Chaos in Kirkland City Council Chambers
Last night the July 1 City Council meeting, the two parties to the Bank of America appeal informed the the City Council that they were not able to come to an agreement. CiViK (appellant) and SRM Development (Applicant) were again before the City Council, which serves as judge and jury in the quasi-judicial proceeding. City Council heard SRM Development’s revised plans for the Bank of America site and re-opened the hearing.
After SRM finished their presentation, CiViK attorney, Richard Aramburu, made several statements objecting to procedural issues and claimed impropriety on the part of the City Council with regard to advice given to them by the City Attorney in April. Back in April, prior to the start of the quasi-judicial hearing, Robin Jenkinson, City Attorney, gave legal advise to the Council in the form of two letters with regard to potential liability issues the City might face as a result of this hearing. Mr. Aramburu vehemently objected to the propriety of such advice and requested that the City Council waive its attorney/client privilege and allow CiViK to review what advice the City Attorney had given.
At issue for Mr. Aramburu was that the City Council may fear a lawsuit filed against the City if they found in favor of the appellant, and that may taint the City Council’s objectivity in the hearing that was to follow. Mr. Aramburu requested release of information surrounding this issue from the City Attorney. The City Attorney declined claiming attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Aramburu spoke on behalf of CiViK and requested three things from the Council in CiViK’s response to SRM’s presentation:
- more time to prepare a proper response as CiViK had just received much of the new materials very recently including some for the first time that evening
- the chance to question the applicant further
- copies of the two letters from the City Attorney to the Council regarding legal advise on these hearings
Mr. Aramburu asked the City Council to waive its attorney-client privilege with regard to the two letters and release them to the two parties. That is when things got interesting.
Mayor James Lauinger kept the proceedings in order but divisions between Councilmembers lead to what could only be described as chaos. Councilmember Tom Hodgson started the discussion by saying that he believed the Council should waive the attorney-client privilege and make the documents in question available to the appellant. Both the Mayor and Councilmember Jessica Greenway stated that they would be willing to release the materials. After some discussion, it became clear that a majority of the Council would not agree to waive the attorney-client privilege. Other Councilmembers were concerned with their own personal liability if these documents were made public.
Some on the Council viewed SRM’s revised plan as substantially different from those approved by the Design Review Board (DRB), which was the cause for this appeal. A motion to end the hearing and in essence start the process over with the DRB was presented and the motion to return the issue to the DRB failed (4-3).
How the City Council voted
VOTING IN FAVOR OF RETURNING THE APPLICANT’S PROPSAL TO THE DRB
- Mayor James Lauinger
- Jessica Greenway
- Tom Hodgson
VOTING AGAINST RETURNING THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL TO THE DRB
- Deputy Mayor Joan McBride
- Mary-Alyce Burleigh
- Dave Asher
- Bob Sternoff
Frustrated, Councilmember Tom Hodgson stated, ”I think that this entire process has been unfair to the appellant… I believe I can waive my attorney-client privilege.” Other Councilmembers told him he could not do that, since they too had privilege and did not agree to waiver of their rights.
At approximately 11:30 P.M., CiViK attorney, Richard Aramburu found himself holding a brown envelope containing Coucilmember Tom Hodgson’s copies of the Council’s privilaged attorney-client communications regarding the appeal. Councilmember Hodgson had just waived his personal attorney-client privilege and released the documents to CiViK.
That is when all hell broke loose. Councilmember Dave Asher moved to have the police secure the documents from the appellant, but in all of the confusion, the motion was not seconded as the Mayor looked to the City Attorney for legal guidance. CiViK Attorney Richard Aramburu immediately opened the envelope and started reading the documents contained within. The applicant’s attorney, Molly Lawrence, was up in arms at what had just transpired and pleaded for relief from the dais. Councilmember Asher again moved to have the documents secured from the appellant, this time to be denied by the City Attorney.
When the dust had settled, the City Council had found itself in uncharted waters. A real sense of astonishment fell over council chambers. Andy Loos, development manager for SRM Development placed his head in hands as if in disbelief of what he had just witnessed. Exhausted, dazed and in shock, for a brief moment the council chambers went silent. The gravity of the events that had just transpired had only begun to sink in. Mayor Lauinger closed the hearing to be continued August 5th.
