Forget Netflix. If you crave drama, just turn to the Seattle City Council’s Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development meeting.

Thursday’s meeting had everything: bickering between council members, an impromptu press conference, attempts to remove people from the chamber, even a cameo from former city council member Kshama Sawant.

What warranted all this? The committee was discussing a proposal to amend the city’s ethics code, allowing council members to vote on legislation even if they have a financial interest in the outcome.

If the council's ethics code is overturned, elected officials could openly vote on legislation even if it directly impacts their financial interests, clearing the way for landlords to vote against renter protections, restaurant owners to oppose minimum wage increases for delivery drivers, and developers to influence zoning laws that benefit their own projects. Critics argue that if Moore's proposal passes, this shift would erode ethical safeguards, making it easier for council members to prioritize personal financial gain over public interest.

Moore only introduced the bill last week, and Thursday’s meeting was already the third public scrutinization of the controversial bill. Commenters—including former council member Kshama Sawant—voiced strong opposition to it at both Tuesday’s full city council meeting, and Wednesday’s Seattle Ethics and Elections meeting.

Cathy Moore, who introduced the bill, argues that the change arose out of concern for disenfranchising the voters represented by a council member who may have to recuse themselves due to perceived financial interests, such as what happened last year when Nelson’s push to roll back wage protections for app-based delivery drivers collapsed after ethics concerns forced former Councilmember Tanya Woo to recuse herself, stripping Nelson of the majority she needed. A similar fate met Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth's proposal to extend tip credits for small businesses, as potential conflicts involving both Woo and Nelson emerged.

Under the current iteration of the bill, a council member would file a conflict of interest disclosure with both the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) and the city clerk, and then post it on the city website. Some of these requirements are preexisting.

“This bill doesn't remove the disclosure requirement, it enhances it,” Moore said during Thursday’s meeting.

Tiffany McCoy, the co-executive director of House Our Neighbors, doesn’t buy the disenfranchised argument, nor the focus on additional disclosure being an adequate replacement for recusal. Every Seattle voter actually has three council members representing them: their district council member and then two at-large members, currently Council President Sara Nelson and Alexis Mercedes-Rinck. “No matter what neighborhood you live in, we are still all part of the city. I'd rather my city council member not take a vote that they’re going to benefit from financially,” says McCoy.

Landlords and homeowners are already disproportionately represented on the council. In a city where nearly 52% of the population are renters, its city council has only one lone renter on it, Mercedes-Rinck.

Elise Orlick, the Executive Director of FairVote Washington, says that the outpouring of public forums throughout the week should signal to both the city council and other jurisdictions across the state that there's a renewed focus on governmental transparency and trust. “Ethics codes are a democracy protection,” says Orlick, who is an outspoken proponent of ranked-choice voting both nationally and locally. “We need a much broader array of financial interests and different types of diversity on council.”

Concern about this bill has made it all they way to Olympia. Ahead of Thursday’s meeting, Democratic chairs belonging to the 32nd, 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, and 46th Legislative Democrats sent a letter to city council members in strong opposition to the bill, stating, among other things, that they “will not stand by if you try to rig the system in your favor.” The letter continued: “To support this proposal is to declare ethics optional; that conflicts of interest should be no barrier to power, and that the public good is of no concern. This is the language of autocracy, and it has no place in Seattle.”

Thursday’s meeting was scheduled to end at 4 p.m. but didn't finish until a little after 5 p.m. due to a rancorous back-and-forth between committee chair Sarah Nelson and former councilmember Kshama Sawant, an unplanned five-minute recess that members of Workers Strikes Back used as an impromptu pep rally, and a series of cantankerous exchanges between Nelson and councilmember Dan Strauss during a Q&A with Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission members.

Not one of the 28 people who spoke during the opening public comment period (21 in person and 7 online) spoke in favor of the legislation.

Many of the commenters brought up the fact that states such as California require recusals from their elected officials during any appearance of conflicts of interest. Others brought up the fact that the code had been unchanged for 45 years without incident, and others called out the timing of the change to coincide with impending votes on renter protections. One also told the council to prepare for mass protests should this bill pass.

As applause began to erupt after every commenter in opposition to the bill, committee chair Nelson told those in attendance to please refrain from clapping between speakers, but the directive made many in attendance clap louder after speakers, out of defiance. As clapping continued after each commenter, a visibly exasperated Nelson again addressed those in attendance, asking them to “be respectful.”

Sitting in the audience and addressing Nelson directly, former city council member and current organizer with Workers Strike Back (WSB), Kshama Sawant, responded with, “Are you respecting workers?”

After agreeable shouts from WSB members in the audience, an irritated Nelson pounded her gavel saying, “I will repeat, please do not clap between speakers. This is disruptive behavior to interrupt the meeting.”

WSB members soon chanted, “When workers are under attack, what do we do? Fight back,” a chant that would be repeated sporadically throughout the remainder of public comment.

Having lost order, Nelson pounded her gavel calling a five-minute recess as she and other council members momentarily headed back to their offices.

