings usually are signed by government staffers, generally environmental compliance officers. What a signature on those documents is supposed to mean is the information in the form is believed to be true, and that all the administrative steps have been taken in connection with preparing the form. Those matters include following the DEIS-completion checklist, holding public hearings, obtaining expert analyses, etc.

That’s not why Conlin signed this form though. He wasn’t signing the DEIS form because he had knowledge of those procedural matters or the substance of what was in the form. He wasn’t signing that document for any of the reasons those documents need to be signed. He sure wasn't signing because he believed McGinn was incapacitated!

Conlin signed that document purely as a political statement. You know how women’s rights supporters in 1973 were burning bras? That’s the same kind of completely symbolic gesture Conlin engaged in by signing that document. We know that because of what he told city attorney Pete Holmes. The following is a quote from Holmes:

"Conlin's signature demonstrates his intent for the City to remain as a co-lead agency during the state's EIS process. His signature does not certify that the SDEIS meets the legal standards for a EIS. As nominal lead agency, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has the primary responsibility for determining whether the SDEIS is adequate."

-
[link]http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/222775.asp .
-

See that, Knute000? Conlin intended to sign that document for reasons unrelated to why such a document needs to be signed. Get your facts straight.

I guess crossrip doesn't get. At least the Seattle Times, on their editorial page today, apparently does. I never suggested that Conlin was certifying the accuracy of the SDEIS but keeping Seattle in the game, as a co-lead, something Mayor Apprentice would prefer not to see happen. Fess up that this mayor is an obstructionist and one an election by saying he would not obstruct tunnel if elected mayor. If Council allows him to have his way will leave this city's transportation system in shatters. Bellevue and Tacoma will be obvious winners in the years ahead.