Stuart for Sammamish City Council Position 7

Pam Stuart

The Endorsements for Sammamish City Council Positions 1, 3 and 5 were easy decisions, even if in some cases a close call. The decision for Position 7 was a difficult, hard choice.

Sammamish Comment recommends Pam Stuart for election to City Council Position 7.

Note we write “Recommend” and not “Endorse.” “Recommend” falls well short of an “Endorsement,” for reasons that we will detail in this lengthy column.

Either candidate will serve the citizens of Sammamish well. There are key differences in philosophy on which voters may well align themselves with the conservative Robinson or the liberal Stuart. This is a perfectly legitimate distinction over which we have no quibble. Our approach to City government trends more toward Stuart’s philosophy, although there are things about Robinson we like a lot.

Both candidates have serious flaws that give us serious pause, detailed below. Therefore, we are reduced to “Recommend” vs “Endorse.”

Getting into details

Stuart proved through two Candidates Forums, her Candidate Questionnaires to The Comment and our endorsement interview to have a better grasp of the issues than Robinson. This is not to say that Robinson is superficial or uninformed. He is not. Robinson attended many Council meetings over the summer and clearly has researched issues. Nevertheless, while Robinson has a good grasp, Stuart’s is better.

On the big issues, such as transportation, growth, tree preservation and the like, there is little difference between them. But in other key areas, there are differences.

Staffing

One key difference is staffing.

Stuart has a better understanding of staffing requirements than Robinson, who wants to cut staff by 10% through attrition. Stuart understands that the staff is already over-worked. The City Council often assigns new tasks that the City Manager notes will stress staff work load and which means other work may have to slip in priorities. Council Member Tom Hornish often raises this issue whenever Council looks to add work to the staff agenda.

Robinson’s answer is to reassess who works on what and reassign more efficiently. This is a good theory but in city government, specialized skills don’t necessarily translate to other tasks. For example, environmental expertise doesn’t translate to transportation concurrency and vice versa. Stuart gets this; Robinson doesn’t. He is insistent and laser-focused on cutting the head count.

Robinson doesn’t have an answer as to why there has been a wave of staff resignations. Stuart thinks it’s because staff hears talk of cutting jobs so they go out to find a new one before it happens. Whether this is the reason, or there are others, or both, may be speculative—but Stuart is unwilling to jump on a general job reduction bandwagon.

Stuart recognizes that cutting jobs will affect levels of service. Robinson thinks “lean” practices (think Six Sigma) will protect against LOS declines. To be sure “lean” should be considered at any time, but it’s not a panacea here.

Other issues

One area that separates the two distinctly is the employment status of each. Robinson is retired; Stuart is fully employed. Robinson says he can devote full time to the City. Stuart says she will strike the balance needed to do so.

Knowing how much time is involved in being a Council member, we believe Robinson has the clear advantage. We don’t believe Stuart has a good understanding of this. For example, Hornish freely admits he had no clue the amount of time required when he ran for office. At times, he’s had challenges balancing the demands.

Meeting the people

The approach by Stuart and Robinson to campaigning is telling.

Stuart ran an aggressive, energetic campaign. She claims to have door-belled 3,500-4,000 homes, with a 62% “at home” rate. Robinson claims to have door-belled 1,000 homes with a poor “at home” rate. He says he’s passed around fliers and information to about 1,000 more people.

While there is no independent way to verify either candidate’s claim, one piece of information that emerged from our endorsement interview came from Robinson himself.

He doesn’t see door-belling as a productive use of time.

Door-belling in suburban city council races is retail politics at is most basic. A candidate faces the citizens, conveys his/her message and most importantly, can hear directly from residents about the issues that concern them. For Robinson to disdain this one-on-one raises the question to us just how much he wants to interact with potential constituents and how well he will tolerate Public Comment and Public Hearings.

Retiring City Council Member Tom Odell’s impatience with public comment, especially on those occasions when it stretched to two hours or more, is well documented. This was one of our biggest and long-standing criticisms of Odell during his current term. (Odell did a lot of door-belling in his first campaign, however.) Citizens don’t need another Odell on this issue in Robinson.

