Seattle's District Councils and City Neighborhood Council, 1987-2016
On Monday, Nov. 21, 2016 via Resolution 31718 and Ordinance 125192, the Seattle City Council went along with Mayor Ed Murray in removing the status as official City advisory bodies of the thirteen district councils and the citywide City Neighborhood Council, and removing their modest dedicated funding. Despite the City Council’s rush to this result and its resistance to reasonable modifications, the Councilmembers claimed that they supported continuing the district councils and CNC–not a credible claim in retrospect.
Seattle’s District Councils and City Neighborhood Council existed as official City of Seattle advisory bodies for 29 years, from 1987 to 2016. They were a widely acclaimed and influential model nationally, inspiring other cities to adopt similar systems. Their elimination left Seattle with a major, self-inflicted gap in representation and accountability which continues today. The history of the District Councils and the City Neighborhood Council are important to future efforts to bring back this valuable system of participation or something similar.
In part, the present web page was assembled in the months prior to the Nov. 21, 2016 vote, as a resource for those who were trying to head it off. Now the web page is an important witness to the terrible flaws in process and analysis that Mayor Murray perpetrated and the City Council failed to correct. It is kept on the present web site as a resource for future efforts to reverse the unreasonable and destructive decision brought about a now-disgraced mayor and a now-discredited City Council.
When the City eliminated the District Councils and City Neighborhood Councils, their official City web pages were also eliminated from the current City web site. Hopefully the City Archives kept these electronic files, and will restore the online links. In case that does not happen, an ongoing effort is re-activating some links by re-loading the same information onto the present independent web page, http://eastlakeinfo.net/districtcouncils. For questions: info@eastlakeinfo.net.
Background. Between 1987 and 2016, among Seattle’s 60 official advisory bodies were its 13 neighborhood district councils, which jointly met also as the City Neighborhood Council. The district councils and the CNC were created by 1987 legislation (see below). For the boundaries of the district councils, click here. Each district council was composed of a dozen or more grassroots organizations including neighborhood associations, chambers of commerce, and others, each of which sent a representative to the monthly district council meeting. The district council meetings were public meetings open to everyone. For a history of the district council/CNC system, click here [link to be provided].
On July 13, 2016 without any prior inclusion or collaboration, Mayor Ed Murray issued an executive order (links below include the documents as well as video of the Mayor’s remarks and his responses to media questions) aiming to disassociate the City from this longstanding system. He did not acknowledge that as legislation established the district councils system, this decision was really up to the City Council. On Sept. 20, Department of Neighborhoods officials were grilled by a City Council committee (see link below for a media account).
Recognizing that he had overstepped his authority on Sept. 26, 2016 the Mayor sent a proposed resolution and ordinance to the City Council (click here) for the Mayor’s proposed ordinance; click here for the Mayor’s proposed resolution. Before the City Council introduced it as a bill, the proposed ordinance was informally amended, and it was introduced on Nov. 7, 2016 as Council Bill 118834 (click here) along with a Fiscal Note (click here). The proposed resolution was introduced on Nov. 7 (click here) apparently without revision from the Mayor’s version, and a Fiscal Note for the resolution was also filed (click here).
Mayor Murray’s campaign against the district councils. On Sept. 26, 2016 Mayor Murray released his proposed Department of Neighborhoods budget (see link below) which would undermine the nationally acclaimed Department of Neighborhoods district coordinator model that sustained the district councils as independent and inclusive advisory bodies. The budget, if approved, would divert much of the district coordinator resources that were the current lifeblood of the district councils. Instead, those funds would go to the Mayor’s appointees and priorities, and some even to the already well-funded SDOT.
The campaign against the district councils ignored and dishonored their 29-year history of successfully empowering diverse communities (the district councils were the only advisory bodies selected entirely at the grassroots, not appointed top-down by the government echo chamber). The Mayor did not want to hear from people he had not appointed. He was hostile to open town meetings and geographic representation–and indeed to the very existence of neighborhoods as communities. These views that were, and continue to be, at odds with the traditions of American democracy and grassroots culture.
