Loading...
Cmd052620EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES May 26, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office Scott Passey, City Clerk ALSO PRESENT Zach Bauder, Student Representative The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. 5, APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO REMOVE ITEM 7.1, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 8.1, DISCUSSION OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION CONTRACT RENEWAL, AS IT WAS UNCERTAIN THEY WERE NECESSARY UNDER THE REVISED OPMA, AND TO. ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) BEFORE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IN ADDITION TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT AGENDA ITEM 9. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING Olt POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.20.1100)(i) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 1 At 7:04 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(l)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Nelson, and Councilmembers K. Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Paine, Olson, L. Johnson, and Distelhorst. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office. At 7:20 p.m. Mayor Nelson extended the executive session for 15 minutes. At 7:35 p.m., Mayor Nelson extended the executive session for 15 minutes. At 7:51 p.m., Mayor Nelson extended the executive session an additional 15 minutes. The executive session concluded at 8:08 p.m. Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular Ciy Council meeting at 8:08 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO PULL ITEM 5.5, EMPLOYEE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, AND APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1. EMPLOYEE SEPARATION AGREEMENT (Previously Agenda item 5.5) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE NUMBER 24. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND PAINE; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO IMPROVE THE WORDING OF SECTION 4 AS DESCRIBED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. UPON ' ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday asked for clarification on the vote on the first motion, whether it was four in favor and three opposed. Councilmember Paine said she intended to vote no on the first motion asked how Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 2 to correct that. Mr. Taraday said a main motion had not been made so another amendment could be made to add Section 24 back into the separation agreement. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD SECTION 24 BACK IN. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, advising that a main motion had not yet been made. Mr. Taraday answered given that the Council had already voted on two amendments and, for the sake of consistency, he suggested the Council continue with amendments. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the motion is a reconsideration. Mr. Taraday agreed, it could be considered a motion for reconsideration. Since Councilmember Paine voted in the majority, she has the right to move for reconsideration of the motion. What matters most is that the intent is clear; if the motion passes, Paragraph 24 will remain in the agreement. He clarified a yes vote means a Councilmember wants Paragraph 24 to remain as part of the agreement; a no vote means a Councilmember does not want Paragraph 24 to remain as part of the agreement. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday to explain the impact of the yes and no votes again. Mr. Taraday explained if a Councilmember voted yes on Councilmember Paine's motion, they were indicating they wanted Paragraph 24 to remain as part of the agreement. If a Councilmember voted no on Councilmember Paine's motion, they were indicating they did not want Paragraph 24 to be part of the agreement. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING NO. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED TO PUBLICCOMMENT(a)EDMONDSWA.GOV) See Attached. 9. ACTION ITEM 1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 4. 10. STUDY ITEMS DISCUSSION OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION CONTRACT RENEWAL This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 4. 2. UPDATE ON EMERGENCY CLOSURE/ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL COMP PLAN Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 3 HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised this item is to update Council on how the Emergency Closure/Essential Personnel Comp Plan has been functioning since approved by Council on March 24, 2020. She explained employees were divided into three categories, 1) working physically on site 8+ hours/week, 2) telecommuting more than 2 days/week and may come into to the office less than 8 hours/week to obtain materials, etc., and 3) employees who cannot telecommute and are not required to physically report to work and are on standby leave. She reported this has worked very well; Public Works, Parks and Police employees have used the standby work option to have employees work split shift in order to isolate employees so a shift of employees is available in the event there is any viral contamination in a work group and has allowed the City to continue essential public services. Additionally the hazard pay has been well received by the unions and the feedback she has received appreciated the Council proactively taking this approach. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained departments have been directed that as of June V, the standby leave feature of the policy will no longer be used as there are sufficient protocols in place for employee safety including staggered shifts and personal protective equipment ;PPE) to ensure employees who are working less than 6 feet apart are able to protect themselves. To date, hazard pay has totaled $57,000 from when it was enacted on March 241h Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Neill Hoyson for answering her questions today. She asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to explain A, B and C, noting citizens have been asking about Parks employees. She also asked if employees could be in more than one category. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained Category A employees are working more than a de minimis amount of time physically on site, 8+hours per week or for a part-time employee, 20% of their work week. Employees in Category B are telecommuting for at least two days/week but may be required to come to office to pick up materials, check mail, etc. for less than 8 hours/week. Employees in Category C are on standby leave; they are at home but available to the City during regular work hours should they be needed. In any single work week, an employee cannot be in more than one category, but employees may be in different categories during a pay period. For example, in Public Works where employees are working split shifts, one week they would be in Category A and the next week in Category C. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $57,000 spent on hazard pay and asked if hazard pay included an employee in Category A working 20% of the time but receiving their full salary. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained hazard pay is the additional pay differential employees are receiving; 6% for employees in Category A and 3% for employees in Category B, the cost in addition to regular salaries. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding if an employee was in Category A, they worked 20% of the time, for example Parks employees work one week on working half days and one week off. Ms. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what other cities were doing and how this formula was determined. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the intent was minimal potential exposure for employees to the virus based on how much they are working which was reason for one day or more. If someone comes into the office very briefly to pick up materials, that is a very minimal exposure, compared to someone how comes into the office more than one day/week and has an exponential potential exposure to the virus. She did not know how other cities chose to create thresholds; Edmonds may be the only city that had categorized employees in this way. She has heard other cities are providing a flat 6% for employees working in any capacity. In her opinion it was fair and equity to differentiate between what was paid to employees telecommuting and may have minimal exposure from coming into the office versus employees on standby leave. This formula was created based on her experience and best practices and what was felt to be fair to employees and the easiest to implement for payroll purposes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 4 Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City would follow the governor's plan for reopening in phases or would there be a separate determination regarding when employees return to work or changing the parameters. Ms. Neill Hoyson said as of June 1st, the standby leave portion would be eliminated. The standby leave was a tool to minimize potential exposure and continue essential government services prior to having procedures and PPE available. That was an internal decision and now there are enough protocols in place for employees to return to work without being isolated by shifts. That is separate from the governor's stay at home order. A document is being developed that will be available this week that outlines phases for reopening the City, such as when employees should expect to return to work. With regard to the governor's stay at home order, government external facing services do not start until Phase 3 such as reopening buildings, allowing the public to have face-to-face services, etc. The City plans to continue supporting telecommuting as much as possible where appropriate and even in Phase 3, if an employee does not provide face-to-face services, it is likely teleworking will continue to be supported. Councilmember Paine asked what had been biggest challenge for managers in the last several weeks and suggested keeping track of them in case this was necessary again, which she hoped did not occur. She asked if there was anything that had surprised managers and what they would do differently. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered for many of those supervising office staff, managing remote employees is a very specific skill set and required a crash course. It has pushed government forward in understanding quite a bit of work can be done in that capacity which potentially can impact bottom line costs as well as allowing flexibility for staff. Communication is the biggest challenge when dealing with remote employees, ensuring appropriate and sufficient communication to keep employees informed, maintaining a cohesive workforce, having regular meetings with staff and flow of information, and departments all sharing same information. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $1.27 million the City will receive from the governor and asked if those funds can be used for hazard pay. Mayor Nelson answered hazard pay could qualify as an expense for the $1.265 million the City will receive and is specifically identified as an example of how the funds can be used. In addition to eliminating Category C, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if employees in Categories A and B would be allowed to work longer hours and to work in the community such as Parks employees. She acknowledged the need to keep employees safe. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered as of June 1st, all employees who do physical work will be working 40 hours/week. Parks is working on shift scheduling to minimize the number of employees working at a time such as shift staggering, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis said she is often asked where the Parks employees are. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed Council Administrative/Legislative Assistant Maureen Judge has been working one day/week in the office. She meets with Ms. Judge in the office on that day, Ms. Judge comes into the office occasionally and she checks in with her multiple times a day regarding her work projects. That has worked well and nearly all Councilmembers have been in contact with Ms. Judge regarding projects since she has been telecommuting. When Ms. Judge returns to the office, there likely will be plexiglass on her desk, the door will remain locked, Councilmembers will be asked to wear masks, disinfectant wipes will be available and the City's custodians clean the office twice/day. She summarized the Council office is a good example of telecommuting working well to provide necessary services without putting Ms. Judge in jeopardy. When she returns, Council President Fraley-Monillas requested no one hang around the Council office unless absolutely necessary. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to an email she sent Ms. Neill Hoyson earlier today with a number of questions. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised she had been traveling today. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the following questions: 1. How many people are employed by the City? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there are approximately 250 FTE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 5 2. How many receive 6% hazard pay? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it would be close to the number she first reported to Council on March 24t' when the plan as approved. The numbers may shift each week depending on how a supervisor decided to use employees. 3. Of those employees receiving hazard pay, do they receive hazard pay only for the time they are potentially exposed to COVID-19 (for example if they are in the office 20% of the time) or do they receive hazard pay for their full 40 hours? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered for the full 40 hours. Councilmember K. Johnson said she had a problem with that; employees are basically receiving hazard pay when working from home. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered employees who are telecommuting at least 2 days/week and may come into the office 8 hours or less receive a 3% pay differential. 4. How many employees cannot work from home? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered very few employees cannot work from home, actually only one. The majority of employees in Category C are working a split shift including employees at the wastewater treatment plan, stormwater and streets, police clerks and parks. Physical laborers cannot do work from home on their week off although they may be assigned online training and police clerks are not allowed to do the majority of their work from home due to access issues related to confidentiality. 5. Has the Mayor shortened the required work schedule for regular employees to be less than 40 hours/week? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered Mayor Nelson has not taken any action as far as work week schedules. 6. Are work hours accurately reported, whether employees are in the office or working from home? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that may be question for Finance and Payroll related to timesheets. 7. Are employee timesheets subject to public record requests? Mr. Taraday assumed that at least certain aspects are. If the City receives a request, it will need to be more closely reviewed. 