Written by Here is the list of applicants:
1. Michael J. O’Halloran
2. Aaron Belenky
3. Mark Martinez
4. Rich Zwicker
5. Larry L. Sleeth
6. Raymond A. Giometti
7. Roxanna Johnson
8. Cheryle Haskins
9. Kimberly Unti
10. Ruth Gibbs
11. Elizabeth Stevens
It’s a list of terrific, involved Renton citizens.
Out of consideration to these private citizens, and fairness to the candidate selection process, I would like to ask you to refrain from making personal, specific remarks about these candidates on my blog.
However, if you would like to make comments about the process in general, or if you have questions for me, please feel free to leave your comments.
Are they listed in any particular order? Order they applied?
What’s the next procedure?
Good question. I’m pretty sure it is the order they applied in (which is the order I received the packets in), but the order does not matter.
We are going to interview all of them a week from tomorrow, with some standardized questions that we will publish tomorrow (so they will have time to think about their answers).
The interviews will occur in a special committee of the whole meeting, in the council chambers, at 6:00 PM next Tuesday. After the interview we will all go home, and then reconvene on the following Monday to vote on our selection. All of this will be in open public meetings.
It should be a good process.
It’s exciting that eleven people felt compelled to go for the open seat. It really speaks volumes about the amazing energy people are feeling with the current leadership…everyone wants to be involved! The council is rich with options, but I know who I would choose. 🙂
What a nice comment!…and I agree with your assessment. It is a fun time to be a Renton City official.
I forgot to mention…if you wish to speak out in favor of an individual, you can talk with your favorite candidate about sending the city council a letter/email of support. We will still all be checking our email, so I think it is fine to send us all notes (again, I would get the candidate’s okay). We are just trying to keep from having one-on-one types of communication, as we want to all be working with the same data to be fair to the candidates.
or it speaks to the people who want to have an independent voice on the council
…or to people who want to push their own narrow agendas and act as unproductive rabble-rousers.
There are some really good candidates on that list — good luck picking the best! I do not envy the group of you having to go through what would typically be a completely private process (job interview) in the public arena. Though it should make for a really solid process, and the best person getting the joy of being in the public spotlight and having to run for election. 😉
I won’t be commenting on any individual candidates — we elected all of you to represent us. Why micromanage? I’ll have my say when they run for election.
That is an impressive list – many excellent people have stepped up! Renton is fortunate to have such quality people willing to serve.
All I have to say is I hope current city council will not publicly campaign or endorse any on the candidates. Just so it is a fair field and totally up to the Renton citizens to inform themselves on the candidates. That is one thing some council members had said before but only endorsed when it was pushed upon them by other members making there life tough.
my mistake wasnt thinking there wont be a vote (if I am correct) which is to bad for the city and the council
the vote
Randy:
Do council members need to recuse themselves from voting for a candidate they have a close personal relationship with?
Re: the vote
i.e. Don Persson business partner?
Re: the vote
Yes, and Marcie Palmer’s campaign manager.
Re: the vote
Is the same person tied to Palmer and Persson? Or is this two different people?
Re: the vote
The current councilmembers have a lot more integrity that what some people are suggesting. But the naysayers are probably correct in assuming that they’re not going to choose a fringe candidate with views diametrically opposed to their own. They’re not appointing a Supreme Court justice for life; they’re simply appointing someone to serve out the remainder of Dan Clawson’s term. As someone else mentioned, the voters will be able to make their own choice next year.
Re: the vote
May not be a supreme court nominee, but let’s not be naive, the fact is cozy business partners can and do carry in agendas that might not be the best interest of all citizens. The council should take special care to eliminate, even the appearance of nepotism, and bring someone with no direct political ties (i.e. campaign manager) or business partnerships. That just is common sense!
Re: the vote
“the voters will be able to make their own choice next year” so are you saying it doesnt matter it will be a year until we get a vote and this new council member will just be there as a puppet and not speak what they feel is right? or are you saying that council members have no impact on the city in just one year?
Re: the vote
It’s unrealistic to expect the council to appoint an activist, a political novice, or someone without a solid history of non-controversial community involvement. They’ll likely choose someone with predictable, moderate views and an established record of working with people from all walks of life. If that person happens to be a friend or former business associate of one or more council members, it will be up to those council members to decide whether they want to vote for the person. There’s nothing unethical about choosing someone you know and trust, though. It just depends on whether that person also happens to be the best candidate for the position. Anyone who’s hired employees understands that concept.