You may watch the City Council meeting at the City website: http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/council/Watch_Council_Meetings.htm
What’s new? SRM Development’s new proposal for the Bank of America site
- Relocated bank drive-thru to the alley thus removing vehicle entry onto Kirkland Ave.
- Created an additional retail space along Kirkland Ave. in place of the drive-thru.
- Added second story to the southwest corner to create a continuous 2 story appearance on Lake Street
- Stepped back the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th floors
- Removed the cafe from Lake Street
- Changed doors, awning and windows on corner to mitigate concerns that the space was “designed as a bank”
McLeod looks like they passed their test and it will be going ahead. That is the other news from last night. I want to know what Council members are concerned about and what is in those documents from the city attorney? Now they are in the public realm I would like to see them. I wish the police had forcibly snatched the documents out of the lawyer’s hands. That would have been drama.
I am so outraged by the total disregard by councilman Tom Hodgson for the well being of the residents of Kirkland!!! His clear preference for his friends and supporters of CIVIK over those for the City of Kirkland border on the criminal. He should be removed from office immediately!!! And the clear support from his cronies Jessica Greenway and Jim Lauinger makes them party to this criminal act. The mayor clearly supported Councilman Hodgson with his admiration for his motion to make public the city documents protected by attorney-client privledge. The mayor moved quickly to adjorn the meeting before anyone could even second Councilman Ashers motion to get the dcouments back.
It should be noted that councilman Hodgson did not actually make these documents public. He simply gave copies to CIVIK’s attorney. The applicant didn’t get copies. So, who’s being treated unfairly?
I think the actions by the these three members is so reprehensible they should all be impeached if such a thing is possible!!!
I am not passing judgement on the council until I see what is in the documents Tom Hodson released. Until then stay quiet LTKR. Those papers may hold clues to why they were released and why the council fought to keep them private. I trust Tom more than you but without the facts please stop accusing everyone you hate of every possible wrongdoing. You are out of line.
Chaos of last night process breakdown aside, SRM is insistant that a representative from BoA NOT be a party to the questions from the Council or CiViK’s attorney, yet it was disclosed last night that BoA will be, in essence, a part owner of the development: 5700sf+ of “prime retail” space. WHY?
WHY were the meetings between SRM and CiViK subject to non-disclosure?
How does SRM expect CiViK or the Council to react when SRM presents significant changes to their proposal, via email, one and one half days prior to what was expected to be the final hearing? This compounded by the fact that additional changes, not included in the prior days email, were presented at the hearing.
Give me a break!
And throughout the entire presentation of the new proposal that re-opened the hearing, SRM continued to express an attitude of entitlement to 5 stories. The new proposal is still 5 stories, the top 3 of which are designated residential, the 1st floor designated “prime retail”, what is the 2nd floor designated (did I miss something)?
SUGGESTION: Put BoA in a smaller ground floor footprint and give them a second floor or mezzanine (ground floor for tellers upper floor for desks) and give them innovative architectural interior design. Seems simple to me, but thus far, no one has heard peep from this newly disclosed property owner. One has to wonder why.
McLeod - they should have stuck around! I agreed with Tom Hodgson last night that the 3 story non-stepped back portion of the project should have remained as originally designed with deeper step back compensation on another sectionof the project. It would be more visually interesting. I also agree with Jessica Greenway that for the project to really meet the visual standard of individual buildings, distinct height/number of stories differences should have been incorporated into the design. I can understand and agree with Council’s aversion to micro-managing the design, so it should have gone back to design review one more time - the end product would have been even better. I like the project but remain concerned about the uniformity of height and the depth of the building, preferring a wider, open pedestrian court than what was approved. But then, that’s micro-managing, and it’s a done deal now.
And less it appear I am entirely on the side of CiViK, I agreed with Bob Sternoff and others that the client-attorney priviledge portion of the argument should have remained in tact. Further, I agree that the process was corrupted earlier on than last night.
Why do you assume that it was SRM that insisted on the proceedings between themselves and CIVIK be confidential? Why was it when “fair-minded” politicians like Tom Hodgson didn’t say a word wwhen this topic was being discussed? It was people like Joan McBride and Mary Alice who were questioning why these talks were private. Isn’t it because Councilmemberes Hodgson, Greenway and Lauinger onyl want fairness to apply to their friends and supporters on CIVIK.
