Hodgson ‘fined’ by City Council - Recall advocates remain silent
On a lovely warm August evening with temperatures approaching eighty degrees, concerned citizens gathered at City Hall to attend a special meeting of the Kirkland City Council. The atmosphere was congenial as people of many political stripes waited in council chambers for the meeting to begin. After a slight delay the Mayor opened with communications from the audience. The chambers were over half full and it looked like about half of the audience wore stickers in support of Councilmember Hodgson reading, “Thank you Tom”, “Courage” and “Fairness”.
I say, I say a grand total of six, that’s right, six people spoke from the audience.
Anna Aubrey was first to the mic and she gave an impassioned three minute speech which kindly reminded the Council of their important roll in our City and that Kirkland needs them to come together as a community and reassert their leadership role. Anna set the tone for the speakers to follow. One by one they spoke with respect and obvious passion for our city. Three of the speakers spoke in favor of Councilmember Tom Hodgson. There were no detractors willing to go before the dais and speak their mind. If promoters of a recall were in the audience, they kept their heads down and chose not to speak in public.
The Mayor then turned the microphone over to Councilmember Hodgson who read from a prepared statement. It was an agreement between himself and the other six members of the Council in which he apologized and pledged to pay a fine of $500.
The meeting was an attempt to close a painful chapter for the City. The evening ended with a pledge to work together to solve the many challenges facing the council ahead. The Mayor closed the special meeting at 7:28 p.m., a mere twenty-two minutes after it started.
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
52 Responses to “Hodgson ‘fined’ by City Council - Recall advocates remain silent”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
OMG! An interview with Kirkland’s Jason Mesnick from “The Bachelor”
Sponsored Ads
Just got back to the office from this evenings whitewash.
I have never seen that many people willing to allow a law to be broken with a wink and a nod.
HELL, more than a wink and a nod, they allowed Tom Hodgson to;
1) break the law
2) incur a $12,000 debt for outside legal counsel
3) hogtie the council with his action for an entire month
and
4) escape without as much as an apology.
- “It will not happen again” is not an apology
- Reading a hashed out agreement with fellow council members is not an apology
- a $500 fine does not reimburse US for a $12,000 expenditure
look at the nametages CiViK passed out:
- We are proud of you Tom
- Thank you Tom
- Courage
- Fairness
- What BS
OK, the last one was mine.
In 61 BC Julius Caesar divorced his wife because she was present at an event that, it was assumed, a young patrician named Publius Clodius broke a law. Later, when called before the Senate to testify against Clodius , Caeser stated he had no evidence against Clodius. When asked “Why then did you divorce your wife Pompeia? Caeser replied that “my wife ought not even to be under suspicion.”
Please resign Mayor Lauinger.
[Reply]
Mr. Gilday,
No wonder your tabloid (Eastside Sun) is free…
You were there tonight, right? If so, you had an opportunity to stand up and speak your mind in a public forum, and instead you waited until you got back to your computer to write on the Kirkland Views blog.
Not only are you a poor observer and mock attorney, but a poor story teller as well. And apparently your rallying cry for everyone to come and rant also fell on deaf ears.
And you thought all these meetings were because of your letter to the City. Sorry, it’s not all about you.
[Reply]
I am troubled by the stagecraft displayed tonight. This was not a City Council meeting. It was a show. The ticket price has been extracted from our wallets by means of taxes. This was meant to calm things down. I don’t think it is going to work this time. But then again, no bothered to say a word. Why not?!
[Reply]
Gee and I thought it was just me! The vote in the end was a travesty.
Sternof was the only Council Member who said a word about the legality and is the only one (I checked thank you New2kland) who hasn’t taken a dime from anyone during his elections. Why are these others so morally corrupt?