Sawant and members of WSB took the opportunity to hold an impromptu press conference, standing in front of the public comment lectern. Sawant pointed at councilmember Bob Kettle as he walked back to his office, saying, “Look at this coward. Why don't you stand and listen to people.” Clearly agitated, Kettle smirked and waved her off.

During her speech, Sawant called out Democrats both locally and nationally for their betrayal of the working class, saying they were carrying water for landlords who own real estate. She name-checked local real estate developers Greystar, AvalonBay, and Essex Property Trust. She then rattled off a list of local renter protections she said were under threat of being rolled back should Moore’s bill go into effect, allowing landlords on the council (Maritza Rivera and Mark Solomon) to not have to recuse themselves from votes, including: a prohibition on winter evictions, capping renter late fees at $10 a month, six months' notice for rental increases, and requiring landlords to pay eviction rental assistance, and banning school-year evictions of children.

 

 

 

After Sawant finished her speech, Nelson and the other committee members returned to the dais, with Nelson warning the group that she would ask them to be removed if they continued to be disruptive.

Sawant then responded with, “You know what disrupts children's lives? Eviction.”

Additional outbursts provoked Nelson to tell someone who appeared to be City Council security to remove her and other WSB members. But after a brief stalemate, when it became apparent neither Sawant nor WSB members planned to budge, the security person asked Nelson what she wanted to do.

She relented and resumed the meeting with Sawant and WSB members still in their seats.

Later in the meeting, the council was joined by a commissioner from the SEEC, along with its chair Zach Pekelis, and executive director Wayne Barnett.

Barnett laid out the current ethics code, contrasting it with Moore's new bill. He told the committee (consisting of Nelson, vice-chair Kettle, Joy Hollingsworth, Solomon, and Rivera) that he felt our current ethics code was stricter here than in other places he had worked, including Boston. When it was Pekelis's turn to speak, he raised concerns echoed by a public commenter from the previous day's SEEC meeting. He suggested that if the bill were to pass, the council might consider delaying its effective date until 2028 to allow voters to decide if they should be re-elected under the new ethics codes, rather than changing the rules midway through their terms.

But shortly after, the meeting turned contentious once again. This time, the friction came between two council members, Dan Strauss, who though not on the committee was invited to ask questions of the SEEC representatives. While they’ve treated each other professionally the last few months, Strauss and Nelson have also been openly hostile to one another, with many interactions on the dais dripping with “go fuck yourself” subtext.

On Thursday, Nelson interjected several times while Strauss questioned Barnett and Pekelis about the proposed changes to the ethics code. Addressing Barnett, Strauss brought up an email exchange The Stranger reported on last November between Nelson, Barnett, and former councilmember Tanya Woo.

In the exchange, Nelson requested clarification on the Ethics Code's recusal requirements, citing concerns over how financial interest is determined in council decisions, including future legislation on zoning and landlord-tenant laws. Nelson criticized Barrett for his request for Woo to recuse herself from legislation, calling his interpretation as too rigid and potentially setting a precedent she found problematic. Barnett stood by his decision, emphasizing that his rulings were based on a "plain meaning" interpretation of the law, while Nelson accused him of misconstruing her intent and ignoring her calls for clarity.

In reference to the email, Strauss asked Barnett if he feels like he’s “put in the middle at times,” when it comes to when a city councilmember's desires bump up against the ethics code.

Barnett paused and responded that he feels like he's “doing his job.”

Strauss replied back that, “From my perspective, it seems like you're being put in a tough place.”

The line of questioning irked Nelson. “It seems like you're trying to get into someone else's mind,” she said. “Please be direct with your questions.”

She then chided Strauss, telling him to, “Please refrain from being disrespectful to your presenters.”

Nelson and Moore have few allies so far. Even Mayor Bruce Harrell isn’t behind it, telling The Stranger in a statement:  “As I made clear when a similar bill was previously considered in 2018, I do not support this proposal that appears to diminish the City’s strong ethics rules. As mayor now and as a former councilmember, I have always taken the rules of recusal very seriously. When legislative issues arise where an elected official stands to financially gain, there must be a clear, objective line to demonstrate to the community that decisions are being made solely with the public interest at heart. Simple disclosure does not accomplish this; recusal does. As trust in institutions continues to erode, Seattle must continue to set the example for strong ethics protections as a cornerstone of good governance.”

As the meeting finally ended an hour after it was scheduled to, the fate of the legislation remains up in the air. Nelson and Moore are likely in favor of it, with Strauss and Mercedes-Rinck likely against it. Other council members have yet to tip their hand on how they’ll vote.

“It’s a very heated, controversial topic,” Moore said during Thursday’s meeting. “We are trying to get work done and do the business of the city.”

If Thursday revealed anything, it’s that the business of this city is far more than the cold, calculated tug-of-war of process and policy. It’s a fierce struggle for the very right to shape the future. The question, then, isn’t just about getting things done; it’s about whose work is deemed worthy and whose voice is relegated to silence, dismissed like so much noise. In a city where power has a way of protecting itself, the demand for accountability isn’t a mere political stance, it’s a demand for democratic dignity. One far from being satiated in Seattle.