The Mayor was oblivious to the district councils’ role in promoting inter-racial understanding, in bringing together neighborhood businesses and residents, and in leveraging huge amounts of volunteer involvement otherwise not available to City government. He attacked the district councils without offering suggestions for their improvement. Supposedly to back up his case, the Mayor cited a 2009 City Auditor report, but this report called for restoring staff support to the district councils. In the video of his July 13 remarks (see link below), a reporter pressed this point, and the Mayor blamed his predecessors for not having complied. But the starving of the district councils had reached its lowest ebb under his leadership, and when there was no budget crisis to hide behind.
The Fiscal Notes regarding the proposed ordinance and resolution contained false and inflammatory statements: Regarding Res. 31718, the Fiscal Note stated falsely: “If this resolution is not adopted, District Councils and the City Neighborhood Council could continue to receive a higher level of City assistance (prioritized support from DON’s team of Neighborhood District Coordinators, a distinct role in the review and ranking of Neighborhood Matching Fund grant applications) than all other community organizations located and working in Seattle neighborhoods. … These potential outcomes are inconsistent with the City of Seattle’s responsibility, as a steward of public funds, to direct its limited staff and public engagement resources and activities that are inclusive, effective, and encourage participation by a broad range of community members.” Also: “This resolution would end the City’s practice of providing District Councils and the City Neighborhood Council with prioritized access to City resources, allowing City staff to support a greater diversity of community organizations, including those that serve vulnerable and/or historically disadvantaged populations.”
The Fiscal Note for the C.B. 118834 ordinance used the same false and inflammatory language: “If this ordinance is not adopted, District Councils and the City Neighborhood Council could continue to receive a higher level of City assistance (prioritized support from DON’s team of Neighborhood District Coordinators, a distinct role in the review and ranking of Neighborhood Matching Fund grant applications) than all other community organizations located and working in Seattle neighborhoods. … These potential outcomes are inconsistent with the City of Seattle’s responsibility, as a steward of public funds, to direct its limited staff and public engagement resources and activities that are inclusive, effective, and encourage participation by a broad range of community members.” Also: “Ending the City’s practice of providing District Councils and the City Neighborhood Council with prioritized access to City resources will allow City staff to support a greater diversity of community organizations, including those that serve vulnerable and/or historically disadvantaged populations.”
What was wrong with Res.31718 and ordinance C.B.118834 . Detailed recommendations for improving this legislation were outlined by the Lake Union District Council in its Nov. 9, 2016 letter (click here) to the City Council and in the following line-by-line versions of Res. 31718 (click here for the PDF version and click here for the Word version; and C.B. 118834 (click here for the PDF version and click here for the Word version).
The City Council should have shortened Res. 31718 and C.B 118834 to focus on two important things: create a Community Involvement Commission and increase language access services citywide. The Council should have removed the parts that defunded and decertified the District Councils and City Neighborhood Council before the Commission even had the chance to engage with and make recommendations about these official City advisory bodies.
It is truly unprecedented in Seattle history that the City Council decertified and defunded 14 official advisory bodies without even consulting them about their continuation, without trying to save what was best, without providing help and guidance (as called for by the 2009 audit [link to be added], without allowing a meaningful opportunity for a public hearing, and with only polemical and unsupported analysis. By its action the City Council in effect validated the disinformation and polarization in the Mayor’s “whereas” statements and the fiscal notes for these two bills. On the falsity of the Mayor’s claims, these,
On Nov. 9, 2016 just two days after Res. 31718 and C.B 118834 were introduced, the Lake Union District Council sent each City Councilmember the attached 7-page letter (click here). Below is a capsulized summary of nine needed changes. LUDC’s letter fully supported creating a Community Involvement Commission, while urging that the City Council not deny the Commission the opportunity to engage with and come to its own conclusions about the future of the District Councils and CNC. The LUDC letter also supported C.B 118834’s increase in language access services for all City bodies, including the District Councils and CNC in their efforts to reach out to diverse language groups.
Explanation of suggested changes in Resolution 31718 and Ordinance 125192
(1) Res. 31718 and C.B 118834 would move Seattle away from public meetings and into primary reliance on digital participation, even though the City’s own research shows that one fifth of the population lacks web access. Contrary a Mayor who doesn’t particularly like public meetings, they are fundamental to the American tradition, and are a time-tested technology for inclusion. To attend or speak, one doesn’t need web access, a computer, or even to be able to read. The district councils were the only City advisory bodies that held monthly public meetings throughout Seattle, close to where people live or work. These public meetings numbered well over 100 per year (thirteen different District Councils, each with about nine meetings a year). These meetings were major opportunities for members of the public to engage with City officials and with one another. The City Council should have continued to help the District Councils get word out the public about these public meetings, not kill the meetings along with the advisory bodies that make them possible.
