Couldn't it be argued that Mercedes-Rinck should also be recused from voting on renter protection legislation because she is a renter?

“We are trying to get work done and do the business of the city.”

What transparent bullshit. I invite CM Moore et al to actually do the business of the city rather than trying to change ethics rules for the benefit of CMs' personal business interests.

@1 not a bad question but I don't know anyone here is qualified to answer it. Fortunately there are ethics professionals available to advise CMs as to recusal obligations. Unfortunately their advice in one particular instance appears to be what motivated some CMs to try to change the rules.

Please follow best practices Marcus and put a 'Continue reading' link after the first paragraph or two.

@1 The point is financial gain, not some broad definition of interest.

A landlord or restaurant owner might vote on legislation that financially benefits themselves at a cost to a renter or worker. Their potential enrichment if for something that is not a fundamental necessity of life, like shelter and work.

A renter or worker may have their own perspective/interest/bias, but their vote is about protecting the rights of a much larger group of Seattleites for necessities of life far, far, more than any theoretical financial gain.

But here is the kicker, captured by our current ethics laws: the renter or worker will be protecting the vast majority of Seattleites whereas the landlord or restaurant owner is enriching very few people.

@1 is exactly correct. If landlords would be expected to recuse themselves from rental issues, then certainly renters should also.

@6 That is simply not the way ethics laws work anywhere in the US: conflicts of interest that would require an elected to recuse themselves are specific to financial interests that are not shared by broad segments of the population. I get that you might value profit over peoples lives, but that is a different ethical discussion that you would also find yourself on the wrong side of.

Now, I know this is the Stranger, so blind fangirling over Sawant is required, but when she served on the City Council, her husband, Calvin Priest, received money and travel benefits from Socialist Alternative. The Executive Committee of Socialist Alternative told CM Sawant how to vote. How was this not a blatant conflict of interest?

@5: Love the pile of transparent b.s. with which you try to deny the completely obvious: if CM Rinck votes for a cap on residential rent increases, then she's improving her own financial situation. Therefore, she should recuse herself from such a vote. The City Council should not change their own ethics rules in the manner this bill would, and the existing rules should apply to all CMs equally.

@6 & 8 by your logic we need to invalidate the muni code provisions criminalizing theft, because everyone owns property, so everyone has an interest in preventing it being misappropriated, so everyone was required to recuse themselves from enacting those ordinances

Tenny, tell me you’re a troll without telling me you’re a troll.

You’re obsession with Sawant is insane.

Those moobs need a manssiere.

@9: "...because everyone owns property, so everyone has an interest in preventing it being misappropriated,"

Assuming for the sake of argument that "everyone owns property," then voting to protect property is, by definition, in everyone's interest, and a CM gets what everyone else gets from a law protecting property, nothing more. As noted in the article, just over half of all residents of Seattle are renters, so any renter on the City Council who votes for a cap on rental increases will realize a financial benefit that about half the city's residents will not. Hence the need for such a Council Member to recuse herself. It's no different from a landlord recusing herself from the same vote, because many residents are not landlords.

@10: Sawant was one of 28 speakers, at a meeting which lasted for hours. How many paragraphs did the Stranger spend on her, including to lovingly recount her name-calling personal attack upon a sitting CM? And you say I'm obsessed?

Sawant presumed to lecture actual CMs on ethics. When she was a CM, her household realized significant income from a private organization, Socialist Alternative, which dictated her City Council votes to her. How was that not pay-for-play? (Don't worry: just as the Stranger don't ask, you don't tell.)

Look, I know any accurate description of Sawant's real actions will reveal her words as nothing more than risibly pitiable hypocrisy, and you who always believe her words will suffer excruciating agony, as a result of the eternal conflict between what she says and what she does. But that's your problem, not mine, and no amount of your screaming in agony here will change that.