People who chose to contribute to this blog can defend themselves. I do think that Kris Barick deserves a response. If you were there and saw the agenda, or were there and watched in person or werent there as you point out many weren’t (including me) you couldn’t help but notice audience participation was before the first act! It was obvious to us normal folks that the people who chose to speak supporting Tom tonight pretty much admitted their boy did something wrong but that he was a good boy. Between what his supporters did and the Council didn’t they have enabled every other current and future Council member to violate the laws they swore to uphold and pay a $500 contribution (not fine or penatlty) to make the no-no go away. I do agree with the Sun that this mess happened on and adjacent to the Mayor. On Tom’s other side is a Coucil member who (and I just viewed the video again) states that she is not bothered by any of this! My only question is what’s next? If these weren’t my hard earned tax dollars being spent on this B movie it would be funny. We won’t even get any royalties from the videos!
[Reply]
The council may seek ways to unify but that should not be their goal. Their job is to serve the citizens of Kirkland, not to wheel and deal behind closed doors so they can appear united.
It’s important for each council member present his or her opinion and be held accountable for their actions. They should not be muted. Their ideas need to be presented under existing rules and regulations. Unfortunately, some councilmembers suffered because their legal advise did not keep them out of trouble.
All seven councilmembers may not agree on all the issues. If they don’t agree, let them work it out before the public, not behind closed doors.
[Reply]
I just played last nights meeting off the Internet. I have mixed feelings. Betrayal of the public trust, being talked down to, bewildered and so much more.
Please someone correct me if I get this wrong. I believed the issue was supposed to be something along the lines of divulging confidential information and what the penalty should be. If I got that right then why wasn’t the issue or concern referenced in the statement the council member made? That would be like telling my husband to give one of our children a spanking and not telling my husband what the child had done. I believe that I have a right to know what some other council members were concerned about. Why all these people with paste on buttons showed up on a Monday night? Why would they be there to say good things about a council member? This looked like the news story last night where a convicted killer’s family is pleading with the Judge to be lenient because he was such a nice young man! To hear a council member not really apologize for anything and agree to give 500 dollars that isn’t called a fine? If your not guilty then why pay anything?
The first woman council member who spoke confused me more with what she said about not being concerned or bothered by what was done. Well I would like to know what was done. The only council member who said he didn’t think it was right sent me the message that what was done was illegal. Evidently it now takes a majority of the council to determine if something is illegal. What has happened to our laws since I have been gone? Where did really taking responsibility for your actions go? We moved here from a place where everyone knew what was right and wrong. You could see the result of not knowing or doing the wrong thing on Fridays. I don’t want that type of frontier justice here but I also expect my public officials who take an oath of office to uphold the laws.
That’s my take. I am new again here so I appreciated all comments.
Robin
[Reply]
Kris Barick:
I was there to cover the event and write about it - not to be part of it.
Yes, it appears it did fall on deaf ears.
There were 8 people there that met with us re: removal of the mayor. None chose to speak. In the 12 hours since the event most of them sent emails stating that, since the crowd was obviously packed with Hodgson supporters, it would not be fair or representative. It wasn’t.
This is and was never about me, this is about the mayor and Tom Hodgson and their actions. And its not over as much as you hoped it would be.
[Reply]
Why are there no comments about what happened outside the chamber doors after the meeting? I wasn’t there so can’t report on it, but the people who were there certainly can. Come on, you people, say what you think. Don’t let these people get away with trampling on the law and costing us $12,000 for a fine of $500.
[Reply]
Hey Mrs. Robin Gentary - I’ve been reading your posts. I know you’re new (back) to Kirkland and all, but I think maybe YOU should run for City Council. You already have my vote!
I agree that Tom has always tried to be a fair person - I have had the opportunity to work with him, and observe him on council. Until now I have always had respect for him personally and felt that he really does try to do the right thing. But he was NOT fair in this case at all - to the citizens nor his fellow council members. Last night felt completely staged, and the $500 fine was a slap in the face to all of us. He seemed to show no real remorse. I’m not sure where the $12,000 in legal fees is coming from or if it’s a real number… but if it is he should have at least been asked to pay for a mere 10% of that - perhaps $1,200!
As a side note, no matter what the council says about clearing the way and wanting to move forward - it all sounds good but I don’t think it’s humanly possible. I think the damage here runs too deep.
I’m passing on tonight’s council meeting - it’s just too much drama. I might watch a re-run of South Park instead.
