General - June 3, 2024

This Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission meeting focused on **two critical issues**: a denied request for democracy voucher deadline relief and **ongoing public concerns about shelved ethics legislation**. The commission unanimously denied Bishop Rick Rogers' request for an extension to participate in the democracy voucher program after missing the filing deadline, citing **lack of legal authority** to grant such relief. **Key participants included:** - Commissioner Schirmer (President) - Commissioner Hogg (via phone) - Wayne Barnett (Executive Director) - Gary Smith (City Attorney's Office) - Multiple public commenters opposing recent ethics rule changes **Major outcomes:** - **Democracy voucher deadline relief denied** unanimously - **80% candidate participation** in voucher program reported - **Public criticism** of ethics rule changes that would affect council member recusal requirements - **Two commissioner appointments** pending council confirmation

### Democracy Voucher Deadline Relief Request **Background context:** The democracy voucher program allows Seattle residents to direct public campaign financing through $25 vouchers to participating candidates. Bishop Rick Rogers, a cancer survivor running for office, missed the **two-week filing deadline** after declaring candidacy due to health issues and lack of awareness about the deadline. **Current status and key positions:** - **Commission position**: Unanimous denial based on lack of legal authority - **Legal precedent**: 2023 John Lisbon case established strict deadline compliance - **Statutory language**: SMC 2.04.630 provides no discretionary relief mechanism **Technical details explained:** The municipal code requires candidates to file democracy voucher participation requests **within two weeks** of filing their declaration of candidacy. Unlike other election laws that include commission discretion for deadline relief, this provision contains **no exception language**, making it legally impossible for commissioners to grant extensions regardless of circumstances. ### Democracy Voucher Program Performance **Participation rates by office:** - **100% participation**: Mayor, City Attorney, Council Position 2 - **25% participation**: Council Position 8 (concerning low rate) - **Overall**: 80% candidate participation across all races This data suggests the program continues to achieve its **democratization goals** for most races, though some positions show troubling low participation that may indicate barriers to entry or candidate awareness issues.

### Commission Authority vs. Equity Concerns **Key tension**: The commission faced a classic conflict between **legal constraints** and **equity considerations**. Rogers represents exactly the type of candidate the democracy voucher program was designed to help - a community leader without professional political infrastructure. **Strategic motivations behind positions:** - **Commissioners**: Prioritized legal compliance and precedent consistency - **Campaign representatives**: Emphasized program's equity mission and systemic barriers - **Staff**: Provided clear legal guidance limiting commission options **Power dynamics at play:** The unanimous denial, while legally required, highlights a **structural gap** in the program design. The commission's hands-tied position suggests **potential legislative fixes** may be needed to balance deadline enforcement with equity access. ### Ethics Legislation Undercurrent **Key alliances and opposition patterns:** Public commenters formed a **unified opposition** to shelved ethics legislation that would change council member recusal requirements. Their coordinated appearance suggests **organized advocacy** continuing beyond the initial public hearing. **Strategic positioning:** - **Public advocates**: Framing ethics changes as threats to representation - **Commission**: Maintaining procedural focus while acknowledging public concern - **Council**: Notably absent from direct engagement on the controversy

### Immediate Opportunities for Public Input **Democracy voucher program improvements:** - **Contact timing**: Before July meeting (if held) or next scheduled meeting - **Key message**: Request legislative review of deadline relief mechanisms - **Target audience**: Commission staff and council members who could propose code changes **Ethics legislation monitoring:** - **Status**: Legislation is "shelved, not dead" according to public testimony - **Action needed**: Monitor council committee agendas for reintroduction - **Engagement strategy**: Prepare for renewed public comment opportunities ### Key Decision Points and Timelines **Commissioner appointments:** - **This Thursday**: Committee meeting for one appointment - **Next week**: Council consideration of appointments - **Impact**: New commissioners may bring different perspectives on program modifications **July meeting uncertainty:** - **Status**: May be canceled if no urgent business - **Opportunity**: Contact commission if you want specific items considered - **Holiday timing**: Meeting would be July 2nd, challenging for attendance ### Contact Strategies for Maximum Impact **For democracy voucher concerns:** - **Primary contact**: Wayne Barnett, Executive Director - **Secondary**: Council members who could propose code amendments - **Message focus**: Specific legislative language suggestions for deadline relief **For ethics legislation:** - **Primary contact**: Council President's office - **Secondary**: Individual council members - **Message focus**: Constituent representation concerns and transparency demands

### Related Policies and Initiatives **Campaign finance reform:** - Democracy voucher program performance data will inform **2026 program evaluation** - Deadline relief issue may prompt **legislative amendments** in fall 2025 - **Cross-jurisdictional analysis** of similar programs could provide reform models **Ethics and transparency:** - Shelved recusal legislation connects to **broader accountability debates** - Commission meeting minute practices reflect **transparency standards** under scrutiny - **Public participation protocols** may need formal revision ### Upcoming Milestones and Deadlines **Immediate (June-July 2025):** - Commissioner appointment confirmations - Potential July meeting decision - **Q2 democracy voucher** performance analysis **Medium-term (Fall 2025):** - Possible ethics legislation reintroduction - **2026 budget discussions** affecting program funding - **Candidate filing period** for 2026 elections begins ### Cross-cutting Themes and Implications **Democratic access vs. administrative efficiency:** This meeting highlighted the ongoing tension between **streamlined processes** and **inclusive participation**. Solutions may require legislative action rather than administrative fixes. **Public engagement evolution:** The commission faces pressure to **expand public participation** opportunities while maintaining focused agendas and efficient operations.

### Budget Implications and Funding Sources **Democracy voucher program costs:** - **80% participation rate** suggests strong program utilization - **Uneven participation** by race may indicate budget reallocation opportunities - **Administrative costs** of deadline relief mechanisms would be minimal compared to program benefits **Commission operations:** - **Meeting frequency** adjustments could reduce costs while maintaining effectiveness - **Public engagement** expansion may require additional staff resources ### Procedural Insights and Next Steps **Legal framework gaps:** - **SMC 2.04.630** lacks discretionary language found in other election code sections - **Amendment process** would require council action, not commission rule-making - **Model language** from other jurisdictions could inform reform proposals **Commission authority boundaries:** - **Strict statutory interpretation** limits commission flexibility - **Precedent consistency** (Lisbon case) constrains future decisions - **Legislative advocacy** role unclear for commission members ### Implementation Challenges and Opportunities **Candidate education improvements:** - **Training program** enhancements could prevent future deadline misses - **Multi-language outreach** may address participation disparities - **Community organization partnerships** could improve candidate support **Public participation mechanisms:** - **Written comment integration** into meeting minutes needs standardization - **Remote participation** protocols require clearer guidelines - **Agenda relevance standards** need balancing with public access rights **Technology and accessibility:** - **WebEx platform** issues affected commissioner participation - **Recording availability** provides transparency but may need better promotion - **Meeting scheduling** around holidays and health issues requires flexibility protocols