Drew Nielsen resigns as vice president of Everett City Council

Published 11:19 pm Thursday, April 22, 2010

EVERETT — Councilman Drew Nielsen resigned from his role as council vice president Thursday over what he called “a matter of principle” — a matter that he said could end up costing taxpayers $1 million.

He plans to continue serving as a councilman.

In a resignation letter to his colleagues, Nielsen said he didn’t think the council should rush a decision about renovating the city’s municipal court.

That decision is scheduled to be made May 5.

“I cannot continue in a position that calls for me to publicly support a course of action with which I privately disagree,” he wrote.

Everett’s municipal court needs to grow, and city leaders are trying to decide whether the city should expand the courthouse on Wetmore Avenue or buy one of two other sites and build.

Nielsen said he learned Monday that the price for one of the sites the city is considering for the project just dropped by $1 million.

Up until this week, city leaders thought all three options they’re considering would each cost about $6 million.

The news of a price drop changes the game, and city leaders ought to talk out the options in public before making a decision, he said.

Given the criticism the council has received the last few months about its lack of transparency and openness, Nielsen said it’s important to provide taxpayers “a meaningful opportunity to understand and to comment.”

He suggested the council hold a workshop May 5 and make the decision the following week.

Council President Paul Roberts made a decision to move forward. A workshop won’t work next week because a key player, Everett’s chief financial officer Debra Bryant, plans to be out of town.

“It’s one of the biggest decisions we’ll probably have in front of us all year,” Nielsen said Thursday. “I’ve got to be able to explain to citizens why we are doing what we are doing.”

Thursday, Roberts was on his way out of town and hadn’t had a chance to read the letter.

“We will have a full discussion May 5 that will afford us an opportunity to ask our questions that are critical to this decision,” Roberts said. “We need to move forward, and holding a workshop without Debra Bryant there would not be helpful or useful.”

News of Nielsen’s resignation came as a surprise to his colleagues.

“It’s unfortunate it’s come to this,” Councilman Shannon Affholter said. “It’s unfortunate that Drew feels likes like he has to step down as vice president.”

Nielsen has served less than two months in the leadership role. Roberts appointed him after the former vice president, Arlan Hatloe, stepped down abruptly in March, citing personal reasons.

The vice president is responsible for assisting and filling in for the council president.

On Thursday, Nielsen reiterated that his resignation “didn’t arise out of anger.”

“I have great respect for the administration,” he said. “I just had to have the ability to respectfully not support this decision.”

Text of Drew Nielsen’s letter

From: Drew Nielsen

Sent: Thu 4/22/2010 11:36 AM

To: Paul Roberts

Cc: DL-Council; Debra Bryant

Subject: Resignation of position of Vice President

Paul,

I hereby resign as City Council Vice President.

I do so with the utmost respect for your abilities as a policymaker, and with a high regard for our friendship. However, as a matter of principle I cannot continue in a position that calls for me to publicly support a course of action with which I privately strongly disagree.

As you know, we have recognized that matters of importance should be publicly discussed at a Council meeting held prior to the meeting where action is to be taken. This policy is both an aid to our own understanding of the issue and an essential feature of open government, providing citizens a meaningful opportunity to understand and to comment. Indeed, we have repeatedly told citizens that this will be our practice, and at our meeting of April 14 I understood you to announce that we would commence this method in May.

This is particularly important with regard to the siting and design of Municipal Court facilities, which we are scheduled to decide on May 5. Although I am sure Administration and Council have the same ultimate goals, there are currently significant unanswered questions regarding the costs, both capital and operational, surrounding the location and design of the facility. The answers to those questions have very significant long-term consequences.

This week, we had determined, after discussion, to conduct a workshop on the Municipal Court item at our meeting of April 28. However, in your telephone conversation about this with Debra Byrant, you learned that she will be away that week, and you determined that, rather than delay the item a week to allow the workshop to be held on May 5 and the decision meeting on May 12, the matter would come on as an action item as scheduled, with no advance public workshop.

I respectfully but strongly disagree with this approach. I believe that it repeats the error we made with regard to annexation, where an effort to conduct a workshop was unsuccessful and questions were deferred to our action meeting, leaving inadequate opportunity for Councilmembers or Administration officials to digest them. Members of the public were afforded no role whatsoever. The resulting decision in favor of annexation was ultimately reversed when the unanswered questions which had been raised at our decision meeting were examined more closely. This is a risky way to conduct the public’s business.

With regard to Municipal Court, citizens will not learn until the night of the action what are the issues surrounding the decision, and they will not have any way to review them before our decision is made. An mere opportunity to comment, without a corresponding opportunity to learn the details of the subject, is not meaningful and it does our citizens a disservice.

I fully recognize that Municipal Court is in dire need of new facilities, that we must supply them, and that this issue has existed unresolved for several years (although in fairness to Council, the plan that was brought to Council in 2009 was approved but later abandoned when further analysis exposed problems). I understand that Administration has a new recommended course of action and would like us to consider it as quickly as possible, and it may well be that this is the best plan. I agree that any workshop should be held when Debra Byrant, who is highly knowledgeable on this subject, is present. However, where we are making a thirty-to-fifty year decision, I feel deeply that it is unreasonable not to delay the matter for a week so that any questions may be raised publicly in advance of the action meeting.

I believe that as to all issues of Council administration, the Council President deserves the full public support of his or her Vice President. With regard to the decision to proceed to action on Municipal Court without prior public discussion, I cannot provide that support. Under these circumstances, I believe that my duty lies in resigning. Please know that you will have my ongoing strong and public support in all matters where it is possible for me to provide it.

Sincerely,

Drew