[Reply]
Better than TV,
Thanks for the vote! I am not anywhere near ready to run for office but assure you that I will get involved in next years elections if we can stand to be here that long. I just returned from the QFC and overheard some people talking aboout last night. I was in a hurry but could tell that they were not amused with what happened with the goings on. It would be interesting to really know the sentiment of the City. Mr. Moderator how about an unscientific poll?
TonightI will watch as much as I can. It is a tough decision between Deadliest Catch and this comedy. By the way you mean this isn’t South Park? I’m calling our realtor!
[Reply]
I watched the meeting streamed over the internet as it was happening. Here are my impressions:
1. The entire thing was choreographed.
2. The meeting was called at the last minute (info taken purely
from this site).
3. Hodgson supporters were probably notified in advance of the
public regarding the meeting to add support to what the
council had worked out.
4. The council is probably trying to appear now as unified…could
be in response to any pending lawsuit brought by SRM.
5. Funny thing not one council member stated what they would do
with their $500. Perhaps donate the $ towards some City of
Kirkland program low on funding?
6. I personally found it an insult that the council members
publicly agreed to accept $500 from Hodgson for his actions
effectively violating ATC privilege. In my mind, this appears
to be accepting a bribe made in public.
7. The complete absence of an apology of any kind from Hodgson
I think is made to basically not state he did anything wrong!
If he were to do this, it would probably have legal
ramifications should SRM bring suit.
8. I’ve lost respect for the council after last night.
I’ve been involved in a City of Kirkland process in the past that has required approval of the Council…it was involving a land use issue. I have no confidence in the CoK Council any longer.
I feel that if it Tom Hodgson does not recuse himself from the BOA appeal, SRM should bring suit against the City with full force.
EOM
[Reply]
KBB said: “Sternof was the only Council Member who said a word about the legality and is the only one (I checked thank you New2kland) who hasn’t taken a dime from anyone during his elections. Why are these others so morally corrupt?”
Kudo’s to Sternoff, but if I am not mistaken, he was assisted by an uncontested candidacy. Campaigns can be expensive, there is nothing wrong with taking campaign contributions. Kirkland is still a small community so it is logical that parties on either side of a given contentious issue could have made a contribution to an elected official. I do not believe that any council member should be forced to recuse themselves because they received campaign assistance from an appellant. The issue is full disclosure - transparency - on all sides.
Bob Style said: “All seven councilmembers may not agree on all the issues. If they don’t agree, let them work it out before the public, not behind closed doors.”
Isnt’ that what they tried to do the night a council member acted unilaterally and all hell broke loose? The mayor lost effective control of that meeting.
Robin Gentary said: “Evidently it now takes a majority of the council to determine if something is illegal. What has happened to our laws since I have been gone?”
The City has allocated $12,000 (allocated does not mean they have spent it) towards legal counsel for this fiasco. Could it be that attorney’s advised the Council that errors occurred behind the scenes that could render Hodgson’s alleged “illegal” action inconsequential? Could there be other parts to this puzzle that we are not aware of? Just wondering…
Eastside Sun said: “There were 8 people there that met with us re: removal of the mayor. None chose to speak. In the 12 hours since the event most of them sent emails stating that, since the crowd was obviously packed with Hodgson supporters, it would not be fair or representative. It wasn’t.”
Are you kidding??? What is unfair about allowing 3 comments in either side of an issue? Isn’t the rule designed for balance and fairness as well as time managment? Where were the 3 of the 8 present that wanted the removal of the Mayor or Hodgson? Who cares how many people were there wearing stickers? (There were a lot more than 8 people at the meeting not wearing stickers, including me.) Comments are directed to the Council, not the audience. The argument about why these folks chose not to speak for the otherside is so lame it is laughable!
The Council made a decision to move on and so should we. Let upcoming elections take care of the composition of the Council. This blog will be on fire come next election and hopefully some good candidates will arise as a result.
[Reply]
this result makes me nauseous. I was thinking of something that Michael Moore has encouraged…that reasonable minded people should join the NRA for gun control. Shouldn’t we, the reasonable minded people, join Civik, before they ruin our city. They are already running it de facto.