Re: the vote
agreed, but there are those who do hold moderate views, and are established, yet not closely aligned with current members. When I say closely aligned, I mean specifically business partners, campaign manager, etc. Of course, friends and peers can be considered, but there is a definitive line that should not be crossed (the 2 real examples I am alluding too). Bottom line, why take a chance, or even give any hint of quid pro quo? Does not seem too difficult to me. It may be only a year, before the voters get a chance, but anyone with even a small interest in politics, knows the power of incumbancy in a campaing.
Re: the vote
This whole thread has gotten to the point that it’s ridiculous. As someone who knows both people mentioned above and many of the council members you really should give the council the benefit of the doubt. Realistically, I can’t see either party selecting someone or wanting to be appointed based on a quid pro quo.
My only hope is that the people impugning the two candidates listed above aren’t doing it for their own self interests (they are also candidates for the appointment)or based on the results of the November election. In either case it would make me sad and I would hope that they would identify themselves when commenting so all of us would know to take their comments with a HUGE grain of salt.
Ed Prince
Re: the vote
Ed, I do not see this as ridiculous;
This should not be that difficult to comprehend, and there is no sinister plot. It is simply a case of keeping the process, fair, and eliminate any chance or appearance of favoritism. Simply put, I would have a real problem if a business partner or campaign manager of any of the council members were to be installed for the remainder of the term. That is not impugning anyone, just advocating a clean process, to identify someone, who does create policy within the council that impacts our day to day lives. If a campaign manager or business partner wants to serve on the council, a campaign and election can help vet out any concerns by the voting citizen. My overall concern is that vetting process would be short circuited, if even addressed at all.
Re: the vote
Thanks for commenting, Ed. It does indeed sound like the person/people commenting here were on the losing side of the last election, or are vying for the open seat themselves. Or both.
Kevin
Re: the vote
Very interesting comments from everyone.
I should point out that the appointment process IS by law a political process, so it is really not reasonable or fair to expect council members to intentionally pass over their POLITICAL supporters/allies when making their choice. Obviously, choosing someone because of a marital, financial, or intimate business relationship would be wrong, but I don’t currently know of any such relationships that exist between council members and any of the applicants.
Regarding the concerns about quid pro quo, none of us knew that Dan would resign back when the campaigns were in full gear, so it is not reasonable to conclude that anyone helped anyone else’s campaign with the expectation of getting appointed to the open seat. We did not know Dan would resign until a month after the election.
Renton is a still a small town in many ways, so every council member is going to have relationships, organization affiliations, and/or past civic experience with some or all of the applicants. But I have not seen anything that would cause anyone to be excluded.
Re: the vote
Thanks Randy, I appreciate the response.
I am willing to let this go, with your statement that choosing someone based on financial, marriage, interest would be problematic, and I would include campaign manager for a sitting council member..
Just to correct some perceptions;
* Kevin- I chose to remain anonymous, that is my preoperative, but rest assured, I have no connection to any of the fall campaign (I happily voted for Law). My posts have been above board, and with authentic feelings- I am concerned if a campaign manager or direct business partner is installed. There are a lot of great options that would preclude any controvery.
Issue of Quid Pro Quo- I am the one that used that term, but it was not in reference to Nov. elections. Instead, it would be the “perception” of bringing on a close ally to accomplish personal goals. Why take the chance of that perception, if there are a good # of options.
I am confident that the right choice will be made, this string of posts is simply a notification that there are those of us that are concerned of the decisions that have to be made. No ulterior motives, no axes to grind based on this falls elections, simply a desire to do what is right.
Good luck
Re: the vote
If the council chooses to appoint a former campaign manager I’m sure they will do it because they believe that person is the right choice. Not for any other “ulterior” reasons. 🙂
Ed Prince
Re: the vote
I disagree, and if there are those of us that feel that way, why take take that choice, when there are so many options?
Re: the vote
Ok, you can continue to comment if you want to but it just seems like you’re trying to place a seed of doubt in the council’s mind. This is their choice, you’ll have a chance to decide in August or November of ’09.
— Randy, when does this go from generally commenting on candidates to attacking specific candidates? I’m sure anyone who is interested could google it and find out who we are talking about?
