By Pat Murakami
How many of the local civics questions can you answer correctly?
1. Did the biggest spender win every City Council race in 2007?
2. What was the average amount spent?
3. How much did unchallenged City Councilmember Rasmussen spend?
4. How do we elect our City Council?
5. How long have we been electing our City Council this way?
6. Under our current system of electing the City Council, could all 9 Councilmembers be from the same part of Seattle?
7. Do you think SE Seattle is served well by our City Council?
8. SE Seattle is in the 37th Legislative District. How many City Councilmembers live in the 37th?
Answers:
1. Yes, without exception.
2. Average was $249,667. Tim Burgess spent the most: $353,532. Sally Clark spent the least (against a very weak opponent): $176,746.
3. Though he had no opponent Tom Rasmussen spent $201,874 in 2007.
4. All 9 City Councilmembers are elected at-large. They are elected by all Seattle voters and must campaign city-wide.
5. Since 1910.
6. Yes, they could literally all live within a few blocks of each other.
7. Well do you?
8. 5 of the 9 City Councilmembers live in the 37th L.D.: Clark, Conlin, Drago, Harrell and McIver.
Do we need five City Councilmembers in SE Seattle or just one that serves our community well? Is it possible that the rest of Seattle prospered over the last decade while SE Seattle’s poverty rate increased because we didn’t have that one City Councilmember that served us well? Is it possible that crime dropped in 2008 for all other parts of the city except in southeast because we didn’t have a City Councilmember focusing on our issues?
Action Seattle is sponsoring a Seattle City Charter Amendment called Seattle Districts Now which would change the way our City Council is elected from the current 9 at-large positions to five district and four at-large positions. Voters will still get to vote for five of the nine positions – their representative and the four at-large positions.
Ninety percent of the largest cities in the United States (with a population of at least 350,000) operate under some form of a district system. Only five of the 52 largest cities are at-large City Councils: Detroit, Columbus, Austin, Seattle and Portland.
It is hoped the creation of districts will result in a more accountable and responsive City Council. Districts will allow candidates to engage in grassroots campaigns, interact with their constituents and know the local issues. When voters have an issue with the City they will have a specific Councilmember they can contact.
Seattle’s population has more than doubled since 1910. Seattle has become too large to be well served by an at-large Council. Our Council is designed to look at the big picture. What about the actual picture – business closures, lack of economic development, rapidly increasing crime rates? Attention to local and neighborhood issues is long over due.
You can help let the voters of Seattle decide if they want local representation. Go to the Action Seattle website, download the petition, print both pages on regular 8.5” x 11” paper, staple them together, sign, get some of your neighbors to sign and mail the petition to the address on the bottom of the petition. It just might make a difference for SE Seattle.
Councilman Bruce Harrell and community activist Pat Murakami address the crowd at a recent Southeast Neighborhood District Council (SENDC) meeting. Photo/do communications, inc.
Who to know, where to eat & what to do in one of America’s most diverse zip codes!
{ 7 comments }
Interesting ideas. Thanks for posting.
I would somehow add to this: how do we check to see who (developers, lobbyists, PACs, private monies, thinktanks, etc.) might be “purchasing” our city leaders through payoffs, secret deals, bribes, campaign funding, etc.? Leaders can still be purchased no matter how spread out they are. Media manipulation is the other part of this that rarely gets discussed — deals that result in intentional slanted reporting.
Good start though.
Keep up the good work Pat. In response to Anonymous’ question is there an open, legal record of donors to city campaigns (mayor, council)?
I keep an open mind about this. But I am still not convinced by these arguments.
I agree that the cost of changing things may not justify the change. My impression (not necessarily based on facts) is that the City Council is pretty useless, doing little more than making silly resolutions and raising our utility rates.
However, this article is interesting — first, it claims that SE Seattle may not be well-represented in an at-large system, but then points out that 5 Council reps are from the 37th legislative district in S. Seattle. So, if anything, we are currently over-represented.
Also not pointed out is that having a single person representing a district, while guaranteeing a voice for that district, also makes it easier to marginalize one or two districts; if 5 – 6 of the districts are well-off and tend to think one way, the other districts will be on the losing end every time.
That said, it seems to me that the at-large always has the danger of voting in 9 identical people, while districts would at least shape a Council that better reflects Seattle’s makeup. Another issue is the accountability factor – representation is better as it becomes more local. If each member represents, say, 50,000 people, instead of 500,000 people (I’m totally making up those numbers), the 50,000 people are more empowered to have a voice.
Anyone can look at where candidate donations come from, but it’s time consuming to do the full analysis. Action Seattle will be adding that information to our website in the near future.
The 5 districts will have resources allocated to them equally (because they will be based on population, not on registered voters). At least our one representative will be on record protesting if we don’t receive our fair share in SE and then, if necessary, our community will be protesting around City Hall if the situation isn’t corrected.
Right now the focus of all City Councilmembers appears to be north of the Ship Canal. City Council receives crime stat reports before we do. We have to ask them to come and help with a solution…they aren’t coming to us saying “There appears to be a troubling trend in your neighborhood. Let’s work to correct the situation.”
“Anyone can look at where candidate donations come from, but it’s time consuming to do the full analysis. Action Seattle will be adding that information to our website in the near future.”
That’s good news, Pat. I know how to find donations for the Federal level, but not the local level. What resources exist (web sites, reference documents, etc.) for doing that at the local (city) level?? Thanks!
Anonymous -
Here’s a link to the City’s website:
http://www2.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/eldata/filings/campaigns.asp?ElCycle=el09a
Click on the candidate’s name and then List of Contributions or List of Employers of Contributors. When we get the contributor analysis done on our website we’ll include whether or not the donor and/or employer are Seattle-based so the average voter doesn’t need to spend hours and hours of research.
Historically there have been races where the vast majority of funds have come for donors based outside Seattle. For example, past School Board races were impacted by advertising paid for by donors who aren’t from Seattle. Voters have a right to know what the agenda is of those donors.
Hope this helps.
Comments on this entry are closed.