I think the discussions between CIVIK and SRM should have been public as well. CIVIK had their chance to air their concerns in the public venue of the DRB but when they didn’t get their way they went crying to their friends on the City Council that granted them closed-room discussions. NO PUBLIC FORUM!!! And as Jessica Greenway stated in the City Council meeting last night, she was prepared to accept their agreement without the public even knowing what transpired in those deliberations at all. CIVIK is trying to hijack our city government to serve their own self-interest and they have three city council members prepared to do the bidding of this special interest group!!!
Why do we assume that SRM is trying to screw us? I have no connection with this developer whatsoever but my observations is that they’ve really gone above and beyond for the godd of the city and it’s residents. It just so happens those goals don’t coincide with the special interests of CIVIK.
The tragedy here is that Councilmembers Hodgson, Greenway, and Lauinger cloaked themselves in “public good” when their deceipt is so obvious.
Hey James, don’t tell me to be quiet. I’m not asking you to trust me. But you’re saying you don’t trust Joan, Mary, David or Bob. I trust them more than I trust you. And I will say I emphatically don’t trust Tom, Jessica, or Jim. But I’m not telling you to be quiet!!!!
Why don’t you feel as strongly about the talks between CIVIK and SRM? Is that because you already know what was said?
Ans James… I don’t hate those councilmembers. I don’t know or have ever met them. I dislike their politics. I think they’ve conducted themselves in a very unprofessional manner. Why is it I hear from those three about the process so much but when it suits his needs Tom throws the process out the window without even considering the rest of the council.
I think since Tom released those documents based on the claim that they were addressed to him and he doesn’t feel bound to abide by the city government that he should be sued personally and the City should NOT pick up the legal tab. He can go to you for thate money.
I think Mr. Arambaru had a lot of good points last night. It was appropriate to give CiViK a chance to review everything involved. It sure would be nice of the B of A people would come to the table next time the hearing is opened, though they have no requirement to.
However, I am appalled at Tom Hodgson handing over the documents at this meeting. I don’t care if it seemed correct to him or not. No member should take such a unilateral action. He received the documents in his role as a part of the City Council, not as a single Councilmember. He exposed the papaers of all seven members, not just himself. I hope that he had his OWN legal counsel advising him as to the propriety of this move.
I wasn’t at the meeting last night but have spent many a sleepless night attending most of them on this issue and I have heard from all.
My question is, If the city council and the city attorney work for us, the residence of Kirkland, then that should make all documents drawn by city employees and sent by the city using our dollars to pay for the postage made available for public access.
It is apparent that the quasi-judicial process “is not” judicial in the true sense of judicial review. The council should have stuck to their orignal vote for the appellant back in June and have the applicant re-apply to the DRB. The design didn’t meet the requirements of the Comprehensive plan and that is what they ruled on. Introducing new proposals (evidence) after a ruling has been made would not take place in a true court of law.
None of the coucil members are attorneys and it apparently shows. They should not be able to make judgement on any legal issue unless they have a true understanding of the law and the rules that govern judicial proceedings.
Let the courts decide but don’t blame any of the council members one way or the other. They don’t have the experience or legal background to make these judgements.
Tom Hodgson wasn’t even willing to listen to the City Attorney! He acted unilaterlly concerning a subject that was the responsibility of the entire city counsil. This had absolutely nothing to do with his legal understanding. He made a motion, the majority didn’t concur, and he took matters into his own hands. Let him suffer by his own hand and not take the rest of us with him. I blame him for being so cavalier with our government to satisfy his own personal agenda.
And this has nothing to do with the disclosure. It has to do with the foundation of our form of government of majority rule. An agreement amongst the council members that represent all of us as to course of action. Tom decided that he knew best and ignored the majority. I suppose he’ll next unilaterlly decide for us which are the appropriate books we should read and which should be burned!!!
What he did is so reprehensible that he should be removed from office!!!!
Check out the renderings above.
Sketch 1. The BoA building appears to be lower in height than the McLeod buildings. SRM stated that the revised proposal (shown above) is 1′ HIGHER than the McLeod project. Appearance can be deceiving.
