You can run for office you just can’t say that you are.
When Paul Wagemann, during the three-minute public comment period at the March 17th Lakewood City Council meeting, announced his intentions to run for state legislative office he was told that was not allowed.
Not that he couldn’t run for office but that he couldn’t say that he was.
There’s a time and a place for stating your case – like knocking on 40,000 doors which Wagemann has done – but city hall isn’t one of ‘em evidently.
An article posted here in this publication drew a response from Lakewood City Council by way of a state legal-type that in fact “allowing a person to speak during a council meeting and announce his candidacy and describe his qualifications would be a violation of RCW 42.17A.555.”
Perhaps the only document more convoluted than the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) rules and regulations for fishing in Washington.
A whopping 136pp. – not counting ads – there’s seaweed rules, beach rules, crab rules, shrimp rules, general rules, special rules and new rules to replace the old rules. There’s even a handy index on locating rules and a link to find the rules that didn’t make the rule book.
And of course the more rules there are the more the need to hire those to ensure the rules are followed.
So you’ll forgive me – or not – but RCW 42.17A.555, just to be clear, declares, in layman’s terms, that no elective official, sub-official, or unofficial official connected officially by family or as employee or as an appointee to the official official may officially use, allow to be used, or authorize any use directly or indirectly, surreptitiously or overtly, in their official capacity anything including but not limited to paper clips, postage stamps, or public speaking opportunities on city property while in the pursuit of elective office without the express written consent of the official agency charged with authorizing all the above.
Which isn’t going to happen.
So don’t even.
Oh, and then probably should add this: any unauthorized use is expressly prohibited.
There. That should over it.
Or it would except that there are exceptions.
The exceptions to the rules include this set of caveats – clearly subject to legal interpretation and found as best as the location could be identified: RCW 42, Section A, Subsection 17, paragraph A, item 555, sub-sub exception 1, sub-sub exception b, and sub-sub exception 2), with ‘whereas’ introductions omitted:
‘As long as advance notice is given; the meeting is open to the public; “members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view”; and even – even – elected officials are responding to a specific inquiry.
For example, how ‘bout this:
‘Are you or are you not running for elected office and if so why?’
Then it would appear it’s A-OK for the inquiree to respond.
In other words – again subject to legal interpretation – a candidate could actually be invited to share why he cares enough about his community – enough to labor on their behalf in the legislature.
Equal time allowed for his opponent, of course.
In the interest of an informed electorate.
Of course.
Of course there’s another exception and that’s to call your announcement a press conference which makes null-and-void all the above and you can say, sans slander, what you want.
Or so RCW 42.17A.555 seems to say.
If in reading this you got lost somewhere along the way, not to worry. The legal consultant in the “Local Government Success” department for advising jurisdictions within the state has suggested that the Lakewood City Council update its rules for what you can say and what you can’t and that is now underway at 6000 Main Street.
Which, if research from the previous article related to this topic is accurate, would make Lakewood precedent-setting in adding the soon-to-be-published RCW-relevant rules to its current rules.
Just to be clear.
I do like your style! I used to work for State of Alaska. Many rules and regs, misused and broken. Need we say more?
A lot of variables missing here to those who didn’t/couldn’t attend that meeting. How is “Public Comment defined? If it is indeed a public comment than an individual is free to say what they want. However, if “public Comment” is clearly defined as only pertaining to city council business than yes, that individual is not correct in announcing his candidacy for what ever governmental position they will be running for. In addition, what rules are made in other state or departments do not apply to Lakewood City City Council rules. That is like comparing apples and oranges. The only government entities that supersede are county, state, and federal, and only pertain to the subject at hand. More research and no writing about what the public wants to hear, we have more than enough comments being attacked without know all the variables involved.
You are so good at making things appear much more complicated and sinister than they really are, to stir up people to rally behind your causes. By putting things out before you have all the information, writing in a way that suggests things were done that maybe were not, creating a victim (the dedicated servant who has knocked on 40,000 doors), and your very convoluted writing style, you create so much more drama than is usually involved. RCW 42.17A.555 is not that hard to find or read, and all of the Section A, Paragraph A, sub-sub exceptions, etc, you so dramatically describe, doesn’t even exist. It’s all there to make the regulations sound ridiculous. And, did Heidi Wachter really turn off his microphone (I don’t think she even has that ability) or did she just key up her mic and interrupt to advise him of the law – advising officials of the law is, after all, one of the reasons she’s there. And, of course, you put your first story out there before you had all the facts, making it look like your favorite enemy, Lakewood, was doing something outrageous, rather than following the law that applies to every city.
So, what about this law and public comment. You want your favorite dedicated, hard-working, self-sacrificing servant to have every opportunity to get his message out, but what about all of the other candidates and political issues? Maybe Wagemann’s statement really was an innocent oh-by-the-way, in passing, in the middle of legitimate comment, which I doubt, but even so, if he’s allowed to do it, then every other candidate and political proponent has to be able to do it, regardless of whether it has anything to do with public comment. The citizen comment period is for citizens to tell the City Council what they want them to know, not for politicians to use as their campaigning forum. Yes, some of the public comments are strange, but they are citizens and it’s their forum. No matter how ridiculous they are, one citizen’s presentations of politics in Fargo, North Dakota, are his way of telling the City Council how he thinks they should act, just as you have your way of telling them how you want them to act, when you use the comment period. That section of RCWs is about preventing public resources and forums from being used for individual political purposes; the kind of thing you’d be all over if it were being done by someone you didn’t support or being enforced by an organization other than Lakewood. This is not about Paul Wagemann caring about the community or needing a lawyer to understand outrageous laws. He has held public office and been involved with government and campaigning long enough to know when and where he can and can’t campaign, and City Council meetings are not the place to campaign.
“If he’s allowed to do it, then every other candidate and political proponent has to be able to do it, regardless of whether it has anything to do with public comment.”
So?
So, the City Council meetings are for conducting the City’s business, not campaign forums. Extrapolate it out … Council meetings during election season, with every candidate for every school board, city council, county council, state, federal, and other elected position, fire and school levies, initiatives and referendums, etc, using it as their forum, and every citizen or group supporting or opposing all of the above, etc, etc, etc. No City business would get done, or the meetings would run all night. That’s what political forums are for, not City Council meetings.
Obviously we differ and I would contend that despite the exacerbated potential for every Tom, Dick and Harry running for everything from this to that wanting equal time at the microphone, it’s worth the risk, at least on a trial basis to see, whether or not, city business can still get done in a timely manner especially, as the RCW seems currently to allow, campaignees must be invited to speak.