[Reply]
Hi fellow Klanders,
We’d like to address a couple points that have been bugging us since we discovered this blog.
We’ve watched as people take cheap shots at both sides. We think the B of A project looks better because of the insistance of Civik. We also are convinced there are members on the council that are beholden to Civik and thats just not right.
We also have watched as a single man created a newspaper that gave a voice to our citizens. We have watched him act as a sort of human lightning rod whose willing to take the hits the rest of us are afraid to speak up and take. We watched him take on a sitting mayor.
We are proud to say we had a beer with him at the Rover Irish restaurant and he listened to our concerns about graffittii and published our concerns. We talked about a cop we were concerned with and he spoke with the cheif about him. That’s what a good reporter does.
Our household waits for the first of the month for our new copy of The Eastside Sun, we don’t always agree but we always respect Mr. Gilday for trying to be fair, balanced and hilarious all at the same time. Now we need to get him on the Obama bandwagon!
Mr. Murph stated that The Sun wasn’t correct in excusing the anti-mayor contingent because they were outnumbered - I agree, one or more should have spoken up but you have to admit, it was a lost cause from the beginning. Don’t hold Mr. Gilday responsible for the lack of backbone of everyone else there. He already went on the record.
Mrs./Ms. Kris Barick seems to see things that aren’t there. She rants about why a reporter didn’t take sides and speak up. Huh? Does she know what a reporter is supposed to do? She talks about ‘all those meetings’ to which I ask All what meetings? There was one letter and one meeting that I know of, probably no longer than last nights meeting and held behind closed doors. She seems to have a deep personal distaste for Mr. Gilday - is there something more behind that anger Kris?
Oh, and we’ve never seen a weekly or monthly paper that isn’t free. A cheap shot that makes no sense.
HOORAY FOR THE EASTSIDE SUN. We don’t always agree but we know you will stand up and be counted when the chips are down.
Now, regarding Mr. Hodgson. According to a reader on this site he cost us and the rest of the taxpayers 12,000 with his actions. Why was that not addressed? Greenway or Lauinger could have stopped him from giving the memos on the 1st of July, why didn’t they?
This whole thing stinks and the pathetic way they tried to sweep it under the rug last night stinks too.
IMHO, this isn’t collegiality, this is covering your asses.
[Reply]
Just curious, anyone know why David Ramsay was absent at the special council meeting Monday? Interesting…
[Reply]
The Kirkland Reporter has recently run some profiles of past Council members (Woods, Cooper, Ekins). Yes, we remember them well, and Tom, Jessica, Jim, none of you measure up–none of you are a Woods, Cooper or Ekins!!
The days of deciding what’s best for all of the community are dead and gone. The days of actually making a decision are so yesterday. Now the Council members do: 1) the bidding of private, extra-legal organizations, or 2) whatever it takes to get re-elected.
Think about this Tom, Jessica and Jim–what would CiVik say today about under-grounding the wires on Market St, or developing the run down shipyard at Carillon Point, or (heaven forbid) developing the original Park Place on a perfectly good, blackberry covered carnival lot!!!
Let’s get the recall bandwagon rolling.
[Reply]
Wake up Laurie and Mike - Mr. Gilday took a side, check out his latest edition of the Eastside Sun. Check out what he writes on Kirkland Views. We are all entitled to freedom of speech, reporter or homemaker. No one spoke up against Tom; that has to be noted for the record. All this bs about recalling the Mayor and Tom and not a single word. I’m not forced to like or appreciate anyone, including Mr. John Gilday or his paper.
[Reply]
Laurie & Mike:
Thank you for the kind words, it’s nice to know what we do is appreciated (at least by some).
As I stated earlier, I was at last night’s event strictly as a reporter… as were the other 4 reporters there. It was not our place to become the story.
Thank you again for all the kind words.
John Gilday
The Eastside Sun
[Reply]
jiminkirkland
It is still running. we just need to know who is with us and who is against us.
[Reply]
I see a coup d’état heading our way.
Pissed off individuals have found an chance to turn over a past election and replace the offending council members with friendlier faces.