@8 I get that rhetoric, not understanding, is your specialty and what you live for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant. Read the actual SMC (you won't) to understand it is exactly as I stated: in Seattle conflicts of interest that would require an elected to recuse themselves are specific to financial interests that are not shared by broad segments of the population. Well over 50% of Seattleites are now renters so your example is moot, besides being idiotic. As I already suggested, if you think that an interest in maintaining the necessities of life are equal to an interest in increasing profit, then you are a heartless person devoid of empathy. But, go for it tensorna, dig yourself in deeper.

@13: I make no apologies for expecting higher ethical standards from elected officials.

On the topic of your unsourced pronouncements, you told the members of the Seattle Human Rights Commission their commission had the powers of an independent body, and therefore could pursue litigation without the supervision of the City Attorney's Office, correct

Or did you simply not correct them when they presumed they did?

Of did you not know enough about the Seattle City Charter to say?

Alexis Mercedes-Rinck, as a renter should absolutely recuse herself on any ordinance concerning the renter-landlord relationship. Require landlords to pay interest on deposits? Rinck would benefit and should recuse herself.

"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."

Why the hell is The Stranger providing fawning coverage to someone who supported Donald Trump in 2024?

Instead of giving Trump-supporting Sawant another City Council platform for her self-promoting, Democrat-hating nonsense, the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee should have issued her a subpoena. They then could have asked her about her own practice of voting the way Socialist Alternative told her to, and her husband's good-paying job there. Watching the Stranger try to make her evasions, refusals, and silence sound heroic would've been great fun, and having her testify under penalty of perjury would have saved everyone else plenty of time, too.

@14 tensorna, you predictably take the bait and then choke on it. You take yourself so seriously, yet you ignore the simplest of facts. Being so serious you can't even be a competent troll. Is your only raison d'être to be a jerk?

You say "On the topic of your unsourced pronouncements": SMC 4.16.070(A)(3) & SMC 4.16.070(A)(4) provide the factual basis in law for my "pronouncement," see: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT4PE_CH4.16COET_4.16.070PRCO

You say that I "told the members of the Seattle Human Rights Commission their commission had the powers of an independent body, and therefore could pursue litigation without the supervision of the City Attorney's Office." Absolutely false. The incident you are referring to regards a request I made to SHRC to file an amicus curiae brief with the Federal Court concerning the ongoing consent decree for federal oversight of the SPD. An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation. Any entity or individual has the ability to file an amicus curiae brief, including the SHRC. Not complicated if one attends to facts.
https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I4cf8469eef2a11e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Amicus-Curiae?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

The irony here is that you can look up my pubic statements and actions -- all of which I very proudly stand by -- because I use my actual name. I imagine that you, tensorna, have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.

I've called CM Moore's office again to say that we want her proposal for loosening the ethics rules to be withdrawn. It's not in the public interest and there is no coherent justification for it.
What a disgrace - with so many hardships and problems waiting to be solved in this city, that any council member would choose to waste time, energy and what little credibility they have on this hypocritical nonsense. Withdraw this insane proposal.

@1 The difference between a renter and a landlord voting on things that effect rental properties is that only the landlord is generating a profit from the transaction. Given that there are vastly more Seattle voters who are tenants than are commercial landlords, being a renter does not create the conflict of interest that being a landlord does. This might be a hard concept for you to understand, but the issue of conflict of interest is about having a personal financial that puts the person at odds with the people they serve.

@20 Why would that be hard for me to understand?

Enjoying the show
but missing the
popcorn:

@18 -- "tensorna, you predictably
take the bait and then
choke on it.

You take yourself
so seriously, yet you ignore
the simplest of facts. Being so
serious you can't even be a compe-
tent troll. Is your only raison d'être to be a jerk?”
--@HJGale

@13 -- “I get that
rhetoric, not understanding,
is your specialty and what you live
for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant.”

@13 -- “I get that
rhetoric, not understanding,
is your specialty and what you live
for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant.”

@12 -- “But that's your
problem, not mine, and no amount
of your screaming in agony here will change that.”
--@the Wormtongue
aka tentsores
aka🚮

also @18 -- “The irony here is that you can look up my [public] statements and actions -- all of which I very proudly stand by -- because I use my actual name. I imagine that you, tensorna, have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.”

Thank you, HJGale
for helping to make
Seattle more Liveable.