Sketch 2. Notice the “Cafe” sign on the two story glass angled section of the BoA building. The drawing reflects the revised proposal however, the 2 story glass structure is now designated for “Bank of America” space, NOT a “Cafe” as shown, and as approved by the DRB.
Oversights or intentional misleading?
Look again at Sketch 1. Merrill Gardens is located to the east of th BoA site and is 5 residential stories high. Yet the 5 story BoA rendering appears to be 1-2 stories lower than Merrill. An accurate perspective?
Murph,
In fairness to SRM, it is my recollection that the testimony of Mr. Chad Lorentz of Runberg Architecture Group was (my words not his): the stairwell housing rises twelve inches or so in height above the height of the proposed McLeod building. (This stairwell housing is visible on the southwest corner of the 5th floor in the drawing you reference.) I believe the stairwell is the highest point on the building. I do not know how much higher it is over the rest of the 5th floor.
The City Council has the authority to do pretty much whatever it pleases when it comes to quasi judicial matters. They play judge and jury. The standards you would expect in a court of law may not be applied here. In a court of law, if you don’t like your ruling, you appeal to a higher court. In this situation, you would have to file a lawsuit against the city in a real court of law. A very different matter. Another point: as judge and jury, those who designed the system knew full well that the council is a political animal. As such, if you do not like the outcome, you know what to do next time they run for reelection.
Rob, thank you for the clarification.
My mouth fell open at Tom’s behavior last night. Can we have Doris Cooper and Joe Martineau back please? No matter how you feel on this issue you will pay for his actions. Tom’s behavior will surely result in additional litigation expense for which the taxpayers of Kirkland will foot the bill. Let’s hope the City’s insurance company does not cancel our coverage as was threatened by the carrier when Monroe was planning on violating the attorney client privilege: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2004138960_records23n0.html.
Wow. Must have been something pretty juicy in those docs for Mr. Hodgson to put his neck on the chopping block. His claim that the documents had his name on them, there for he could release them, is pure bunk. Those documents were city property, and the attorney client privilege was for the council as a whole, not him individually, because the document was given to them as a whole, not individually. If the Council lets this slide, they will be setting a very bad precedence.
It’s appears some have not watched the council meeting. I suggest you watch it, then comment. Mr. Hodgson was way out of line. Watching the video, it’s obvious he lost his cool and he see the progression of his emotions getting the best of him. They said they were putting the next hearing continuation off until August, so there’s no reason the privilege issue couldn’t have waited until next week’s Executive Session. That video will be gold for anyone who wants to run against him. Also, what kind of a lawyer takes the document, when it’s obvious the entire council did not approve for the privilege to be waived? He knew it wasn’t his. He didn’t stand up to take it until Mr. Hodgson told him too. Doesn’t speak well of CIVIK to have that type of representation.
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/council/Watch_Council_Meetings.htm
Why should those communications have privilege? If such communications are not privileged, council members will not be able to have open and honest communications about the city’s exposure on a legal matter. Same thought process for why Executive sessions are closed. It’s for the public good. Remember, if this stuff is part of the record, it’s open to everyone, both citizens and the developers who most think are already manipulating the system. The council is tasked with looking out for the best interest of the citizens. At times, there may be matters that need to be done for the good of all, that could be twisted by the few.
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/council/Terms___Definitions.htm#es
Are we loosing track of what the whole thing is about? Is the BoA proposal complying with what’s required for a 5;th (bonus)floor? I dont think so. In spite of Molly Lawrence efforts to try to convince us that the main part of the bottom floor now suddenly not is designed to be a bank. Ms Lawrence, we are all at least as smart as you are so dont insult us. The plan require the bottom floor to be superior retail and a bank is not superior retail. So take away the bank or the 5th floor. Easy.
Also, the latest plan is less attractiv as the cafe now has moved from the plaza to what earlier was the drive through.
If the new plan not is designed to be a bank why is there a drive through anyway? McDonald is not superior retail either. And has anyone thought of the trafic mess that a drive through anything will create.
So please read the plan/rules and dont insult us the people that lives here in Kirkland.