Doesn’t that sound just like something all of these CiViK haters would scream about if that strategy were used by CiViK?
Reverse an election of sitting council members who have closed ranks and signed a contract to play nice. You’ll need a good plan boys.
[Reply]
And we have one. The Washington State Constitution.
Pretty subversive, don’t cha think?
[Reply]
Last nights results do not surprise me. I have not read a comment here that supports what the Counci did. The “meeting” was set up masterfully to mask the seriousness of the “concern”. It is obvious to me that a lawyer negotiated and wrote Mr. Hodgson’s statement. It is also clear to me that the Council was most likely threatened with a long and costly lawsuit. The language used is so generic as to make one believe (had they not seen the tape) that he popped his gum during a meeting. It is also clear to me that the Council weighed the cost of a lawsuit in terms of the budget shortfall the City is facing. If I were representing Mr. Hodgson (and no I never did criminal law) I would have forced the same outcome. Nonetheless it gives me no joy that a real apology explaining what was done and why it was wrong did not occur. The blatant lack of respect of the laws they swore to uphold put best by the inane comments of Ms. Greenway, seconded by the thunderous silence of Mayor Lauinger, Councilmember’s Asher and Burleigh (who made and seconded the motion to accept the “apology”) is astonishing but not unexpected. It is disappointing that one lone voice was heard. Is there any other member of the City Council with any conscience?
If the attorney for the B of A developer was there last night, this evening should be entertaining. There is already a letter from her demanding the recusal of Mr. Hodgson. He does get another crack at standing up and being a man tonight. Doing the right thing and stepping aside on the case at hand.
Just a note to any of his supporters lurking here who believe he is a man of principal: This is a nation of laws. If you don’t like the laws then talk to your legislator and get them changed. Until then we are a nation the of the laws on the books. Some we like. Some we don’t. When you swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this State as an elected official you don’t get to pick and choose the ones you are going to obey no matter how right you think you are or may be.
Kris, you do have a point that a stacked City Council is not a good thing. From what I have seen that is what CIVIK has already done It appears that their Council Members have as much as exposed themselves and now the City to possible legal action.
Stay tuned.
[Reply]
The SHAM city council meeting was just that, a sham. The deal was done in a backroom - in the past perhaps a “Smoky Backroom”. It would have made no difference if a hundred citizens came to demand an change in council people or ask for Tom’s departure - the deal was done! No community input asked for or respected - if any was sought, just look this bog. // and nobody cares!
Most of us will agree, this is the worst city council in recorded memory. Under the leadership of Mayor Jim - our city council has become the laughing stock of the state.
Here is the problem - illegal acts are committed by a council member, the Mayor supports the law breaker, another council member, Ms. Greenway - has no problem with his actions // and nobody cares!
The council cannot make simple decisions in a timely bases -// and nobody cares!
The council member (Tom) who is responsible for these legal problems is not required to pay for the extra costs of over $12,000 in legal costs to the city, and in no way held responsible for his actions // and nobody cares!
Under the leadership of Mayor Jim - the city is deep in debt. // and nobody cares!
With vidio proof of illegal support of CiViK, and admitted action to that end, Tom remains a council member with the support of the band of four.// and nobody cares!
The fact that Tom is still there, shows how far out of touch this city council is with the “Rule of Law” - and “Honest Representative Government” // and nobody cares!
It is well past time that the citizens of the city - demand the departure of both Jim and Tom. // I do care
[Reply]
I’ll gladly sign a recall pettition if given the opportunity.
[Reply]
I don’t get you people. You say you care, but where were you when you had an opportunity to speak out? Addressing the dias last night would not have changed the outcome, but that is hardly an excuse for remaining silent on an issue that has ignited the vitriolic comments posted here.
[Reply]
P.S. The silence last night by the “opposition” was defeaning.
[Reply]
How many times can it be made clear that civik understood from the beginning that the bank was a given? They say it all over those video council meetings. NO ONE disputes (or has ever disputed) BOA would be a tenant. I sense a McCain strategy - throw any accusation, etc. out there and see what sticks - there will always be people to believe anything they hear!
