City Hall
The Council Signs Letters About Major Projects All the Time without McGinn. In Fact, They're Doing it This Morning re: 520. As We Speak
This post includes reporting by Erica C. Barnett
While the mayor held a press conference to denounce city council president Richard Conlin for allegedly violating the city charter last week by signing a letter about the deep bore tunnel, the council is at it again—this time it's a letter about 520. In fact, this is a routine occurrence.
In a council briefing this morning, the council signed a letter about state legislation on 520, commenting on work group design refinements.
The state legislation set out a process for the city to work with WSDOT to continue working on design refinements for the 520 project. Working cooperatively, the city and state convened a technical group to advise on modifications and refinements to the preferred alternative announced by WSDOT in April.
The council's letter , which all nine council members signed and which the mayor hasn't (and hasn't even seen), reflects comments on the work group's recommendations and the city's thoughts about more changes to the 520 design.
This makes sense because the council directs policy, the mayor executes it. McGinn's name was never on the signature line.
A source at city hall who wants to remain anonymous (wouldn't you these days?) says:
"Anybody can sign a letter with comments on an EIS," says McGinn spokesman Aaron Pickus. "But the EIS on the tunnel is an actual document. When Conlin affixed his signature to that he violated the city charter. Only the executive has that authority."
However, city council member Nick Licata said this morning that while the 520 letter did differ from the tunnel EIS letter in that the former was merely a list of council comments, whereas the latter was a formal "transmittal letter" approving the state's latest version of the supplemental draft environmental impact statement on the tunnel, he thinks the letter itself is beside the point.
"We're avoiding talking about the real issue, which is whether Seattle should be a colead on the project. That's a fair issue to debate," Licata said. "I'm having difficulty tracking the mayor's position" about whether the city should remain a partner on the project, he added.
While the mayor held a press conference to denounce city council president Richard Conlin for allegedly violating the city charter last week by signing a letter about the deep bore tunnel, the council is at it again—this time it's a letter about 520. In fact, this is a routine occurrence.
In a council briefing this morning, the council signed a letter about state legislation on 520, commenting on work group design refinements.
The state legislation set out a process for the city to work with WSDOT to continue working on design refinements for the 520 project. Working cooperatively, the city and state convened a technical group to advise on modifications and refinements to the preferred alternative announced by WSDOT in April.
The council's letter , which all nine council members signed and which the mayor hasn't (and hasn't even seen), reflects comments on the work group's recommendations and the city's thoughts about more changes to the 520 design.
This makes sense because the council directs policy, the mayor executes it. McGinn's name was never on the signature line.
A source at city hall who wants to remain anonymous (wouldn't you these days?) says:
"Council routinely sets policy without the Mayor. Take SR 520—council members are signing a letter in briefings today outlining design and policy preferences for that project. The mayor wasn't asked to concur or sign off on it. That just happens to be one example from today."
"Anybody can sign a letter with comments on an EIS," says McGinn spokesman Aaron Pickus. "But the EIS on the tunnel is an actual document. When Conlin affixed his signature to that he violated the city charter. Only the executive has that authority."
However, city council member Nick Licata said this morning that while the 520 letter did differ from the tunnel EIS letter in that the former was merely a list of council comments, whereas the latter was a formal "transmittal letter" approving the state's latest version of the supplemental draft environmental impact statement on the tunnel, he thinks the letter itself is beside the point.
"We're avoiding talking about the real issue, which is whether Seattle should be a colead on the project. That's a fair issue to debate," Licata said. "I'm having difficulty tracking the mayor's position" about whether the city should remain a partner on the project, he added.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