@18: So, how do those sections of the SMC prevent the City Council from writing a stricter Code of Ethics for Council Members? Show your work, or no credit. I'm guessing that will go about as well as your other point did:

"An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation."

Too bad the City Attorney's Office didn't agree with you on that, isn't it?

"Any entity or individual has the ability to file an amicus curiae brief, including the SHRC."

Except that, per SMC 3.14.931, the SHRC exists to act merely in an advisory capacity; it lacks the authority to act as an independent body, and therefore, under the City Charter, the City Attorney's Office has "full supervisory control" of any litigation the SHRC attempts:

Article XIII, Section 3 of the Seattle City Charter: "DUTIES OF CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney shall have full supervisory control of all the litigation of the City, or in which the City or any of its departments are interested, and shall perform such other duties as are or shall be prescribed by ordinance."

Which is why the City Attorney's Office swiftly and permanently smacked down your little impertinent attempt to use the SHRC to intervene in the CIty's legal affairs.

@20: "...only the landlord is generating a profit from the transaction."

Consider the example @15, where CM Rinck, as a renter, votes to require landlords to pay interest on deposits. How then would she not be "generating a profit from the transaction"?

@22: Is "kristofarian" on your birth certificate? Or do you "hide behind a phony moniker"? Do tell.

oh wormmy
my litttle
Troll

if Anyone
Knows 'Phony'
it's our Wormtongue

o Twister of words
denier of Facts
bender of
Truth

mouthpiece of
the Status
Quosians

fuck
off

you and your
little dog
too.

@24: So, per Gale's logic, you "have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker."

Good to see you defer to his wisdom!

@25

oh wormmy
my litttle
Troll

if Anyone
Knows 'Phony'
it's our Wormtongue

O!Twister of words
denier of Facts
bender of
Truth

mouthpiece of
the Status
Quosians

fuck
off

you and your
little dog
too.

@24, @26: We'll take that as your admission of acceptance for Gale's logic. Now back to your embarrassment and hiding, already in progress.

He's having better luck with you than he did with the City Attorney's Office! ;-)

@27

"we'll"?

you've got Another
Turd you've been Polishing
in your hot little pocket, wormmy?

oh, and just to Refresh:

“I get that rhetoric,
not understanding, is your specialty and
what you live for, thereby rendering facts irrelevant.”

--@HJGale, above, both
Eloquently and Spot-
Fawking-On.

Bravo, eh, wormmmy?

now, where Was I . . .
oh, right:

oh wormmy
my litttle
Troll!

if Anyone
Knows 'Phony'
it's our Wormtongue

O! Twister of words
denier of Facts
bender of
Truth

mouthpiece of
the Status
Quosians

fuck
off

you and your
little dog
too.

ok, wormmy
I'm about played
out. you're gonna hafta
heep shitposting sans ol' kristo

remember:
if your fingertips
ain't Bleeding you're
not Truly trolling/trying.

@28: Yes, I get it. You fell completely for everything Gale was shoveling. (The City Attorney's Office did not.) Quelle surprise.

A careful reader would have noticed he didn't support anything he claimed. Furthermore, his effort with the Seattle Human Rights Commission got smacked down so hard, it was still causing them serious trouble almost year later, https://southseattleemerald.org/news/2023/03/01/like-an-ambush-human-rights-commissioners-detail-pressure-from-council-cpc-not-to-pursue-amicus-status

But you accepted his logic, by which you "have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker." So you're stuck with it. Your calling me names does nothing to refute what he wrote about you. Enjoy!

@23 tensorna says "So, how do those sections of the SMC prevent the City Council from writing a stricter Code of Ethics for Council Members?" Where did I ever propose that as a topic of debate or discussion? Absolutely nowhere, except for, obviously, in your imagination. My reply will, therefore, also take place in your imagination.

I said "An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation," and your response is "Too bad the City Attorney's Office didn't agree with you on that, isn't it?" Powerful argument. Your rhetorical skills -- absent facts or logic -- should make you eligible for a high level job in the Trump administration.