(2) Without face-to-face opportunities for communication and digital-only media can encourage misunderstanding and anonymous invective. Participation by e-mail, web surveys, and social media can be isolating, harsh, and rife with the potential for misunderstanding. Public meetings encourage civility and compromise among people with diverse backgrounds. As stated by the Southeast District Council, “when we may be dealing with class or ethnic divides, in the final analysis there is no good substitute for in-person, face-to-face communication and dialogue. … Even where consensus is not easy to come by, understanding and respect can make a big difference.” The Mayor’s crusade against the District Councils is a disservice to them and to the City Council, obscuring how much the District Councils do to bridge gaps between races, ethnic groups, and economic classes; between homeowners and renters; and between residents and businesses. With help from City government to improve their equity and effectiveness, they can and will do this task better than ever.
(3) The Res. 31718 and C.B 118834 “whereas” clauses and fiscal notes falsely stated that the District Councils and the City Neighborhood Council were receiving unique and undue staff resources. The portion of the District Coordinators’ time occupied by District Council chores was wildly exaggerated. And there is nothing unique about a department spending some staff resources for the official City advisory bodies it administers; every official City advisory body receives staff assistance. The only thing unique about the District Councils and the CNC was that they received FAR LESS staff assistance than any of the other official City advisory bodies.
(4) Res. 31718 and C.B 118834 warped the official mission of the Department of Neighborhoods. The restated new mission now lacks any sense of enhancing neighborhoods, such as through mutual aid, empowerment of people, and ensuring the responsiveness of government. In fact, almost all references to “neighborhoods” were deleted—certainly odd for a Department of Neighborhoods! The focus became “dividing up the pie” of City resources rather than on community-building that can “grow the pie” of community resources through physical improvements and social bonds which the City could never afford to fund on its own.
(5) Section 5 of Res. 31718 erased the charter and guidance for the district councils and the City Neighborhood Council as official advisory bodies, including regarding the Neighborhood Matching Fund by repealing Resolution 27709 (1987), Res. 28115 (1989), and Res. 28948 (1994),. The LUDC letter identified language from these resolutions that should have been retained while strengthening the equity of these advisory bodies’ civic engagement.
(6) Res. 31718 led astray the Department of Neighborhoods and other agencies with a poorly drafted “Glossary of Terms” that “shall guide ongoing efforts by City of Seattle departments to develop, implement and periodically update community involvement plans and practices that prioritize equity.” This new language placed the Department of Neighborhoods at the center in controlling various demographic groups, destroying its longtime role of empowering these groups to interact and cooperate on their own. Res. 31718 should have been amended back to include the then-current purposes to “foster cooperation and consensus among diverse interest within neighborhoods and to encourage the constructive settlement of disputes.” The glossary should have been deferred so that the Community Involvement Commission could help shape it.
(7) C.B 118834 centralized the Department of Neighborhoods and made it permanently an arm of the Mayor, jettisoning its longtime role as honest broker by repealing its function to “mediate disputes between City departments and affected communities.” [p. 4] One reason the City had not needed an ombudsman was that the Department of Neighborhoods had taken this assignment seriously; it should not have been repealed.
(8) C.B 118834 moved the Department of Neighborhoods away from community empowerment by replacing its then-current assignment to “facilitate community meetings on City issues and actions” with new language to “convene public meetings on City issues and actions”. The Department’s long-celebrated effort to help communities organize themselves was replaced by heavy-handed top-down control.
(9) Other than by enhancing its own power, the City Council does not benefit if all advisory bodies are people who it and the Mayor have appointed. The District Councils and CNC were the only advisory bodies that are selected at the grassroots, with viewpoints that the City Council inadvertently edits out in its direct appointments. A decision against grassroots selection of District Council members denied to the communities themselves the advantages of grassroots ideas and involvement. As demographic groups meet face-to-face, the experience promotes civility, mutual understanding, cooperation, compromise, and team building, a true benefit to the entire City through better representation and outcomes.
Conclusion. Creating a Community Involvement Commission and increasing funds for language access surveys were worthy purposes of Res. 31718 and C.B 118834. But these bills should not have been vehicles for defunding and decertifying fourteen City advisory bodies that were time-tested, successful worthy instruments of civic engagement and inclusiveness, already in place and deserving to be helped, not harmed.