Per, it doesn’t appear to be quite as easy as you suggest or we wouldn’t be in the place we are today. Superior retail means the design of the space to some people, the use of that space to others. The drive-through appears to be for an ATM and has room for three cars in the lane, if I am reading the drawing correctly. BofA has one now and they wish to keep that function in a new complex it would seem. When did McDonald’s enter the conversation?
Well said Finn on the Hill.
OK, so I watched the last half hour of the meeting and am stunned at Hodgson’s and Arambaru’s behavior. Hodgson knew the council members were split on the confidentiality issue and decided to release the memos on his own, effectively ending that discussion. Interesting that it came after he was defeated on his motion to return the project to the DRB. Best wishes to him at the next executive session. And could Arambaru have run out the door any faster when it was clear Lauinger was wrapping things up? Would he have done that if he was so sure what had just transpired was the proper thing to do?
As an aside, could these discussions be any more repetitious? They are painful to listen to because various council members (and lawyers) assert their views ad infinitum. Isn’t once enough?
Wow, just when I think my opinion of Mayor Lauinger and other councilmembers couldn’t sink any lower, they pull an orchestrated stunt like this.
Hodgson and Lauinger were/are in a mutual admiration society and the Mayor’s fawning comments gave Hodgson all the courage he needed for his grandstanding.
CiViK is NOT a branch of government.
Time to clean house. This quasi is making me queazy.
John Gilday
While attending the Council meeting the other night, I found a lot of the content to be interesting and appropriate for a city with growing pains such as Kirkland and I am fully supportive of process. My interest in attending was primarily to hear what was going to happen with the McLeod project on Lake Street.
The B of A project was of little or no interest to me and I can take it or leave it and all of the hubub regarding “superior retail” I find humorous, but when I witnessed the unbelievable behavior by council member Hodgson and was caught with my mouth open in disbelief, I had to re-evaluate my position on the project. I also was caught off guard by the Police Captain’s slow to act response to an obvious escalation of tension in the room and feeling that the request by council to secure the document was out of his scope of authority. It was very confusing to me if not the entire audience, but it shouldn’t have been to the professionals there.
It was very clear to me that after Council member Hodgson’s behavior that he had been the one who leaked the information contained in the sealed document to the Appellant in the first place and was covering his behind now by publicly offering privileged attorney client correspondence.(I sheepishly figured it was Greenway who leaked the contents). Even if it was legal for him to do so…shame on him! My respect for Mr. Hodgson’s ability to perform his duties as a Kirkland City Council member has considerably changed and I am guessing that he should be removed for such a stunt. He clearly will not be trusted by his own peers, let alone by this member of the public.
It was also evident that the Mayor’s quick bang of the gavel wasn’t to temper an increasing hostile environment, but was to allow Mr. Arambaru a quick exit with papers safely tucked away in his briefcase as well as a supportive gesture to Hodgson as recognized by Mr. Gilday’s post.
I heard Council member Greenway and Mayor Lauringer several times offer the phrase, “We are transparent and everything we do is open and above board.” Why then is CiVik not held to the same standards when they are negotiating with SRM apparently on behalf of the council. The “secret” meetings between CiVik and SRM should have been held in public and they should be just as “transparent” as Council member Greeway feels she should be and why were none of those meeting notes made public or offered to the council? Or where they and then only given to a select few?
CiVik clearly has been given some sort of authority by the council to perform such a public service as to singularly negotiate on the public’s behalf in determining what council should approve or not approve where a development is concerned and with that privilege comes public “transparency” as well as accountability.
This process created by the council and the misplaced authority it has given CiVik is completely flawed and something has to be done.
Oh…and what the heck was the annonymous letter that everyone was discussing? I am not a blogger (NAB) or even an avid blog reader, so I missed what this was about.
NAB, yes, that is exactly what I was asking in an earlier post: why are CiVik and SRM deciding amongst themselves what is acceptable? They can talk all they want but the decision lies with the city.
Excellent point Tia!!! the decision should lie with our elected officials! All of our elected officials! Tom Hodgson thinks he should decide for all of us!
And Jessica Greenway is prepared to accept the outcome of the discussions between two private parties conducted in secret as a resolution for this issue! What kind of transparent government is this????
These are our elected officials charged with representing us??? Before I simply was appalled by their politics. Now I believe their behavior is criminal!