You said "Except that, per SMC 3.14.931, the SHRC exists to act merely in an advisory capacity; it lacks the authority to act as an independent body, and therefore, under the City Charter, the City Attorney's Office has "full supervisory control" of any litigation the SHRC attempt."

First, once more, an amicus curiae brief is definitively not litigation. You will not find a single legal definition or court case that says otherwise. In fact, the Seattle Community Police Commission has routinely, for many years, submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Federal Court without any involvement by the City Attorneys Office.

Second, SMC 3.14.931(C) & (D) states:

C. As appropriate, recommend policies to all departments and offices of the City in matters affecting civil rights and equal opportunity, and recommend legislation for the implementation of such policies;

D. Encourage understanding between all protected classes and the larger Seattle community, through long range projects;

This was precisely the governing provisions that the SHRC was operating under. After the SHRC failed to get anywhere with the Seattle Community Police Commission and the Mayor's office or City Council they took the next logical step. SMC 3.14.931 does not -- either expressly, by inference, or by virtue of other statutes -- prevent the SHRC from taking actions such as submitting an amicus curiae brief. Again, this was not litigation, hence your recitals of the Seattle Charter are irrelevant.

Lets also consider the patent absurdity of your statement "the SHRC exists to act merely in an advisory capacity; it lacks the authority to act as an independent body." It is, by definition, an independent body, or else it would not be able to advise! You fail to understand that "act" broadly defined means making statements, giving advice, proposing legislation or other actions, etc.

It is not just facts and logic that elude you, but also the simple meaning of words and legal terms.

If they vote in favor of it, vote them out. Easy peasy.

@30 -- "It is
not just facts and logic
that elude you, but also the
simple meaning of words and legal terms."

weird, innit, how
wormmy's Always Ac-
cusing everyone Else of
Exactly the Same behavior!

Our most masterful Projectionist,
wormmy Certainly Missed his
Calling, down to the local
Multiplex.

@16, @17 "Trump-supporting"

I can't wait to see how the blame-casting pans out when we go to ranked choice voting.

no shit
sherlock.

when untaxed
Billionaires can afford
to spend Vast sums on pro-
moting Their Choice, rest Assured
we'll Know where tf to point them fingers

no shit
sherlock.

when untaxed
Billionaires can afford
to spend Vast sums on pro-
moting Their Choice, rest Assured
we'll Know where tf to point them fingers

damn
twitchy
pointy finger!

already
getting a
Head start.

@30: Oh, I see your problem now. You don't understand the meaning of the word "independent" in this context. For example, you mentioned how "... the Seattle Community Police Commission has routinely, for many years, submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Federal Court without any involvement by the City Attorneys Office." Here's the enabling legislation covering the CPC:

"3.29.030 Independent and collaborative oversight

"A. OPA, OIG, and CPC have an obligation to exercise independent judgment and
offer critical analysis in the performance of their duties under this Chapter 3.29. These oversight
entities shall exercise their responsibilities under this Chapter 3.29 without interference from any
person, group, or organization, including the Chief, other SPD employees, or other City officials."

(https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CommunityPoliceCommission/Administration/Ordinance/Ordinance_APPROVED_052217_ALL_STRIKEOUTS_REMOVED.pdf)

Note the use of the term, "independent," and the phrase, "without interference from any
person, group, or organization, including the Chief, other SPD employees, or other City officials." Note also the total lack of those terms and phrases in the enabling legislation of the Seattle Human Rights Commission, which you'd quoted above. See the difference? By contrast, "recommend policies", "recommend legislation", and "Encourage understanding" are all dependent functions, which is why the Seattle Human Rights Commission is not independent.

Again, your repeated claim that filing a brief with a court is not litigation, whilst utterly failing to pass even a lay person's giggle test, also utterly failed to pass the City Attorney's Office's test under the City Charter. That's why the SHRC got smacked down completely when it sought status to file an amicus curiae brief with the court.

wormmy, who once argued On These Pages
(‘twas one for The Ages), argued Against
His own SELF and Won [so sayeth
the sages] BOTH. Sides!

well, Sometimes

wormmy
lurking holding
back holding on
slipping in unnoticed

when all the rest
have long gone
Home.

