Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2018 10A Agenda Process Question1 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 10.A. For Meeting of: September 18, 2018 ITEM TITLE: Agenda process question/Council Member Funk SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: ITEM BUDGETED: STRATEGIC PRIORITY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date 0 Funk 9/13/2018 Type Co\,er Memo 2 I am writing to express concern about the conduct of the September 11 meeting, particularly allowing the unscheduled presentation from the YVCOG Executive Director. First and foremost, the council voted unanimously to request operational information from YVCOG, as is their obligation under the Public Disclosure Act. There is now no ambiguity that this is the will of the full council. Because this was always in the mandate of the HCNBC, and no facts have materially changed, it is my opinion is that the hours spent clarifying this position were unnecessary, and reflect bias against the committee members and the committee function. That said, my concern about the conduct of the meeting is the granting of extended time to the YVCOG director, and the tone of his presentation. He complained at length about having to provide this information, challenged the legitimacy of the request, attacked me personally, and ended with a non- specific threat. I am sure that we would all consider this business as usual coming from Tony C, or Tony S, etc., but from the director of an agency supported by public funds, this seemed unusual. I do not understand why he was allowed to speak beyond the three minute limit, and or why his personal attacks went unchallenged. When I asked about this after the meeting, I was told that such actions were routine. My concern is that all councilmembers have equal treatment within council procedures. Consequently, I would request a look -back at previous council meetings (starting on January 2, 2018) to count how many times additional time has been allowed to speakers to argue against the (formally voted) will of the council, and make personal attacks. Thank you for your attention, Kay Funk, MD Distributed at the #t Meetingy 1 P"W /vi4. Price, Cally From: Gutierrez, Dulce Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 2:32 PM. To: Funk, Kay; Coffey, Kathy Cc: Moore, Cliff; Claar Tee, Sonya Subject: RE: Hello everyone, This is a regrettable situation all around. After reading this email on Wednesday, I have spent the little free time I had this week looking into the situation because I think its important to ensure there is fairness and integrity to our process of conducting business. This marks the 3rd time in all of 2018 that public comment was made during a committee report; During the April 3, 2018 business meeting, Council-member Funk provided a report for the HCNB Committee in which she presented a letter for Council's approval to send to the YVCOG board. Upon finishing the NCNB report, there was public comment allowed for Patrick Milton to speak against approving the letter. Mr. Milton's comment was brief, only lasting 1 minute. Immediately after public comment, the Council continued discussion until Council-member made a motion to approve the letter. I did not attend this meeting because I was ill but I watched the video on YPAC. During the July 17th. 2018 business meeting, I (Council-member Gutierrez) provided a report for the Public Safety Committee in which I presented the summary of the Traffic Calming Petitions to open the discussion about the residential Challenges created by requiring property owners to sign petitions for traffic calming resources. Staff provided additional ihfo, and then there was public comment allowed for Giovanni Severino and Tony Coursey to speak in favor of removing the required signatures from property owners. Mr. Severino's comment was brief, lasting less than 1 minute. Mr. Coursey spoke for almost 3 minutes before ending his comment. Immediately after public comment, the Council continued discussion until I (Council-member Gutierrez) made a motion to eliminate the property owner requirement. During both of these meetings, specifically during the Committee Reports segment, Mayor Coffey stated public comment slips were submitted for the agenda item. This notification from the Mayor part is important to note, as it informs the Committee Chair presenting the report of the pending request made by someone in the public. In both previous meetings (April 3rd and July 17th) the Committee Report was made by the Committee Chair, then public comment made, and lastly - a motion was put forward by a Council-member and a vote took place.This is the ideal order because it allows for Council to hear topic-related public comments prior to a formal motion and vote by Council. This particular order, while not legally mandated, does demonstrate to the public that their comment is heard/considered by Council- members before a vote happens. Again, the ideal order is: (1) Chair makes the report, (2) Public Comment (if requested), and (3) Motion/Vote. However, in the case where a motion is made prior to public comment, then public comment is allowed after the vote because that's the only option at that point. This order is not prohibited but not favorable to the public. From personal experience over:the last 3 years, the few times Council has allowed public comment after a vote - this has caused citizens/residents to become disgruntled with the process, sometimes even causing