8. What are the weekly costs for employee salary and benefits? Ms. Neill Hoyson did not know but could provide that information. 9. How much is the City paying in salary and benefits if employees are not required to work 40 hours/week such as employees working split shifts? Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to determine if employees were being paid for not working. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there are employees being paid to be on standby leave and be available to come into work if they are needed. Councilmember K. Johnson observed that will end June 1st 10. How much has been spent for those individuals. Ms. Neill Hoyson offered to speak to Finance; she was not certain those hours had been coded differently. 11. The governor's stay at home/stay safe order has been extended several times and shortly after it was enacted, the City adopted an Emergency Closure/Essential Personnel Comp Plan. When the governor's order has been extended, the City's order has not been reviewed. Is it an indefinite plan? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it is tied to the governor's stay at home order. Council can ask to revisit and make changes. 12. Has MSRC or Attorney General reviewed the City's policy or indicated if other cities are maintaining full salaries and benefits like Edmonds is? Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there are other cities undertaking the same processes, particularly split shifts with employees staying at home. The Attorney General has not reviewed the City's policy. Councilmember K. Johnson made the following motion in light of the lack of the information: COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO SUSPEND THIS POLICY UNTIL WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN REVIEW THE INFORMATION IN ADVANCE AND COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT AT A FUTURE MEETING. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, asking Mayor Nelson what his plans were for staff returning to work. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 6 Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking if the Council could take action when this item was not on the agenda as an action item. Mr. Taraday answered whether an item is a study session or an action item on the agenda is not binding on the Council and the Council can do what they want at a regular meeting. In response to Council President Fraley-Monillas, Mayor Nelson said most employees are returning at the end of the month. The return of the remainder will depend on when the county enters Phase 2. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council approved this policy. Mayor Nelson advised that Council approved the plan based on the projected numbers and he was unclear why Councilmembers were surprised who was doing what and where. He commented looking back was always interesting versus acting in the moment. The policy the Council approved protected the health and safety of City employees and allowed staff to continue to provide essential, critical City services during this entire time. For example, when there are wastewater treatment plant problems, instead of flooding of raw sewage or pollution into waterways, the shift differentials allowed employees to work and prevented any outbreaks. By contrast, other cities have had to shut down their entire city government because employees were exposed. He was proud Edmonds employees have been safe overall due to the policies the Council approved. Councilmember Buckshnis observed everybody was going back to work full-time on June I` so she would not support the motion. She referred to a question she sent to Mayor Nelson and Mr. Turley about the dollar amount of that expense. She relayed a lot of people have been asking where the City's employees are. She was glad the City had not been required to shut down due to contamination, noting citizens have questioned the need to work half -days when employees are working outdoors. She requested a summary of what the City learned from this experience, noting it is expensive to pay full salaries since March especially for hazard work. MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would like answers to all her questions so Councilmembers can fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to citizens. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Neill Hoyson and Mayor Nelson for the work they have done to keep employees safe and employed. As far as he was aware via this plan, the City had not had to furlough or lay off employees which is very important. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PIER RCW 42.30.1100)(i) At 8:51 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Nelson, and Councilmembers K. Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Paine, Olson, L. Johnson, and Distelhorst. City Attorney Jeff Taraday was also present. At 9:08 Mayor Nelson extended the executive session an additional 15 minutes. At 9:25 p.m. Mayor Nelson extended the executive session for an additional 15 minutes. At 9:40 p.m. Mayor Nelson extended the executive session for an additional 10 minutes. At 9:51 p.m. Mayor Nelson extended the executive session for an additional 5 minutes. The executive session concluded at 9:56 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 7 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:56 p.m. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked everyone for practicing social distancing, washing their hands and for wearing masks. He urged the public to wear a mask if they were unable to maintain social distancing, advising it really makes a difference. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that residents and small businesses are struggling looking at the path ahead. However, this is about the health and safety of everyone, their families, their neighbors and the City and he hoped everyone would continue to follow the professional health guidance. He referred to his haircut performed by his wife and him. If people do not follow professional guidance, cases will rise which will prolong the situation. He urged the public to wear masks, keep physical distance, observe hygiene protocols and stay home as much as allowable. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed at today's Rotary meeting people were anxious and complaining. This area is doing well, have done it for a couple months and are reaching the home stretch. She urged the public to listen to the mayor and governor and assured we can do this. She recognized mental health is a huge issue and she encouraged anyone in need to seek help. She urged the public to exercise kindness, relaying her observation of a person nearly hit by a car telling a driver to slow down and the drive got out of his car and yelled at her. She summarized: practice kindness and smiles, wear your mask and wash your hands — we're almost at the end of the path. Councilmember Paine displayed her mask. She thanked the volunteers who are providing masks, noting cloth masks work fine. She relayed the Snohomish Health District is seeking volunteer contract tracers; further information is available via the medical reserve corps. Bringing down the numbers to reach Phase 2 will require masks, social and physical distancing and contract tracing and wearing a mask is not a big deal. Everyone is looking forward to Phase 2 where people can have more of a life. She expressed her appreciation for Edmonds volunteers, noting it is one of the best parts about Edmonds. Councilmember Olson said it has been several years since May 315t was proclaimed Michael Reagan Day in Edmonds for his tireless portrait art remembering fallen heroes. Mr. Reagan spends most of every day doing that same tireless work. She thanked Mr. Reagan for his work and asked the public to visit his website, FallenHeroesProject.org and wish him a Happy Michael Reagan Day on May 31st Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed Mr. Reagan was a great man. She reported she celebrated Memorial Day independent of any group event by visiting the cemeteries to honor her parents, nephew and other relatives; a special time although everyone was not together as they usually are. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported Snohomish County is slightly behind King County in achieving the numbers to reaching Phase 2. That is being carefully considered and she was confident that Snohomish County would apply to enter Phase 2 as soon as they reached the appropriate level. The Snohomish Health District is hiring people to do contract tracing which is an important part of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Another important part is testing; there are currently not enough to test everyone, only those who are sick. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 8 Councilmember K. Johnson gave a shout out to Dale Hoggins, the driving force behind the Memorial Day celebrations for many years. She also thanked the members of Cemetery Board for their efforts. She commented this is the first year in a long time she has not attended that event; people appreciate something more when it is not there. She also thanked members of public for following all the health guidance, noting together as a community we can do a good job. She relayed frustration she has received from citizens that other cities have done a better job inviting public comments. Although there is a place on the agenda and an email address for comments, she suggested the Council discuss its options because citizens do not feel they are participating in the democratic process. She suggested the Council consider reading the public comments aloud. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mayor Nelson for modeling his mask and for setting a good example. She thanked all the City's employees for everything they are doing to keep the City running smoothly during these very unusual times said their work is greatly appreciated. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 9 Councilmember K. Johnson gave a shout out to Dale Hoggins, the driving force behind the Memorial Day celebrations for many years. She also thanked the members of Cemetery Board for their efforts. She commented this is the first year in a long time she has not attended that event; people appreciate something more when it is not there. She also thanked members of public for following all the health guidance, noting together as a community we can do a good job. She relayed frustration she has received from citizens that other cities have done a better job inviting public comments. Although there is a place on the agenda and an email address for comments, she suggested the Council discuss its options because citizens do not feel they are participating in the democratic process. She suggested the Council consider reading the public comments aloud. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mayor Nelson for modeling his mask and for setting a good example. She thanked all the City's employees for everything they are doing to keep the City running smoothly during these very unusual times said their work is greatly appreciated. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 7 MI;.HAEL NELSON, MAYOR SC ASSEY, CITY CLER Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 9 Public Comment for 5/26/20 Council Meeting: 5/26/20 Liz Brown, Subject: Public Comment on Council Agenda Item My name is Elizabethe Brown and I live on 242nd Street in Edmonds. I wish to comment on the action item on tonight's agenda, regarding a recommendation to move forward and replace the incinerator at the Waste Water Treatment Plant with a gasification system. I urge the City Council to delay action on this item. The best way to serve the residents of Edmonds is to perform due diligence on the risks of gasification compared to the less expensive replacement of the incinerator currently in use at the plant to treat sewage sludge. The Council packet is missing a comparison of the costs of incineration versus gasification. Instead, the presentation to the Council compares gasification ("Project B") with pyrolysis ("Project A"). I would remind the Council that last December, City staff recommended pyrolysis as the preferred option, with $11 million allocated in the 2020 budget toward this project (in addition to $2 million in design work spent on the pyrolysis project, which is at the 80% design stage). Now staff is urging the Council to abandon pyrolysis in favor of gasification. Neither gasification nor pyrolysis are widely in use to treat sewage sludge. In Energies, a peer -reviewed scientific journal, the authors of a 2018 paper titled "A Review of Sludge -to -Energy Recovery Methods" described combustion (incineration) as a "mature and well known technology," while the use of gasification was described as a technology "still at infancy stage." In their conclusion the authors wrote, "An interesting observation is the lack of data to accurately back the high efficiency of most pyrolysis and gasification systems as they fail to account for the energy -intensive pre-processing stage, which offsets a considerable fraction of the recovered energy and could lead to negative energy balance." The cost of the pyrolysis project was estimated at $24 million, but now staff concedes the project is much more costly. No one has been able to put a true cost on maintenance and operation of a gasification system for the City of Edmonds. Most of the material available promoting gasification or pyrolysis as the solution for treating sewage sludge comes from vendors selling the technology. Calling this a "green" and "carbon recovery" project is appealing, but it masks the fact that gasification would be an experiment with one of the City's basic utility needs. In addition to outside experts, the City Council should consult with the City of Anacortes, which in recent years faced the same capital need and chose to refurbish and replace its WWTP incinerator. I urge the City Council to take a step back before committing the residents of Edmonds to an unproven, emerging technology. To do otherwise is to irresponsibly task the residents of Edmonds with paying for an experiment that may prove a costly failure. While experiments can be exciting, the Council's goal should be to ensure the City of Edmonds has a reliable, cost-effective and efficient means of treating its sewage sludge. 5/25/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comment for May 26, 2020 City Council Meeting The November 2, 2009 City Council Agenda included the following item: 6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding endin or threatened litigation. That is all the agenda said. There was no reference to a section of the RCW and there was no indication what the pending or threatened litigation related to. There was no chance any citizen could know what the so called pending or threatened litigation was about. An item of great importance to my family was also on the November 2, 2009 City Council agenda — the review of a Temporary Construction Easement reserved by Ordinance No. 3729. As such, I never suspected that the City Council would go into Executive Session the same evening related to an item already on the regular agenda. City Council did so. At 6:30 p.m., PRIOR to Calling the Council Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 10 to Order and the Flag Salute, former Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. City Council can only go into Executive Session after a regular or special City Council Meeting has been called to Order. EXECUTIVE SESSION is not expressly defined in the Open Public Meetings