Ed
Re: the vote
Ed, I very much resent your implications; My intent is “not attempting to plant a seed, and you are so wrong about that. This is not at attack on any specific candidate (I do not even know who on the list is connected). This is simply comments on the process. If the business partner or campaign manager (whoever they are) is installed, I have a major concern. Running a re election campaign in 09 would be so much easier as an incumbent. Our concerns, should not be dismissed
Re: the vote
There is only one applicant on the list of eleven who served as a campaign manager last year as far as I know, and that is why Ed thinks you may be picking on this person.
This applicant is also one of the only two applicants who has campaigned for city council (as a candidate) before, and they ran an excellent campaign and had many supporters in the community.
So there is no reason at all that this applicant should be excluded from consideration. As I said, I think all the applicants are very viable.
But we probably are coming a bit too close to talking details on here that may not be fair. I don’t want any of the private citizens who are applying to be discouraged by comments on my blog… as I mentioned before, in this process they don’t have the opportunity to defend themselves that they would have in a normal campaign.
Re: the vote
Like it or not, it’s just not pragmatic to believe that the councilmembers are going to select someone from outside their political comfort zone. People have been talking about how fantastic all of the applicants are, and I’m sure they all have nice resumes, and let’s be honest: some of them have no more chance of being appointed than my yellow lab does. Sad, but true (although I still think he’d make a great councildog). The selection is not going be an act of magnanimity by the Council to appease a political minority. In my opinion, opposing voices should accept that fact and start planning their 2009 runs for council seats. If they need to blame someone for the current situation, they can blame the person who resigned his seat on the Council.
Re: the vote
I thought a council position was non partisan! What about the concept of picking someone based on their application, interview, etc, as opposed to picking someone within their own political zone of comfort!? I am hopeful that the process will indeed go down that path, and reject your position to eliminating applicants for the sake of picking a political ally, with the thought that 09, will then give voters a say! It is 08, and we desire the correct and honest selection now!
Re: the vote
Ah, the return of “Rationale Person.” (inside joke to Election ’07 followers)
As Randy said earlier, the selection process by its very nature is political. The councilmembers are going to have to work with this person for a year, and they’re certainly not going to choose someone who could potentially be a thorn in their sides. As I see it, their only obligation to the voters is to select an applicant who’s well-qualified for the position and provides intelligent responses to the interview questions.
The only reason I do not like the council choosing is this “dream team” thing who are the majority i voted for the majority of this dream team except for Marcie Palmer, I’m not afraid to publicly say who I voted for so don’t get mad. But I hope the “dream team” doesn’t just follow one another like lemmings.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, in my opinion), we have delegated authority to Council to ultimately choose who fills the position in this case. If you think that this process is onerous, and that there’s too much of a chance for the councilmembers to be “buddy buddy” and pick their friend, keep in mind that this is a 2 year appointment, and the other options aren’t much better:
* Let the King County Council appoint someone to fill the spot. Umm.. no. I don’t trust that group at all. Talk about obsolete. I see Ron Sims being just as relevant to Renton as Mayor Quimby in Seattle is — they talk a lot, come up with a lot of bad ideas (gee, turn a major transportation corridor into a bike trail to get a few more campaign donations?) — and really don’t do much to help out with local issues.
* Have a special election to fill the spot. This would cost a ton of money, would bring us back into campaign season, and essentially take the attention away from the real issues for several months. By appointing, the pressure is put on Council to pick someone who is going to do a good job. Do you really think they will jeopardize their spot on Council just to give a friend an appointment?
I have full faith that the council will pick the best candidate – be it a business partner, campaign manager, former opponent, or anyone in between – and know that they have a tough decision. After watching the second half of the interviews tonight, I think I have the top one or two picked out in my mind. It’s not my say, though, so I won’t share my opinion.
On another note, Randy pointed out that one of the Bellevue councilmembers resigned as of tonight’s meeting. Just to give you an idea of the contrast between a good councilmember leaving and a bad one, there was a 20 minute reception prior to the council meeting that lasted at least 30, followed by around an hour of proclamations, public comment, flowers, and thank you’s as Connie celebrated her last meeting. I had both meetings on my monitor at the same time, and couldn’t help but think of the difference in the situations behind peoples’ departure.
I would trust King County Council more then this one, do to the fact of a dream team, that did try to force certain council members to resign and I am not talking about Clawson. if they backed the wrong person in the election.
I thought Clawson was a great council member I do not agree with the law suite but he did do the right things for the city.
What’s up colleagues, how is the whole thing, and what you wish for
to say regarding this post, in my view its truly amazing for me.