This is too removed from anything that matters. It should be expected that council members will be somewhat financially impacted by some votes. More important is the will of the voters, and we shouldn’t decide policy based on disenfranchising votes of impacted people. Voters generally know corruption when they see it. Voting for or against rental policies shouldn’t be prohibited if you are a landlord or renter.
This outrage is more about the policy, and the far left grasping at anything to advance their pet policies (absurd interventions into rental markets that have made landlords flee and worsened the homeless crisis) over the will of the voters. And that’s why democrats lose.

and Then
there's Vulture
Capitalists/Capitalism
wringing Every Last Dime
outta the Citizenry, Even if it Kills 'em.

End Housing as Commodity
or we'll end up with ALL
Housing in the greedy
little hands of the 1%

and The rest of us in
Concentration
Camps

fighting over
delicious
little
rats

@38: "And that’s why democrats lose."

Wait! What? When did the Democrats ever lose in Seattle (and consequently Washington State).

@40 The Democratic Party is split between people who are socially liberal and fiscally moderate and people who are more communistic or anarchistic (you know, the Hamas supporters and UW vandals). Democratic voters in Seattle lose when the majority (that first group) is thwarted by that second group.

@41 -- "thwarted." lol!

the "Democratic" party*
is Anything but
democratic

*LLC, bitches!
Beholden to
Themselves,
Solely!

anyone Else's
either a Commie an
Anarchist the Antichrist
or a "fucking Socialist." btw
that Reminds me: Bernie represents
ME. and 7/5 of America's Progressives

but you'll Never hear That
from Corporate "Centrist"
feckless dems. they Love
the Abyss and cannot
Wait to take the
Plunge into
fascism.

not "crazy" dem?
yeah. I don't
Think so

"Hamas supporters"?

fuck you.

@41: True. But that "thwarting" may come in the form of greater support for splinter groups by the change in election processes. Both parties (Dems and GOP) are effectively coalition groups today. RCV will just formalize that. But our current form of government isn't well suited to breaking up disfunctional coalitions. Once representatives have their seats, it takes a major effort to remove them.

We may need to adopt some of the parlimentarian tools, like votes of no confidence and calls for interim elections.

@43: Rising to your usual eloquent standard of erudite civic dialog, I see.

The full phrase @41 reads, "...the Hamas supporters and UW vandals..." SUPER UW, en route to their hateful trashing of the UW's new Interdisciplinary Engineering Building, issued a "Manifesto," the very first sentence of which praises Hamas' slaughter of unarmed civilians on 10/7:

"We are taking this building amidst the current and renewed wave of the student Intifada, following the uprising of student action for Palestine after the heroic victory of Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7th, which shattered the illusion of zionist-imperialist domination and brought Palestine to the forefront for all justice-loving people of the world."

(https://medium.com/@super.uw.seattle/we-demand-uw-will-no-longer-be-complicit-in-genocide-0099dc761f92)

So, there's no doubt the SUPER UW vandals were, indeed, "Hamas supporters."

Now, if you want to quote your own words, condemning Hamas (note: not condemning other commenters' mentions of Hamas!) you're free to do so. As usual quotes, URLS will suffice.

Ha, ha, ha....

oh fuck off

but before you Do:

"'Now the Heritage contingent
was in Israel, in part, to discuss
another contentious policy paper:*

Project Esther,
the foundation’s proposal to
rapidly dismantle the pro-Palestinian movement

in the United States, along with its support
at schools and universities, at progressive
organizations and in Congress.'

Remind you of anyone posting here?"

--@angryone on May 20, 2025 at 12:22 AM

oh.
you mean
The Wormtongue?

and his
sidekick ai
siksokbott?

so he's from Heritage.

I thought he was
AIPAC/IOF.

livenlearn.
Thanks, angryone.

we should All be.

