Setting the Stage
If you’re just tuning in, a slim majority of the Clyde Hill City Council voted in early February to defund (and effectively fire) Dean Rohla, Clyde Hill’s City Administrator. In a council-mayor form of government, city councils don’t have hiring/firing powers, and only in extreme circumstances will they take a defunding action to force the mayor’s hand. At the time, Councilmembers Dean Hachamovitch, Lisa Slivka, and Brad Andonian implied that this was a budget-motivated measure but now have shown their true colors that this was to force out the City Administrator. Mayor Friedman vetoed the ordinance (read his veto message here), and Councilmember Hachamovitch scheduled a special meeting to attempt to override the mayor’s veto, expand the city council, and cause more chaos.
Special Meeting
Hachamovitch, as mayor pro-tempore, has the power under council rules to call a special city council meeting without Mayor Friedman’s approval. This is what he did on February 25, conveniently when both the dissenting Councilmembers, Steve Sinwell and Ryan Olson, could not attend. This meeting had no timeline-based urgency, making the timing quite suspect. At the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Friedman noted, “I’m sitting here wondering why we’re having this meeting tonight…we have a huge problem with the divisiveness that is being caused by members of our council today…. this is not about the budget.”
“Our Residents Deserve a Lot Better”
Councilmember Olson, traveling and on a plane at the exact time of the meeting, submitted a letter for the record. In the letter, Olson called out the “instigators” for scheduling the meeting, knowing he could not attend. He chastised Hachamovitch as a “bomb thrower with no solutions of his own,” attempting to throw the city into chaos to gain power. (Read Olson’s letter in its entirety here.)
Citizens Speak Out
The council chambers were packed with concerned residents, and many attended virtually due to the short notice and many traveling for school winter break. Most commenters supported Mayor Friedman’s veto of the ordinance and favored keeping the City Administrator position. They were concerned about the attempt to pack the council (by expanding the membership to seven) and the chaos caused by the three councilmembers. Notably, former Councilmember Kim Muromoto stood up to express that he was “angry, sad, and concerned” that some councilmembers were trying to change the city fundamentally and were not standing up for the citizens; instead, they were operating with a “vendetta.” Many residents voiced their frustration, with one remarking, “It’s just disgusting to me, it’s appalling, so I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself.” Another resident stated, “You people who are appointed here (Slivka and Andonian) have just been creating chaos…I stand by the mayor.” A third resident expressed, “I don’t think that it’s a victory that you got people here by threatening to, basically, upend… and you know, disrupt our government structurally with no real due process. I don’t find that to be honorable. I think it poisoned the well … you guys did that… that caused a lot of damage.”
Listen to the in-person comments here and read the written comments submitted here.
Reconsidering the Vetoed Ordinance
When a veto is issued, the city council must reconsider the ordinance and can override the veto by a 2/3 majority (four affirmative votes) of the council. The only members present at the meeting were the three who voted in favor of the ordinance to eliminate the position of City Administrator, and all abstained from the reconsideration vote, which sustained the mayor’s veto.
Meeting Devolves
The remainder of the meeting started with a “monologue” from Councilmember Hachamovitch. He read a draft letter for the council to sign, blaming the city’s budget problems on the city administrator and mayor. He continued by piling the blame on everyone but the council—for which he is the longest-tenured member—implying that the council isn’t qualified to solve the city’s budget woes.
The council decided to punt on the rest of the agenda, and the meeting turned into a back-and-forth with the audience about the city’s issues, with a lot of blame placed by the public on the councilmembers for causing the divisiveness. By some estimates, with the legal expenses and staff time, the meeting could have cost 5% to 10% of the deficit.
Moving Forward – Candidates Needed
One of the overarching messages from the public was that they are uncomfortable with having a council majority that only contains one elected councilmember. Under state law, appointed councilmembers have the same rights and privileges as those elected, but they are forced to stand for election at the next regular election – this year in 2025.
We need good, community-minded residents who want to move the city forward and not play politics to run for city council this year. Councilmember Hachamovitch is up for reelection this year. Slivka and Andonian, who were appointed, are up for election this year. We need people to stand up and challenge them. Candidate filing week is May 5-9, which is coming soon. If you want to learn more or are interested in serving your community, please contact us here, and we’ll be happy to answer questions or put you in touch with someone who can give you more information.