I agree with Mary Alyce and Joan McBride, who cares about the annonymous letter? Why does anyone care? Tom was so outraged by it. But what he did was more outrageous than anything that could have been said in that letter. His conduct has charted a very scary legal course for our city. In the working session earlier in the day the council was talking about raising our taxes. Now we’re likely going to use those taxes to pay for years of legal actions to come for Tom’s conduct.
I still think he should be held personally liable for his actions. He felt as though he was acting as an individual and not a city representative so he should personally suffer the consequences!!!! I also think Jim Lauinger should be held personally responsible for his part in this conspiracy!
Not to use Rob’s foum to toot my own hor, but the entire anonymous letter and the email response fromCivik can be found in the current issue of The Estside Sun and online at http://www.eastsidesun.com
(FYI: There is no affiliation between The Eastside Sun and KirklandViews.com)
John
naturally, I meant horn, I have no intention of tooting my own hor
Might be time for a new keyboard.
Thank you John Gilday for the link to the letter. This whole mess stinks to high heavens. When we moved here we liked its old town charm, but now it just looks old but not charming at all. As you say it is time to clean house. The mayor and Tom concocted this whole thing and just that is enough to recall them. I am in Tom’s district, but I no longer support him.
We both love The Eastside Sun, much better than the one that runs ads for Burien businesses and seems to ignore Kirkland. Your lettersm to the editor crack us up.
Also, how can you be funny so early in the morning?
The hearing in a nutshell……
(— work product of The Eastside Sun / Aug 2008 issue)
Here is a time line of the implosion of the Kirkland City Council meeting / July 01, 2008
Available online at http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/council/Watch_Council_Meetings.htm
Councilmembers (from left when viewing video)
Bob Sternoff
Jessica Greenway
Tom Hodgson
Chaired by Mayor Jim Lauinger
Dave Asher
Mary Alice Burleigh
Deputy Mayor Joan McBride
(Where this timeline begins, Applicant SMR Development has presented a substantially changed project for Bank of America project on Lake and Kirkland Avenue that deletes a Lake Street Café, deletes vehicle entry off Kirkland Ave.and modifies setbacks)
RE: PROTECTED DOCUMENTS
5:22:10 & 5:25:05
Mr. Arambaru, attorney makes informal then formal request for documents from council that were protected by attorney client privilege.
5:27:02
Hodgson verbally offers two memos from city attorney to Civik’s attorney
5:28:10
McBride: “Tom I think we have to have a vote of all of us”
Hodgson: “No, I’m prepared to do that by myself”
Burleigh: “You can’t do that”
Hodgson: “Well, I can too”
5:29:55
Hodgson: “I am prepared to make those documents available to the appellant”
5:34:40 – 5:35:22
Lauinger: “Tom, you’ve made a bold, daring gesture…”
Lauinger: “if we’re going to start getting our news and our information from something that’s not a heck of a lot more reliable than the supermarket tabloids in our town, and then talk and put it on blogs and go with that, hey, why don’t we put everything out…”
Lauinger: “Tom, you are a unique individual…”
5:37:39
City attorney warns that additional legal advice is warranted to protect city’s liability and insurance coverage it has.
5:38:10
Burleigh: “I agree with Joan, David and Bob, the attorney client privilege is something you don’t mess around with… I cannot support giving up these documents”
(These statements put the ‘nays’ in the majority re: release of attorney client privilege)
5:39:25
Hodgson again offers his copies of privileged documents
5:40:25
Motion to send back to DRB – defeated
5:41:01
Hodgson places documents on counter in front of him
5:41:05
Arambaru stands and walks over to Hodgson and takes brown envelope that Hodgson states contains the privileged documents
5:41:47
After hold her hand up for recognition by Mayor Lauinger, SRM’s attorney interjects an attempt to object to the document transfer Mayor Lauinger cuts her off after less than 2 seconds and states “No attorney comments. I’m going to be firm on that”
5:41:55
Asher: “Did I just see that a document that was provided in attorney client privilege to the council being handed to someone not on the council?”
5:42:14
Asher: “Can we ask that the officer secure the document? That it is not subject to review”
5:42:15
Arambaru opens and begins reading documents enclosed in envelope received from Hodgson
5:42:25
during Asher’s objection that the document should not be read, several councilmembers state “well he’s reading it now” “Oh well”
5:42:49
City attorney: “your police captain has indicated that’s outside his authority.”
