City Clerk Records Library
1.10 MEETINGS & HEARINGS
Meetings-Governing Executive (6yrs-A)
City Council Meetings
2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
1/19/2021 11:36:12 AM
1/19/2021 11:35:31 AM
Meetings and Hearings
Clerk Meeting Type
Meeting Document Type
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View plain text
ADDITIONAL ROUND OF INTERVIEWS, AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SHE <br />REQUESTED ITEM 7.7, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SERVICE AS COUNCIL <br />PRESIDENT - ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS, BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT <br />AGENDA. <br />Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with having a topic, brought to the Council for the <br />first time, placed on the agenda as an action item; typically the first time the Council considers something, <br />it is a study item. She will vote in opposition because placing an item on the agenda as an action item <br />does not provide Council an opportunity to study it and/or get new information. <br />Council President Paine asked the reason for pulling Consent Agenda Item 7.7. Councilmember <br />Buckshnis answered she would like to have a roll call vote. With regard to the new item she proposed, she <br />provided the reasons in an email sent today. She recalled numerous times last year where action items <br />were proposed. The agenda now has Action Items and Study Items instead of Unfinished Business or <br />New Business. She explained the topic was not new, everyone was familiar with it and Councilmembers <br />were made aware of it this afternoon via email. <br />Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this was something new coming to the Council for action and <br />therefore she will not support it. She had not had an opportunity to read email because she was in other <br />meetings this afternoon. <br />Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Buckshnis' motion be two motions. Councilmember Buckshnis <br />said she had planned to wait until the Consent Agenda to pull 7.7 but sometimes items were pulled off the <br />Consent Agenda during Approval of the Agenda. She suggested waiting until the Consent Agenda and <br />possibly Councilmember K. Johnson will join the meeting by then. <br />Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion: <br />TO ADD ACTON ITEM 9.5, COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REGARDING ADDITIONAL <br />ROUND OF INTERVIEWS <br />Councilmember Distelhorst asked for clarification from the City Attorney regarding whether there was <br />any action for the Council to take on that topic. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he would need further <br />information from the maker of the motion regarding the nature of the action item before he could opine on <br />it. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she spoke to Mr. Taraday many times last year and this year and <br />sent the email at about 1:00 p.m. today to clarify information approved on November 17"' which <br />Councilmember Distelhorst sent to her. Her intent was to provide information and allow the Council to <br />vote again so the citizen are aware of what the Council voted on November 17t1i and clarifying for <br />transparency what has transpired since then. <br />To clarify his understanding of the motion, Mr. Taraday paraphrased Councilmember Buckshnis' request <br />to amend the agenda to add Council action with regard to waiving the interview requirement for Police <br />Chief recruitment purposes. He divined that based on communications she has had with him and what she <br />just said. He explained the Council already waived that requirement in November; at that time, the <br />Council essentially took a vote authorizing the Mayor to proceed with interviews of just two candidates <br />and the Council interviewed those two candidates. By taking that vote, the Council essentially cleared the <br />path for the Mayor to appoint either of the two candidates. That was the Mayor's choice then, and is <br />probably still the Mayor's choice now because that vote occurred not long ago. He was unsure that any <br />additional Council action would be necessary. If the Mayor were to ask him whether appointment of the <br />other candidate is still a possibility, as of right now that is probably legally speaking within the Mayor's <br />power. The Council does not have any role to play in waiving any interview requirement now. Having <br />said that, the waiver does not last forever and unfortunately he cannot say how long it lasts because the <br />Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes <br />January 5, 2021 <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.