the citizen/resident to withdraw their request to speak and leave the meeting. I'm adding this additional context because it's important to point out that during the September 11th business meeting, during the HCNB Committee Report, Mayor Coffey (as she normally does) stated there was a submitted request for public N .: comment for the Report/agenda item - but unlike our previous meetings, Council-member Funk decided to make a motion (the report and the motion were stated within the same statement) and effectively forced the Council to take a vote prior to public comment. This resulted in public comment being allowed after the Council vote. At this point, the guest speaker requested more than 3 minutes - and he was granted that request by the Chair/Mayor (multiple Council-members verbalized their support for granting the extended time). Extended time by the Chair/Council 1 is allowed in the Council's Rules of Procedure. As assistant Mayor, I am committed to asking for a clear time limit moving forward to avoid confusion about time limitations in the future. I apologize for not thinking about this sooner. Lastly, there is nothing we can do about the content of the public comment because constitutional rights protect freedom of speech. While I agree that the tone of the public comment by Mr. Matson was less than professional on Tuesday, I can attest that he is not the first Director to demonstrate that type of conduct before the City Council, and more than likely he will not be that last. I hope this email adds context to past practices, and where I believe we went wrong this during this last meeting. I have made a commitment on my part to help avoid this problem in the future. Respectfully, Council-member Gutierrez Dulce Gutierrez Assistant Mayor, City of Yakima Representative, District 1 Cell: 509-823-7021 Email: dulce.gutierrez(cfyakimawa.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account belongs to the City of Yakima and is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From: Funk, Kay Sent:.Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:56 AM To: Coffey, Kathy Cc: Gutierrez, Dulce; Moore, Cliff; Claar Tee, Sonya Subject: RE: Certainly. I would like to have this document included in the agenda packet. Kay Funk Yakima City Council Representative, District 4 509-571-3549 Messages on this email account are Public Records, belonging to the City of Yakima, and subject to Public Records Information requests. Messages must also comply with the Public Meetings laws of the State of Washington. From: Coffey, Kathy Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 2:36 PM To: Funk, Kay Cc: Gutierrez, Dulce; Moore, Cliff Subject: Re: Council Member Funk, due to the amount of time that would be necessary to fulfill your request to have a look- back at all previous council meetings (starting January 2), to count how many times additional time has been 2 • allowed to speakers to argue against the (formally voted) will of the council and, make personal remarks, you will need the majority vote of the council to assign that task to staff. Fortunately we have a council meeting next Tuesday where you can bring this issue up under "New Business". Regards, Kathy Kathy Coffey Mayor, City of Yakima c: 509.910.4758 r: 509.453.1458 Email: Kathy.coffey!,yakimawa.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account may be a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. On Sep 12, 2018, at 1:57 PM, Funk, Kay <Kay.Funk@YAKIMAWA.GOV> wrote: I am writing to express concern about the conduct of the September 11 meeting, particularly allowing the unscheduled presentation from the YVCOG Executive Director. First and foremost, the council voted unanimously to request operational information from YVCOG, as is their obligation under the Public Disclosure Act. There is now no ambiguity that this is the will of the full council. Because this was always in the mandate of the HCNBC, and no facts have materially changed, it is my opinion is that the hours spent clarifying this position were unnecessary, and reflect bias against the committee members and the committee function. That said, my concern about the conduct of the meeting is the granting of extended time to the YVCOG director, and the tone of his presentation. He complained at length about having to provide this information, challenged the legitimacy of the request, attacked me personally, and ended with a non- specific threat. I am sure that we would all consider this business as usual coming from Tony C, or Tony S, etc., but from the director of an agency supported by public funds, this seemed unusual. I do not understand why he was allowed to speak beyond the three minute limit, and or why his personal attacks went unchallenged. When I asked about this after the meeting, I was told that such actions were routine. My concern is that all councilmembers have equal treatment within council procedures. Consequently, I would request a look-back at previous council meetings (starting on January 2, 2018) to count how many times additional time has been allowed to speakers to argue against the (formally voted)will of the council, and make personal attacks. Thank you for your attention, Kay Funk Yakima City Council Representative, District 4 509-571-3549 Messages on this email account are Public Records, belonging to the City of Yakima, and subject to Public Records Information requests. Messages must also comply with the Public Meetings laws of the State of Washington. 3