Act, but the term is commonly understood to mean that part of a regular or special meeting of a governing body that is closed to the public. The November 2, 2009 Executive Session was NOT part of a regular or special meeting of a governing body. RCW 42.30.110(1) - Executive sessions, clearly states that: Nothing contained in this chapter may be construed to prevent a governing body from holding an executive session during a regular or special meeting. RCW 42.30.110(1) - Executive sessions, DOES NOT say that a governing body can hold an Executive Session outside of a regular or special meeting. Former Mayor Haakenson stated that the Executive Session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room. Mayor Haakenson stated that "No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session". Something contrary to what was anticipated would occur — action would take place after a regular meeting of the City Council was Called to Order. Former Councilmember DJ Wilson walked out of Executive Session on November 2, 2009 and walked right over to me and told me that the Council had decided 6-1 to remove my item from the agenda. The November 2, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes document that the Council did exactly that right after the City Council meeting was Called to Order and opened with the flag salute. Elected officials present at the illegal Executive Session held outside of a regular or special meeting of the City Council were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson, Olson and Wilson. Others present at the illegal Executive Session held outside of a regular or special meeting of the City Council were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Attorney Stephanie Croll (why was she there ???), and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in Executive Session. At 7:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson again announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in Executive Session. The Executive Session concluded at 7:25 p.m. 55 minutes of discussion in 2009 and the City of Edmonds has always refused to release the related Executive Session Meeting Minutes to the public. This is true despite the fact the City provided me a related memorandum that must include at least part of what was discussed in secret. Mr. Snyder's related email clearly stated that his memorandum was "For attachment to Council Minutes" yet the City is still claiming Attorney Client privilege for the related minutes. You talk about betrayal of the citizens and the citizens' right to remain informed under the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act adopted in 19711 Again - DJ Wilson walked out of Executive Session on November 2, 2009 and walked right over to me and told me that the Council had decided 6-1 to remove my item from the agenda. I was stunned — I had dozens of citizens coming to the meeting to support removing the illegal Temporary Construction Easement from my property. As the November 2, 2009 Executive Session was illegal, there was no regular or special meeting to reconvene after it ended at 7:25 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. Despite the fact that the pledge of allegiance includes the concept of liberty and justice for all — I believe the Council quickly washed its hands of that pledge to get down to carrying out the plan agreed to in the illegal Executive Session — discussions held in secret behind closed doors outside of a regular or special City Council Meeting. The first item on the Agenda was to approve the agenda. Immediately, former Councilmember Ron Wambolt moved to remove the item of great importance to my family from the agenda. The related decision had obviously been held in Executive Session. There was no opportunity for the public to know what had been discussed or why the City Council was taking this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 11 action. There was no robust discussion —just a motion followed by a vote that I believe was done to make it look like the decision had actually been made in an Open Regular Meeting of City Council. My initial foolish belief was that the Council was just delaying this a week or two. I felt horrible as so many people planned on attending that evening's meeting to support my family. I went out in the hallway and greeted many of them as they arrived and told them my item had been postponed and they could go back home. Some people decided to stay and make public comment during audience comments. Those comments are documented in the November 2, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes. Following is one example: Robert (& Judy) Custello, Edmonds, asked why the City Attorney gave advice regarding the easement through Mr. Reidy's property that made Mr. Reidy feel he did not receive due process. Noting he had heard that the Council was 6 -1 against hearing Mr. Reidy's concerns, he asked the Councilmember who was in favor to explain why. He voiced his support for the Reidy's. I believe that what took place that night was a travesty — a shameful display of horrible, unethical City government. Approximately 50-70 citizens attended the November 2, 2009 City Council Meeting to show support for this Reconsideration. That was a large number so it was obvious that this issue mattered to the public. We were unaware that in the day's preceding that meeting, former Mayor Gary Haakenson had been emailing City Council Members related to the Reconsideration Agenda Item. For example, Mr. Haakenson used his -yahoo.com email address to email former City Councilmember Michael Plunkett on October 29, 2009 at 3:47 pm an email that included the following: "If he persists and puts it on the agenda, you may want to rally three other votes to remove it from the agenda on Tuesday night if you think its wise. Just trying to keep you in the loop as to what he is doing. Why he is doing it is beyond me but if he's working with Reidy .... it must be to get at you somehow." Five minutes later, at 3:52 pm, Haakenson emailed former City Councilmember Ron Wambolt an email that discussed placement of the Reconsideration item on the Agenda. Mr. Haakenson's email included the following: "Just a heads -up that DJ is up to something. I advised Plunkett because Reidy hates him and maybe that is why DJ is on it." The point of the Reconsideration request was to determine whether or not Ordinance No. 3729 was legal and just - consistent with the concept of liberty and justice for all ... it had nothing to do with a Mayor's opinion of who liked or disliked anybody. Citizens have very few options available to try and encourage the City to make things right, or at least better, after elected officials have taken improver, ills ai action. I believe the citizen's best option is to request RECONSIDERATION of the action. This allows the prior action to be discussed and reconsidered openly, with what should be full transparency. It can save the City and its citizens enormous legal fees and time. I worked hard to get a Council Member to support RECONSIDERATION. Sadly, my efforts were apparently undermined after former Mayor Haakenson's advised Michael Plunkett to "rally three other votes to remove it from the agenda..." - along with whatever else was discussed secretly behind closed doors during the 55 minute illegal Executive Session on NOVEMBER 2, 2009. So you see — recordkeeping of Executive Session discussions is absolutely essential if a City wants to truly be open and transparent. Without a record of the discussions - citizens can be harmed in secret with no documentation. I hope Council reconsiders the poor, misguided decision to rescind Resolution 853 via Resolution 1360. Please address Resolution 1360 as soon as possible and consider improving upon the great practice established via Resolution 853. Resolution 853 was adopted as it was in the Public Interest. I hope the 2020 City Council will choose to improve upon the public interest promoted in Resolution No. 853 and make the related documentation of discussions in Executive Session an even stronger tool promoting justice for all citizens of Edmonds as well as a more open and transparent government. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 12 5/24/20 Michelle Dotsch, Incomplete public comment on formation of Liason Group or Task Force for local LTC facilities from May 19, 2020 1 had originally sent an email to both City Council and publiccomment@edmondswa qav on Tuesday, May 19, 2020. It was printed in the public comment section of the meeting minutes of May 19, 2020 but it was incomplete, as the forwarded original email to Mayor Nelson on April 28, 2020 was not included in the notes, as it was in the original email for public comment so I am including it here now as a correction. Here is the missing portion of that original email referenced that I wrote to Mayor Nelson dated April 28, 2020: To Mayor Mike Nelson, I have heard you say on many occasions, including your original emergency order, that our seniors are your biggest concern, as 1 in 4 residents in Edmonds are over the age of 65. It has been shown that the largest concern within those in that group who are the most susceptible to this Covid-19 virus, reside in the long-term care (LTC) facilities within Edmonds. I believe the idea of having a Task Force or Liaison Group to be formed to help these facilities within Edmonds would be of great help and lines up directly with your valid concerns you have expressed on multiple occasions about our vulnerable seniors. As I have had conversations with some in LTC facilities regarding their challenges and isolation in getting direction and assistance, I firmly believe that a group like this would serve such a valuable service for them and put Edmonds as a leader in this regard, especially since it hits so many in our community the most, whether they are the resident themselves or have family and friends within our community who are concerned they are being neglected in finding comprehensive solutions. I would be happy to volunteer my time and energies to help in this regard. I appreciate your leadership during this crisis and I hope to hear from you if this could be something you would be willing to look at seriously, as I do know those on the front lines in these facilities are looking for help. Here is a draft (also attached in Word format below) of why we should look seriously at having a need for a LTC Liaison Group or Task Force and what they can do to help :Idea for an Edmonds Liaison Group (or Task Force) to Assist with Covid-19 critical needs of our local LTC facilities in Edmonds: The goal: under the guidance of to provide local liaison assistance with our LTC facilities, which are at ground zero in the fight against Coronavirus, with government and private Covid-19 resources and solutions to provide unimpeded access to care for our local residents living in these facilities and the staff who treat them. Some of the current challenges for LTC facilities and their residents and staff: 1. Remove all state barriers to nurses testing staff, residents and incoming providers. As it is now for processing covid-19 tests, it requires an MD order and most LTC facilities that are not skilled nursing facilities have no MD on staff, therefore each individual Primary Care Provider is required to sign off on testing for each individual resident that is their patient. The delays associated with waiting for MD approval given multiple clinic closures and reduced staffing, delays ability of LTC facility to swiftly identify positive cases and remove possibly infected staff from scheduling to be isolated and prevent a spread within the facility. 2. Prioritize testing resources for all LTC facilities. Currently there is no direct resource available to receive testing media. Rapid tests need to be obtained for employees. Antibody testing for all residents and staff need help to be obtained prior to fully lifting facility quarantine procedures to mitigate ongoing risks of those not yet exposed.3. Outbreaks and deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred at nursing homes across the country, which house among the most vulnerable of high -risk individuals. As the numbers are showing, up to 50% or more of deaths due to the Covid-19 virus outbreak are from these LTC Facilities within America and Europe. Through difficulties in understanding this novel virus and how it infects humans, as this was never seen before, at the outset much was not known. We now know, after 2 months since the horrible outbreak at the LifeCare Center in Kirkland, that these LTC facilities are the most at risk for mortality and should be our highest priority to care for our most vulnerable seniors. 4. Since Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 13 resources are unfortunately still in disarray, this Liaison Group will reach out to our local Edmonds LTC facilities, including group homes, assisted living, memory care facilities to inquire and coordinate efforts to relay the tenuous situation these facilities find themselves still in today, and work to assist them in direct communication with government and possibly private resources and leaders to keep them front and center in this fight to save our most vulnerable from this terrible virus.5. Since many of the staff and caregivers move often between multiple LTC facilities, these staff and outside caregivers need to have the reality of the situation be acknowledged to prevent the spread of Coronavirus between facilities, if they are carriers with no symptoms. Since we now know that some of these LTC workers could be a silent carrier, through no fault of their own, as staffing shortages are critical in the LTC industry they are needed on the front lines of these care facilities to care for our seniors, they need testing for antibodies, and if none, then they need constant quick result testing to be sure they are not a silent carrier. 6. As these LTC facilities are vital to the well-being of the mental and physical health of these residents, the sooner they can resume some safe socializing among residents and staff, the better the mental and physical health of these senior residents of Edmonds will be. 7. As it is imperative to follow the current challenging process of obtaining available resources that are necessary for our most vulnerable senior residents living in Edmonds and their caregivers, this Liaison Group will work to continue contact with all those facilities in Edmonds until they come to a collective solution for ease of access to effective and consistent Covid-19 testing, including antibody testing when available, and proper PPE to allow for continuous safe care at all of our Edmonds LTC facilities. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your virtual Town Hall this afternoon. 