5:43:10
One minute and 23 seconds after abruptly cutting off the attorney for SRM Development with the admonition “No attorney comments. I’m going to be firm on that” Mayor Lauinger listens without interruption to an extended plea from the attorney for Civik to further review and question SRM.
5:45:35
(Arambaru stands and begins to walk from chambers.)
McBride states:
“Mr. Mayor, I’m concerned about the document that was handed over…”
Mayor Lauinger
“I think it’s going out the door”
furthermore, Lauinger states before Arambara leaves:
“whats been done, we can’t put that back in the box right now, can’t do that”
“apart from that, what’s done is done”
“I’m sure we’ll have an executive session on this
(many voices of disagreement)
“maybe not, maybe not”
“we’re digging deeper in, we don’t want to dig deeper in”
————————————————————-
(While a formal vote was not taken to waive attorney client privilege, each of the councilmembers weighed in on the topic)
5:27:00 Hodgson Yes
5:28:10 McBride No
5:30:35 Greenway Yes
5:31:30 Asher No
5:32:55 Sternoff No
5:35:00 Lauinger Yes
5:38:25 Burleigh No
(the council completed statements that, in a four to three nose count determined they DID NOT want the documents released)
It is interesting to note that, as they sit at the dais, the council voted:
No - Sternoff
Yes – Greenway
Yes – Hodgson
Yes – Lauinger
No – Asher
No – Burleigh
No - McBride
Why is this interesting? The only two people that could have physically reached the envelope as Tom Hodgson transferred it to the possession of Civik Attorney Arambaru were the only other councilmembers to vote to release the documents. Neither made any attempt to interfere.
(just an interesting moment)
5:20:08
Mr. Arambaru takes a verbal shot at the City Attorney
John, thank you for the timeline, I watched the council meeting online yesterday but it is certainly more revealing in print. I would suggest if anyone has an issue with the behavior of Mayor Lauinger and council member Hodgson that it would be appropriate to express your views and send an email to the council at citycouncil@ci.kirkland.wa.us I personally think Council Member Hodgsons behavior was reprehensible. We as the citizens of Kirkland have the duty to express our views to the whole council so that they can deal with this behavior with the support of their citizens. At the very least the Mayor and Hodgson should recuse themselves from any future votes on the B of A proposal as they have clearly lost the appearance of impartiality. I would certainly support a recall of Tom Hodgson, and also support a recall of the mayor, he totally lost control of the meeting and allowed the improprieties to happen and supported it, “bold move” what the hell is that? If I was the attorney for SRM I would file a complaint with the State Bar Association about Aramburu as he certainly knew that what he was doing was wrong and unethical and in direct violation of the City Attorney’s recommendations to Council, including the possibility of compromising the City’s insurance coverages. It also seemed premeditated and set up, how did Aramburu know to approach the dais to collect his “prize”. That was such a classy move to have an associate present to spirit away the documents in their breifcase. Please send letters or emails to the council and express your concerns. We need to show our support for the four council members who obviously passed Council Behavior 101.
Is there some sort of virus affecting the letter “N”?
Seriously, Thank you both for your kind comments.
The Eastside Sun is calling for the resignation of both Mayor Lauinger and Councilman Hodgson.
While Jessica Greenway voted with the two of them, that is the only demonstrable connection and does not meet any measure of actionable impropriety. There is no proof she acted outside the boundaries of good and decent behavior. If that evidence becomes known, we will revisit this decision.
On Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 7:30pm, we will host a brainstorming session at a location outside of Kirkland. This will be a private meeting open by invitation only. By the start of that meeting we will have the necessary information for organizing a recall of these two men should they choose to not step down.
Please contact recall@eastsidesun.com for an invitation.
Again, we will be organizing the recall effort and each person attending will be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding privileged information gained while in this meeting. Needless to say, Tom Hodgson will not be taking part in this closed door session.
AFTER the initial meeting we will have 2 town hall meetings to hear both sides of the recall debate. The design and format of the public meetings will be determined by a committee formed at the initial meeting.