[Reply]
And believe what they see on the video of the July 1 Council meeting
[Reply]
[...] the August 4, 2008 City Council special meeting, Councilmember Tom Hodgson read aloud an agreement made between him and the rest of the [...]
Back in April and May CiVik dedicated many, many minutes of testimony to why a bank SHOULDN’T go into that space. What was that about, then?
[Reply]
I thought this thread was about the outcome of last nights Special Council Meeting. Shouldn’t the BOA comments be moved to the BOA Appeal thread?
[Reply]
To Tia: watch it all again. They state the project should not be allowed to have a fifth floor b/c a bank is NOT superior retail. They clearly state they realize BOA will be there when the project is re-developed and don’t have a problem with that. Cut and dry.
Rob- feel free to move my comments to the appropriate thread.
[Reply]
About last night, I was there. As soon as I walked in the lobby I was asked if I was there in support of Tom Hodgson, I replied I was not. I was frankly stunned to see people that I know were on Ms.Greenways election committee and CIVIK supporters wearing large stickers in support of Tom. I was appalled that they could ignore the fact that he broke the law and chose to support his illegal actions. I was not prepared to speak and so I did not. I found it interesting that Burleigh, Asher and Lauinger did not speak. I sent an email to City Council and the City Manager on July 5th asking for an explanation and for the Mayors and Mr Hodgsons resignation. I have not received a reply to that as of yet. The council wants you to believe that they have put this behind them and moved on, I think not, trust between them is irrevocably broken. I do support the Recall for both Mr. Hodgson and the Mayor. I would attend another Recall meeting if so invited. You should all start thinking about who you want to support in the next election, it won’t be pretty. But it might be Sweet!
[Reply]
John Overleese Reply:
August 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I too sent a letter to all the above - asking for a response, still waiting.
Thank your for your comments!
[Reply]
Has the attorney’s hired by the City confirmed that Hodgson, in fact, broke the law? I could be wrong, but it may not be as clear as mud.
[Reply]
Hey Jackie - From what I understand, Dave Ramsay had already scheduled Monday as a vacation day and this meeting was very “last minute” so he was not able to attend. Same goes for Marilyn Beard. Nothing at all was meant by their absence - just want to make sure nothing is inferred from their not being present.
[Reply]
agree with k jordan….get Hodgson out of office..he broke the law ignored city attorney advice and showed his total lack of integrity. The fine should have include attorney costs to the City which his little grandstanding show caused. he is a bum and if i was his day job employer I would fire his ass ASAP
[Reply]
I can’t help it, I’m watching the meeting tonight after all. I was surprised that someone in the audience didn’t verbally protest when Tom did not recuse himself. OMG. This just can’t be legal?
Jackie - Jim McElwee has now spent the last 10 minutes going on and on about why a bank should not be on that corner - how you can interpret it any other way I just don’t know. I also don’t know why I torture myself this way - it’s seriously like watching a train wreck.
[Reply]
I have to agree, don’t you think that the attorney for SRM will have something to say about Tom recusing himself? Jim and Bea are the people that wore the stickers in support of Tom last night. It does’nt stink any more than this. The word arrogance comes to mind.
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
FYI: For the record, I think you may be mistaken about the stickers being worn by Jim and Bea at that meeting. I spoke with them both that evening and my recollection was that they were certainly not wearing stickers. Many others in the audience were but they were not.
[Reply]
Question. What would have happened if Hodgson had recused himself and the vote ended in a 3/3 tie?
[Reply]
Murph: that’s probably the reason for last night’s meeting to show that the council was all “okay” with Hodgson’s actions in preparation for SRM’s defeat tonight. I tended to agree with Joan McBride’s comments at the end and with Mary-Alyce’s interesting observation that height-wise, the SRM development was 12 inches higher than the McLeod project.
I was surprised also to learn that The Heathman Hotel (it’s nice, I like the hotel) was considered “superior retail”. My sister stay’s there when she visits from out of town, but that’s the only reason I ever have to go there.