5/24/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comment for May 26, 2020 City Council Meeting I am providing the 2020 Edmonds City Council the following example of how Council can take action based in whole or in part upon false misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information provided to Council in the open. This example is found right in the May 10, 2016 Council Agenda Packet under: Discussion of Whether to Continue City's Practice of Taking Notes in Executive Session (20 min.) The Narrative provides the following false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information to City Council: So, councilmembers who are engaged appropriately in an executive session discussion that does involve the attorney - client privilege might have a false expectation that the notes would not be contemporaneously releasable. These councilmembers might be surprised when those notes are later released under the public records act. This is simply not true as there is no basis for a "false expectation" or later surprise. City of Edmonds Resolution No. 1150 makes it very clear that: 1.2 Executive Sessions: Prior to adjournment of an executive session, the Council shall, by consensus, determine what, if any, information may be released regarding the executive session. A discussion to release information shall be confirmed by voice motion in open session. The City Council can take action only in open session at a public meeting. In the absence of a motion and vote, no confidential information shall be released. In the event that, at a later date, the Mayor, Council President or a Council Member wishes to refer to or place information relating to executive session in the public record, the Mayor, on behalf of the Mayor or the staff or a Council Member, shall ask the Council President to place an item on an agenda for such a motion and vote. The Council Agenda item shall notify Council Members of the procedural issue to be discussed, but shall not itself release confidential information relating to the executive session. Hopefully the 2020 City Council has been following Resolution No. 1150. The following Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 14 took place during the October 25, 2011 City Council meeting: 4. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO RELEASE PAGE 2 OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION NOTES FROM OCTOBER 18, 2005. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Please note - this took place over 6 years after the related meeting in Executive Session was held. Clearly, under Resolution 1150 there can be no "false expectation" or later surprise. The July 17, 2007 City Council meeting minutes make also support this. Those minutes include the following: The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. Please review the following 6 issues related to the 2016 City Council's efforts to halt actions deemed to be in the public interest via Resolution 853 adopted by the 1996 City Council. Issue #1: The information provided to City Council in the related City Council Agenda Packets was very incomplete. My requests to include directly related items in the Agenda Packet were not honored. Staff lead Jeff Taraday and Preparer Scott Passey did not even provide a full record of the related City Council Meeting Minutes (Minutes) for the 2016 City Council to review. Among the Minutes excluded were the critical August 6, 1996 Minutes as well as the June 5, 2007 Minutes which clearly disclose the Legislative intent behind Resolution 853. The June 5, 2007 Minutes discussed a litigation matter and former City Attorney Scott Snyder clearly represented to the citizens that once the process was concluded, all Executive Session minutes would be available to the public. Also curiously_ missing from the related City Council Agenda Items were the significant discussions documented in the October 2, 2012 Minutes. Those Minutes prove that the following Main Motion was passed: Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MODIFY RESOLUTION 853 TO SPECIFY THAT WE WILL KEEP A RECORD IN THE FORM OF NOTES ON EXECUTIVE SESSIONS REGARDING LITIGATION ONLY. Vote on Motion #3 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BLOOM, FRALEY - MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. The Motion passed. Please note that 2016 City Council President Kristiana Johnson voted against that Motion. For some mysterious reason, Staff lead Jeff Taraday did not act on the City Council's passed Main Motion in 2012. This is obviously a problem and makes it even more alarming that the 2016 City Council Agenda Items did not include full disclosure of the October 2, 2012 Minutes. I also think the 2020 Council and the public should know exactly why the 2012 Council's direction was not acted upon. The provision of incomplete information to Council before Council's legislative deliberations is improper and highly problematic. Issue #2: The 2012 City Council was very detailed in its review of the same issue and determined that review was worthy of a Public Hearing. The 2012 Agenda Packet included the following information, almost all of which was left out of the 2016 Agenda Packets four years later: 6-5-2007 Approved Council Minutes 7-17-2007 Approved Council Minutes 2012 Council Retreat Minutes 3-20-12 Approved Council Minutes Resolution No. 853 Resolution 1150 6-12-2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes 8-28-2012 Draft Council Minutes Mr. Nixon's Presentation 9-11-2012 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Minutes 9-18-2012 Draft Council Minutes Public Hearing Correspondence Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 15 The 2016 City Council approached this very important topic much differently than the 2012 Council did. City Council President Kristiana Johnson is responsible for and paid extra to formulate and prepare the agenda for City Council Meetings. Despite her knowledge of the 2012 City Council actions - remember, she voted against the Main Motion that PASSED, she failed to provide the 2016 Council with more complete information in the Agenda Packet — even after related requests to do so were made. The information provided the 2016 Council could have been made much more complete merely by cutting and pasting the information found in the October 2, 2012 Agenda Packet. She also failed to promote a Public Hearing in 2016 which is much different than what was done in 2012. Why such arbitrary treatment and so much less opportunity for the public's voice to be heard in 2016? Issue #3: The 2016 City Council failed to consider or even mention Resolution No. 1150 leading up to its vote on June 7, 2016. Resolution No. 1150 was certainly considered during the related 2012 City Council process. Why not in 2016? The July 17, 2007 Minutes prove that Resolution No. 1150 was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session Attorney - Client Privilege ended. City Attorney Jeff Taraday has represented that without an affirmative act to waive the attorney -client privilege on the part of the City Council, such notes would never be subject to disclosure. However, Resolution No. 1150 established an orderly way to decide when Executive Session Attorney -Client Privilege ended. Furthermore, actions of the 2011 City Council prove that, at a later date, citizens can request that information related to an Executive Session be released and placed in the public record. City Attorney Taraday knows that claimed attorney -client privilege related to Executive Session Meeting Minutes has been waived by City Council in the past. He was City Attorney and in attendance when it happened during the October 25, 2011 City Council Meetings as follows: 4. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO RELEASE PAGE 2 OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION NOTES FROM OCTOBER 18, 2005. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Attorney Taraday also knows that the attorney -client privilege is a narrow privilege and protects only "communications and advice between attorney and client;" it does not protect documents that are prepared for some other purpose than communicating with an attorney. Kammerer v. W. Gear Corp., 96 Wash.2d 416, 421, 635 P.2d 708 (1981). Thus, should an agency prepare a document for a purpose other than communicating with its attorney, and then claim that the document is protected by the attorney - client privilege, the requesting party might well claim that the agency has acted in bad faith. The 1996 City Council made it very clear what the purpose of the summary minutes was. That purpose was that the City Council found "it to be in the public interest to maintain summary minutes of executive session subject to release in accordance with the provisions of state law, if and when, the reason for the executive session expires." Issue #4: Councilmember Tom Meseros made the motion to rescind Resolution 853. In doing so he stated that the Council has created an "atmosphere" that there are minutes being kept. Mr. Mesaros failed to provide support for the so called "atmosphere". Mr. Mesaros also claimed that Council has given the public an impression that is "unreal". I strongly disagree and I think these comments show great disrespect to the public. I believe citizens are plenty smart enough to know exactly what the summary minutes are. What the summary minutes actually are has great value. Summary minutes of Executive Session are a tool that promotes more open government, which increases trust in City government. Councilmember Mesaros also stated that decisions are not made in Executive Session and that the public will have quite a bit of opportunity to come to know what is discussed. Again, I disagree. It is often the practice of the City Council to exit Executive Session and vote without discussing the related matter and without providing the public hardly any related information. Furthermore, Council has a practice Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 16 of reaching consensus in Executive Session. The October 2, 2012 City Council Meeting minutes indicate Council reaches consensus in Executive Session by head nod and/or by discussion. Resolution 1150 even adopted policy requiring the City Council to reach a consensus prior to adjournment of Executive Session. Issue #5: In expressing support for the rescission of Resolution 853, Councilmember Dave Teitzel stated that the Council has an obligation to its citizens to analyze the cost/benefit and that it costs the City a great deal to take notes and archive them, time that could be spent responding to appropriate public records requests for example. I fear that the truth is that staff lead Jeff Taraday and preparer Scott Passey will now be paid the same to do less for the public interest. The 1996 City Council took action that made it clear that it was very appropriate to maintain summary minutes of executive session subject to release in accordance with the provisions of state law, if and when, the reason for the executive session expired. I think a strong argument can be made that documenting Executive Session discussions is very appropriate and can be of great value. !:,sue- #6: On the evening of June 7, 2016, a motion was made to rescind Resolution No. 853, a Resolution to do something extra that the 1996 City Council had long ago decided was in the public interest. The 1996 City Council wanted to keep minutes of Executive Sessions even though State law did not require such. And keep minutes the City Council did, twenty years of actions related to Resolution No. 853. The 1996 City Council wanted those minutes to be subject to release if and when the reason for the Executive Session expires. This was a great legislative act, an act that strongly supported open government and transparency. But then along came the 2016 City Council, a Council that allowed a City Attorney and a City Clerk to lobby the Council to take action contrary to the public interest. I believe that motions to rescind can only be made if no action has taken place on the original motion. History shows that twenty years of actions related to Resolution 853 have taken place and many minutes have been released to the public. The 1996 motion has been executed and the minutes exist. The 2016 City Council cannot undo twenty years of actions and simply make a motion to rescind Resolution No. 853. Hence, the motion to rescind may have been out of order — and may not be an option available to the 2016 City Council. I believe the City Council will need to revisit the 2016 City Council's conduct that concluded with a vote the night of June 7, 2016 to "rescind" Resolution No. 853. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to act in the public interest rather than doing what the City Attorney and City Clerk desire. RCW 42.30.110, part of the State's Open Public Meetings Act seems like good policy, at least in theory. There could certainly be a public benefit in allowing governing body's to exclude the public from meetings to discuss the fourteen (14) items addressed in RCW 42.30.110. However, I believe those discussions can benefit the public good only if the City Council does not end up taking action based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate of incomplete information provided to Council in Executive Session. History shows that Council is sometimes misguided in Open Session and in Executive Session. I am happy to meet with each and eery one of my eight elected officials and show you documents supporting this. When it happens in Open Session, there are at least approved City Council Meeting Minutes so that the public has a record of what was represented to City Council in Open Session. Without documentation of Executive Session discussions, the 2016 City Council is exposing citizens to harm based in whole or in part upon false misleading, inaccurate of incomplete information provided to Council in Executive Session - with no documentation of what Council is told behind closed doors. I believe this is unacceptable based on the knowledge of what has occurred in the past. I also believe that documentation provides a safeguard limiting the provision of false, misleading, inaccurate of incomplete information to Council. I believe documentation of Executive Session discussions helps discourage this conduct, something that is of great benefit to the public. I Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 17 hope the 2020 City Council will choose to improve upon the public interest promoted in Resolution No. 853 and make the related documentation of discussions in Executive Session an even stronger tool promoting justice for all citizens of Edmonds as well as a more open and transparent government. Please note: Resolution No. 1150 is still in effect. Has the 2020 City Council been reaching consensus before exiting Executive Session Prior as to what, if any, information may be released regarding the Executive Session? For example, was such done prior to exiting Executive Session on May 15, 2020? The following is from Chris Hutchings, Montesano City Council:"In October, 2011, 1 sent an inquiry into Tim Ford, the Open Government Ombudsman, as our City Attorney had similar advice regarding RCW 42.23.070 (4), which I disagreed with. Tim Ford responded with the following: "RCW 42.23.070(4) does not apply to all matters discussed in executive session. Only that information made confidential by law. The executive session provisions do not create any express confidentiality for public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. ACLU v. City of Seattle, 121 Wn. App. 544, 555 (2004). Nor do the executive session provisions create any confidentiality for discussions. You are still doing the public's business, even in an executive session." We should always remember the legislative declaration of the OPMA: "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." In conclusion, the executive session provisions do not create any confidentiality for discussions. As such, nobody could possibly have false expectations that Executive Session Meeting Minutes are not contemporaneously releasable. Especially in Edmonds where all know that the City Council passed Resolution 1150 in 2007 to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. Incredibly, Resolution 1150 was not included in the 2016 City Council Agenda Packets related to Resolution 853. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2020 Page 18