Stuart “gets it” when it comes to the benefits of retail politics. Robinson does not.

But Stuart didn’t vote

Stuart may understand the benefit of retail politics and civic involvement, but she hasn’t put her X on the ballot in a Sammamish local election, ever, until her own this past August primary.

There is no more basic, simpler way to be involved in the community than to vote in elections. However, according to records obtain by The Comment (for all candidates), Stuart, who has lived in Sammamish 15 years, didn’t vote in a single city election until this year’s primary in which she was a candidate.

When shown the King County Elections record of her voting, Stuart reacted like Richard Sherman being flagged for holding: Who, me? This can’t be right!

Hearing her response: the ruling on the field stands.

After reviewing the record following our interview, Stuart said she remained shocked she hadn’t voted in off-year elections, professing ignorance of the elections existence and promising to do better in the future. The explanation simply doesn’t resonate.

How she could drive by the candidate sign pollution every two years, sometimes including billboards, and not realize there is an election is an excuse that simply defies belief.

We are frankly offended by anyone who runs for elective office who hasn’t bothered to vote in 15 years for the office involved.

But to continue the football analogy, Robinson and Stuart have off-setting penalties.

Both candidates have other flaws that give us pause. This is why we came to a “Recommendation” instead of an “Endorsement.”

The final, deciding difference
As noted, Sammamish voters will be credibly served by either candidate. The vote may well come down to ideological lines more than the big issues, over which there are few differences.

There is one more difference between the two we feel to be what brings Stuart across the goal line, if only for a field goal.

We think Stuart’s going to work harder and more aggressively and hold the City administration to a higher level of accountability. We think she’s the kind of person who will dig into weak excuses and flimsy data, push back on bad ideas, and relish every minute of it. We think that’s what Sammamish needs now.

By Scott Hamilton and Jen Baisch.

“…Robinson, who wants to cut staff by 10% through attrition…he is insistent and laser-focused on cutting the head count.”

To focus on one or two of my statements, taken out of context, of an original question misses the more important issues for the voters. The issue to focus upon is whether the City should raise our taxes to address a projected “cross-over point” and revenue gap in the operating budget. In the candidate questionnaire, and during the forum, the question asked was how the candidates would address a forecasted revenue gap by raising revenue for the City. I offered two solutions without raising revenue (taxes), if needed, by reducing staff by 10% through attrition (no one is fired) and holding back 10% of transfers between budgets as options for making our City government more efficient rather than automatically expecting increased revenues through additional taxes. My concern, and that of many voters, is that City Hall acts like a typical government raising taxes as the only viable option to cover a revenue gap. I disagree and believe that a hard look at the expense line is the first order of efficient government and whether our tax dollars are spent as prudently as possible. To raise taxes should be the action of last resort. It is inaccurate to state that “I was insistent and laser-focused on cutting head count” as this was presented as one of a series of options to reduce expenses and not the final solution.

The second issue of vital importance for our voters to know is the significant amount of “outside money” coming into the city council race from special interests and the Democratic Party. Our city council members should be non-political in the truest sense, so when I joined the city council race I believed that an average citizen could run independently without political party support and special interest money. You should inform the voters and expose those candidates who have accepted special interest money trying to influence our election. Clearly, my opponent and some of the candidates have taken special interest money and support and have aligned as a slate with one political party to support their candidacy while professing to be non-partisan – they can’t have it both ways. As you have a history of opposing development in Sammamish it is important to note that my opponent and several other candidates have accepted significant funding from sectors of the construction industry. The assumption would be that these candidates are pro growth despite their assertions to the contrary.

You would do the voters a valuable service to explain the more important issues rather than focusing on one or two of my statements taken out of a much larger platform.

Reply ↓

6 thoughts on “Stuart for Sammamish City Council Position 7”

John Robinson on October 22, 2017 at 8:37 PM said:

“…Robinson, who wants to cut staff by 10% through attrition…he is insistent and laser-focused on cutting the head count.”