I implore anyone with something to add to this effort to get in touch. We need to be fair, we need to be just, we need to be open to all points of view and we need new blood on the council.
John Gilday
The correct email address to be notified of the preliminary recall meeting is:
recall@KirklandRecall.com
Apologies for the mixup.
John
http://www.KirklandRecall.com is just what we needed!
Thank you so much for this way to remedy this glaring problem.
We will sign the petition.
Thanks so much you guys for putting together all of the incredibly valuable information contained on http://www.KirklandRecall.com!!! This is great stuff!
I will happily sign the petition. Hopefully we can reclaim our city government from the special interests and inept management that Tom, Jim, and Jessica represent!
After tomorrow night’s meeting we will be issuing a press release.
We hope to have an edited version of the comments that distill the events of the July 01, 2008 council meeting down to 45 seconds of easily digested ‘YouTube’.
We will start with the request for the documents and include each member’s ‘vote’ and end with the mayor’s fawning remarks and Hodgson handing over the documents.
We will preceed the release of video and press release with a call for the immediate resignation of both Hodgson and Lauinger. In the event either refuses, we will proceed.
That should wake up local media!
Want to help???
Send an email to recall@kirklandRecall.com for an invitation to tomorrow night’s meeting and designation of a steering committee.
I just heard from KirklandRecall.com and there are only 7 people coming to tomorrows meeting. Is noone else interested in the effort to remove these people?
If that are all the people outraged by this activity, then I don’t think anyone should stick their necks out. The No Growth Four have won.
Rob - Kirkland Views has definitely added a new dimension and avenue of news for our community. No matter what anybody says, thank you & please keep up the good work. You’re doing a great service. Now if only our City Council would.
Chaos 98033
My, my, my….how this city council has gotten really interesting since I resigned several years ago. And the more things change the more they stay the same. Back then CiViK became the de facto city council, with certain actual council members seemingly selling their souls (and votes) to that group for campaign donations and who knows what else. And it appears that CiViK is still the de facto city council.
The result should be no surprise, when elected leaders lack real principles, from which consistent and logical decisions are derived, but instead made decisions on the fly, depending on which way the wind blows or which contributor is chirping in their ears, then only chaos can result.
Question - do the citizens of Kirkland want chaos to be the norm when decisions are made regarding millions of dollars at budget time?
In response to Linda Richardson: I did send an email to the recall list but found out about the time/location of the meeting a couple of hours prior. Taking the bus to work during the day (but having a car in the evenings), plus with a family, I need a little more lead time than at 5:42 in the evening for a 7:30 meeting. When I could, I made a trip down to Lincoln Center but I suppose everyone had left by then. Well, there’s one more if you count me, and… I’m not faulting the the planning…just need a little more lead time.
The way that the Council has elevated CiViK to basically represent the City is beyond belief, IMHO. Any discussions between CiViK and SRM should be made public, IMHO. Also, before I thought the Council was in “over their head” overruling the DRB…now it appears they are in “over there head” legally as well.
EOM
That is completely our fault EastOfMarket, we missed your request to be included until late and you weren’t given nearly enough time to get to the meeting. We stood at the meeting point until 7:50 then went into a private area to caucus (so to speak).
You deserve better and I’ll work to become better (that’s a line from Hancock - not a bad movie really).
KirklandRecall.com
[...] and recently, outside counsel for the City. Please see the related article, Chaos in Kirkland City Council Chambers [...]
[...] chambers the likes of which we hope to never see again. For background on these events, please see: Choas in Kirkland City Chambers and Request for documents from City of Kirkalnd denied. A flurry of reader comments accompany both [...]
[...] chambers the likes of which we hope to never see again. For background on these events, please see: Choas in Kirkland City Chambers, Request for documents from City of Kirkalnd denied and CiViK asked to destroy all copies of the [...]
[...] For background information leading up to this event, please read, Chaos in Kirkland City Council Chambers [...]
[...] A group calling itself, Kirkland Recall, has ended its short-lived effort to call for the resignation or recall of Kirkland Mayor Jim Lauinger and Councilmember Tom Hodgson (the group modified its original goal and later dropped the quest for Councilmember Hodgson’s recall). It appears the recall effort was initiated after the events surrounding the July 1st Kirkland City Council meeting. [...]