It is time for a reset, and to remember the answers for why Seattle needs strong, grassroots district councils. Toward that end, below are some useful links.
Links to documents and videos about efforts to undermine the district council and the campaign to save and strengthen them
The Mayor’s Sept. 26, 2016 proposed resolution repealing the resolutions that charter the district councils and the Neighborhood Matching Fund and replacing them with a system of mayoral and city council appointments: click here.
The Mayor’s Sept. 26, 2016 proposed ordinance repealing the parts of the municipal code that charter the district councils and the Neighborhood Matching Fund and replacing them with a system of mayoral and city council appointments: click here.
The Lake Union District Council’s Nov. 9, 2016 letter (click here) to the City Council.
Line-by-line versions of the Lake Union District Council’s proposed amendments for Res. 31718 (click here for the PDF version and click here for the Word version); and C.B. 118834 (click here for the PDF version and click here for the Word version).
Explanation of the above changes in the Res. 31718 and C.B. 118834: click here.
Mayor Ed Murray’s July 13. 2016 statement, with links to his executive order and a FAQ. Click here
Video of the Mayor’s July 13, 2016 remarks and answers to media questions (provided by the West Seattle Blog). Click here.
Mayor’s July 13, 2016 executive order: For links to his statement and executive order and a FAQ, click here.
Mayor’s July 13, 2016 executive order: click here
FAQ about the Mayor’s July 13, 2016 executive order: click here
Mayor’s Sept. 26 budget proposal for the Department of Neighborhoods: click here.
Department of Neighborhoods director Kathy Nyland’s Sept. 26 comments on the Mayor’s budget and policies regarding neighborhoods: click here
Department of Neighborhoods director Kathy Nyland’s Sept. 28 FAQ on the Mayor’s effort to remove existing staff support from the district councils: click here
City Neighborhood Council’s August 2016 letter to the City Council. Click here.
City Neighborhood Council’s web page on the City of Seattle web site (has many useful documents and links): click here
City Neighborhood Council’s additional web page (has background on the district councils issue, a survey to take, etc.): click here
City Neighborhood Council’s Facebook page: Click here.
Seattle Times July 19, 2016 article by former Department of Neighborhoods director Jim Diers, “Neighborhoods need City’s support, not a Mayoral panel”: Click here.
Seattle Times July 20, 2016 editorial, “City council should challenge mayor murray on neighborhood councils” (July 21, 2016): Clickhere.
Seattle Times columnist Jonathan Martin July 21, 2016 article, “Get ready for a neighborhood rebellion.” Click here.
Crosscut July 19, 2016 article by Jordan Royer, “Murray squanders chance for positive neighborhood reform”: Click here
SCC Insight Sept. 25, 2016 article, “City backpedals on dissolving ties with district councils”: Click here
SCC Insight Oct. 5, 2016 article, “Department of Neighborhoods equivocates on support for District Councils, insulates itself”: Click here
Seattle City Auditor’s 2009 report on the district council system: click here
Links regarding the City Council’s 2015 “Statement of Legislative Intent” request for information about neighborhood programs: (1) 2015 request: click here; (2) Department of Neighborhoods’ first response: click here; and (3) Department of Neighborhoods’ final response: click here
Links regarding the City Council’s 2015 “Statement of Legislative Intent” request for race and social justice analysis of neighborhood grant programs: (1) 2015 request: click here; Department of Neighborhoods’ first response: click here; and (3) Department of Neighborhoods’ final response: click here
Boundaries and web sites for the district councils: [Link to be provided]
Department of Neighborhood’s “Engage Seattle” page: click here
History of City Neighborhood Council and the District Councils system. Click[ link to be provided]
List of the 60 Seattle boards and commissions in 2016. Click here.
Video (in two parts) of the first hour of the July 20, 2016 citywide meeting that was hosted by the Delridge District Council. Click here for the first half hour; the second half hour will follow automatically. However, to listen to the second half hour separately, click here.
Messages that were sent to the City Council on this issue: For the NE District Council Oct. 3, 2016 letter, click here. For an account of the SE Disrict Council Oct. 28, 2016 public meeting, click here. For the Nov. 9, 2016 Lake Union District Council letter, click here.