Things Heating Up for Filling Seattle City Council Seat

 Update 2: given all these mystery about Song's address, maybe we should examine every director's address just to be sure.

 

Update: Not good. From the Seattle Times:

Seattle City Council candidate has residency conflict in School Board role 

They don't call political operative Tim Ceis "the Shark" for nothing. He (or someone else) did a dive into Director Vivian Song's address and uncovered a mess. Sadly, it's of her doing and somewhat of SPS'.

When she first ran, there was talk about if she really lived in her district. She did at one point. She since moved to Capitol Hill. This isn't necessarily a dealbreaker but there is Board policy AND RCW law to consider. It gets a bit cloudy and dicey from there.

She moved back to Capitol Hill in 2022. She said it was a “gradual process” but she notified Seattle Public Schools and updated her voter registration in March, then consulted the district, which said she could lawfully keep serving. 

Great that she told the district, but did she owe notification to the residents in the district she serves? And who in the district she consulted is unclear. Was it SPS Legal? 

According to board policy, “School Board Directors are responsible for serving all schools in SPS, not only those located in their represented [director area].” Board directors are elected citywide in the general election, not only by those living in their director area.

“The laws and policies governing director residences provide that directors may continue to serve on the board even if they relocate to another [director area],” wrote Bev Redmond, assistant superintendent of public affairs and interim chief of staff at SPS, in a statement. “The duration of that board service depends on the individual circumstances presented, as spelled out in policy.”

That's all SPS is going to say.

According to School Board member policy, a director must resign if he or she moves outside the school district. The issue is more nuanced if the board member moves outside of their director area but still lives within the district. Like Song, they can continue serving on the board until the next regular school district election; in Song’s case, that would have been November 2023.

So even though Song’s term wasn’t up yet, the election in November should have included her position. 

The policy also spells out that if the move happens after the filing period for the election but before the election itself, and the director is in the first two years of their term, they can keep serving until the end of their term. 

The filing period for the November 2023 election ended in May 2023. Song’s move happened before then, in early 2022. Although Song was still serving within the first two years of her term when the move was made, the move was before the filing period.

State law specifies that if the move happens before the opening of the regular filing period for the upcoming election “in the year two years after the director was elected to office,” the director should remain until “a successor assumes office who has been elected to serve the remainder of the unexpired term of office at the school district general election held in that year.”

Sussing all that out, it seems that Song should have notified the district of the change and had her seat put forth on the November ballot. Naturally, she herself could no longer run for that region. 

Was she just all terribly mistaken in her understanding of the situation? Maybe. But the minute she notified the district, they should have thought to make sure they understood the situation. Whose responsibility was it to make sure the law was being followed?

Unbelievably she says this at the end of the Times' article;

If selected to serve on the City Council, Song said she isn’t sure if she would remain on the School Board.

“It’s likely going to be difficult to do a full-time job as a council member and effectively serve the School Board at the same time, but I will make the right decision when I reach that point,” Song said.

What?!? 

Look, I think Song is currently the brightest person on the Board and has done more than most to keep up with constituents. But no, she can't be on both. In fact, at this point, she should withdraw from the City Council race. 

As for being on the Board, I don't know. If she's in violation of state law, the other Board members cannot kick her off but they could refuse to recognize her votes. 

Tomorrow's Board meeting just got a lot more interesting.

end of update

Director Vivian Song is on the short list for the vacant Seattle City Council position. The Council will decide on Tuesday, January 23rd.

Meanwhile, this chatter on Twitter via The Stranger's Hannah Krieg:

1) Harrell consultant Tim Ceis called on big biz to ask City Council to appoint Tanya Woo to the vacancy. Ceis said "The independent expenditure success earned you the right to the let the council know not to offer the left the consolation prize of this council seat."

 

From Crystal Fincher, a local political consultant also via Twitter on Krieg's update:

We warned this was coming. Big corporations spent $1M to elect this council, and now they aren’t hiding that they expect the new councilmembers to be their puppets. This appointment vote will test whether these councilmembers are serving their constituents or big biz.  

 

Also Krieg:

 

2) Though Woos' appointment would actually be a consolation prize, Ceis is worried that unions/the left will mount a campaign for@viviansong. Ceis said she may seem moderate, but she endorsed big biz enemies Ron Davis and Teresa Mosqueda.

 

From Publicola:

Tim Ceis, a longtime City Hall insider who has received more than $300,000 in consulting fees from the Harrell Administration, sent an email on Monday to supporters of the independent expenditure campaigns that helped sweep a centrist slate onto the city council last year, asking them to urge council members to appoint Tanya Woo, not Vivian Song, to the open citywide council seat that was recently vacated by progressive Teresa Mosqueda.

According to Ceis’ email, he believes six of the eight council members support Woo, but “a union campaign” by the MLK Labor Council and the Building Trades unions “could cause some of that support to weaken. Let’s not take that chance. I don’t believe all of you worked so hard and gave so much to let unions and the left decide who gets this seat.”

While it has been “a great two weeks watching the outcome of our effort as the new City Council has taken office,” Ceis wrote,

the pending open seat appointment could upend some of our work. The Building Trade unions and the MLK Labor Council have started a campaign to get Vivian Song appointed. I know some of you may have met with her and come away with the impression she could be another moderate voice like the others we supported and elected. But I’m not so sure. For instance, she endorsed the left lane candidates like Ron Davis and Teresa Mosqueda. Additionally, I don’t think her experiences on a dysfunctional Seattle School Board are the credentials that will bring reform and a better way of doing business at the City Council.

Dysfunctional School Board? Ouch.

Assuming Woo is appointed, Song will likely be among those challenging her in November. Historically, turnout in Presidential election years skews younger and more progressive than in odd-year elections, particular compared to local elections that do not include a race for mayor, like last year’s.

CityClub will host a public forum on the council appointment in the Bertha Knight Landes Room at Seattle City Hall this Thursday, January 18, from 5:30 to 7:30pm. After that, the council will hold one public hearing on the appointment on January 22, and will vote on the appointment the following day.

Grab that popcorn, kids!