To focus on one or two of my statements, taken out of context, of an original question misses the more important issues for the voters. The issue to focus upon is whether the City should raise our taxes to address a projected “cross-over point” and revenue gap in the operating budget. In the candidate questionnaire, and during the forum, the question asked was how the candidates would address a forecasted revenue gap by raising revenue for the City. I offered two solutions without raising revenue (taxes), if needed, by reducing staff by 10% through attrition (no one is fired) and holding back 10% of transfers between budgets as options for making our City government more efficient rather than automatically expecting increased revenues through additional taxes. My concern, and that of many voters, is that City Hall acts like a typical government raising taxes as the only viable option to cover a revenue gap. I disagree and believe that a hard look at the expense line is the first order of efficient government and whether our tax dollars are spent as prudently as possible. To raise taxes should be the action of last resort. It is inaccurate to state that “I was insistent and laser-focused on cutting head count” as this was presented as one of a series of options to reduce expenses and not the final solution.

The second issue of vital importance for our voters to know is the significant amount of “outside money” coming into the city council race from special interests and the Democratic Party. Our city council members should be non-political in the truest sense, so when I joined the city council race I believed that an average citizen could run independently without political party support and special interest money. You should inform the voters and expose those candidates who have accepted special interest money trying to influence our election. Clearly, my opponent and some of the candidates have taken special interest money and support and have aligned as a slate with one political party to support their candidacy while professing to be non-partisan – they can’t have it both ways. As you have a history of opposing development in Sammamish it is important to note that my opponent and several other candidates have accepted significant funding from sectors of the construction industry. The assumption would be that these candidates are pro growth despite their assertions to the contrary.

You would do the voters a valuable service to explain the more important issues rather than focusing on one or two of my statements taken out of a much larger platform.

Reply ↓
- cityhamilton on October 23, 2017 at 7:44 AM said:
  
  The issue of Special Interests is covered in this article:
  https://sammamishcomment.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/robinson-door-belling-an-unproductive-use-of-time/
  
  WRT to the cost cutting, Robinson wrote this in the General Election questionnaire:
  
  Governments typically spend or over spend the revenues provided, so efficiency with expenses is key to covering a revenue gap. City Hall has a fiscal responsibility to be good stewards of our taxpayers’ dollars, so I propose that we can cover the projected operating revenue gap of $500-600K in 2020 by reducing City Staff positions by 10% through attrition (no one is fired) for an estimated savings of $800K/year; and, we can save approximately $800K/year by holding back 10% of transfers from the operating budget to the capital budget. It’s the practice of being lean rather than expecting increased revenues.
  
  In the Primary and General election candidates forums and in our Endorsement interview, he reiterated this approach. He did not offer other ideas for cost-cutting.
  
  Reply ↓
Miki mullor on October 23, 2017 at 2:33 PM said:

I’ll give you one simple idea to get 500-600k back

Hire an in-house attorney instead of paying the current city attorney over $1mm a year in billable hours for mainly simple stuff. They bill us for every email being sent to them like a big law firm, not a tiny issaquah law firm.

And we need an independent legal advice. Arguably there is a built in conflict of interest if the city attorney bills that much money. (Not suggesting city attorney has done anything wrong – but the situation is problematic)

1-2 in-house attorneys will save us at least $500k a year

That’s the type of discussions we need to have before we raise taxes.

Same for consulatents: either we outsource operations or we do it all in house. There is not that much work in sammamish to justify all those expenses.

Reply ↓
- Damian on October 27, 2017 at 11:22 PM said:
  
  Great idea (re in-house counsel) … as an attorney in private practice, this cuts against “my book” but would save the city a great deal of money. Outside counsel should be consulted where appropriate, not to address straightforward matters or routine business.
  
  Reply ↓
Pingback: Recapping City Council candidate information for Nov. 7 election | Sammamish Comment
Pingback: Final weekend before Nov. 7 City Council election | Sammamish Comment