I don’t eat at the restaurant or make use the salon, but I sure would have visited the 2-story cafe that would have been in the SRM proposal. To add to that, I thought the SRM design was something unique and modern to downtown Kirkland…something that might have set the city apart from other cities on the eastside of the lake. In fact, if this building had set the “standard” in terms of a new downtown look for Kirkland, Kirkland might become more of a tourist attraction for people visiting the Seattle area. The increased visitors from out of town might have helped with tax revenue which could possibly help the budget deficit helping Kirkland.
EOM
[Reply]
Better than TV - Read and listen. He says Bank does not equal superior retail, therefore should not be granted a fifth story. Bank is fine there so long as SRM is not awarded a fifth floor. He was very clear!
[Reply]
K Jordan, Watch the tapes OR attend the meetings. I was there - Jim McAwee (?) and bea Nahon were not wearing stickers - nice try!
[Reply]
hey jackie..k jordan was at the meeting…where were you
[Reply]
Ms. Kris Barick and ‘murph’,
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Without your comments here yesterday, we would not have been so fired up at last night’s meeting of The Recall Committee.
Without your comments, we wouldn’t have voted to move forward.
Without your comments we would have remained defeated instead of deciding to reignite the fire in our bellies and push back against those that would make excuses for lawbreakers and ‘The Gang of Four .
Again, thank you so very much to Kris Barick and murph, you have done a service to this city.
SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.kirklandrecall.com
[Reply]
Kirkland Recall et all,
Do what you feel you need to do, but I have a question. Who do you suggest replace those you are trying to oust? Rather than a recall, I would think your passion and energies would be put to much better use coming up with potential candidates. By then, election time will have rolled around….
I will comment more on moving forward at “BOA is DOA” thread.
Rob, perhaps once everyone’s had a chance to vent on this topic you could start a Pro-Active Involvement or Moving Forward thread; some title that encourages involvement, where we go from here and how to work together. Also, it is probably not too soon to have a Candidates (local) thread.
No one answered my question about what would have happend if Hodgson had recused himself and the Council ended with a 3/3 tie. Is the Mayor allowed to vote only in the case of a tie?
[Reply]
By the way Jackie, Jim was the one handing out the stickers on Tom’s behalf when I personally walked into the lobby of city hall on Monday. Were you there?
And yes I was listening to Jim quite closely last night - he was being very clear about why a bank shouldn’t be on the corner, and didn’t really tie it to the 5th story. And where was he when it has been explained over and over again that superior retail doesn’t have a THING to do with who the tenant is, it has to do with ceiling heights, windows, etc? Of course there will be a vault and certain other elements inside that are “bank-ish.” It’s A BANK for pete’s sake! All the other elements that are defined by superior retail are within code!
This is going to go to superior court. There is no way SRM is going to go back to the DRB. I almost wonder if that’s what city council is banking on (pardon the pun) so they don’t have to take any more political brunt for their decisions a second time around. It’s going to cost US tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars and even more wasted time and resources. Civik RESTS as Bea so eloquently put last night? They WISH - I hope they all become personally liable in this case…. which they might because I’m sure they don’t have board insurance.
[Reply]
Mr. Eastside Sun: You call yourself a reporter, saying you don’t want to be part of the story. Then you go out and post your attacks in your paper and elsewhere.
Reporters do just that: report the facts. I have absolutely no reason to believe your version of an event is factual, since you clearly go in with your mind made up, ready to report those facts that support your position.
[Reply]
To “Long Time Kirkland Resident”: You know a discussion has sunk to a new low when someone trots out comparisons to Hitler. You should be ashamed.
[Reply]
He didn’t “get caught”. He did what he did out loud, in a public meeting and on camera.
Aside from working for a recall and general personal attacks and name calling, do you have any intention of proactive participation moving forward with others whom you won’t always agree?
[Reply]
Bigyaz,
Get with the times, that post from the eastside sun was days ago. A lot has changed. But for your information, he did put his thoughts in the paper last week.
I’m not going to spend my time defending another persons right to free speech, in 2008 it should be assumed.
But if you need proof just watch the videos of the council and listen to their words because thats what we all did to come to this conclusion:
sign the petition: http://www.kirklandrecall.com
Laurie
Laurie
[Reply]