--@kristofarian on May 20, 2025 at 5:16 AM
[mostly]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/project-esther-heritage-foundation-palestine.html

https://www.thestranger.com/slog-am/2025/05/19/80063716/slog-am-biden-has-cancer-3-dead-in-pioneer-square-shooting-oregon-spent-drug-treatment-money-on-cops/comments

sic 'em,
Heritage boy.
Sic 'em.

@46-47: Well, that only took you four whole days. (Found amphetamines, have we?)

"so he's from Heritage.

"I thought he was
AIPAC/IOF."

Must you choose? I mean, a cornerstone of paranoid-conspiricist 'thought' holds that The Enemy is Everywhere, All The Time, insidiously shape-shifting, ever simultaneously both skulkingly weak, AND immensely powerful, right?

As you seem to have missed it completely, my answer to angryone's abject nonsense is here, https://www.thestranger.com/slog-am/2025/05/19/80063716/slog-am-biden-has-cancer-3-dead-in-pioneer-square-shooting-oregon-spent-drug-treatment-money-on-cops/comments/52

In particular,

"Oh, how I long for the days when I was on George Soros' payroll. Or so I was told, many many times..."

Twenty years ago, that was the story right-wing commenters told about me. You tell it now. Because Horseshoe Theory! (Plus, twenty years is your dead-flat minimum time for rapid assembly on the weakest and palest of imitations...)

Speaking of War Crimes
Land Grabs and
Gen-O-Cide:

nyt:

Israel’s
Allies Condemn
Expansion of Gaza War

Britain, France and Canada
called the Israeli plans for escalation
“disproportionate” and “egregious” at a time
when the U.N. is warning the population is at risk of famine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/world/middleeast/israel-allies-denounce-gaza-offensive.html

feel Free to Condemn Israel
Wormtongue, or count
Yourself as an Enthus-
iastic Supporter.

some comments on the article:

“This is a war of civilization over barbarism,”
Mr. Netanyahu said on social media.

Mr. Netanyahu needs to look at
himself in the mirror. What
we are seeing is civilization
falling back into barbarism.
What civilized country uses
starvation as a tool of war?

--@Serban; Miller Place NY 11764

@Serban -- What the Israelis fail to realize
is that as time marches on, your average
person is going to associate Israel less

as a safe haven for Jews and more as
a modern nation state that is violent,
steals land and is willing to starve a
city of 2 million people to death.

--@Doublas; Germany

[at wormmy: this is a point I’ve
brought up Numerous times
to be scoffed at by you and
your sicsokbotts & cohorts
here @ts -- your Denials to
the contrary are certainly
Notwithstanding. This’ll
Not be good for Jews
Anywhere on this
fucking Planet.]

@Serban -- I read that particular statement as one
of clearest demonstrations yet that Israel has
in the end become a mirror of the horrors
that were inflicted on the Jewish people
in the first place.

“Civilization” vs “barbarism”
is exactly the kind of language that
people promoting western supremacy
have used in the past, all the way back to
the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 30s.

Even though in this case we know
that many Israelis are ethnically similar
to the Gazans they are persecuting, still the idea
that there is a certain kind of people who represent
the latter and another the former is inherently dehumanizing.

--@Miles Parker; Nelson, BC

Killing
a mosquito
with a 500-pound
[bomb] is beyond reason.

People who do not
see that are be-
yond reason.

-@Seriphussr; United States Of The Socialist Republic

Oodles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/world/middleeast/israel-allies-denounce-gaza-offensive.html#commentsContainer

Denounce Israeli Terror
wormmy – otherwise
your Silence makes
YOU Complicit.

/.

Your
tax dollar$$$
working fucking Overtime.

oh, the fucking humanity:

where
did it
Go?

but
tell us
about the
Definitions
Wormtongue

and how a Senator
disagrees with 2/3
of Planet Earth.

48

kudos
on your
Pity Party

tell us why
you turned
180 degrees

& joined the
Dark Side.

did those mean
Regressives &
Repressives
force your
hands?

@50: "and how a Senator
disagrees with 2/3
of Planet Earth."

Surveyed all 8 billion of us personally, did you?

Thanks for reminding everyone you equate being popular with being right. Puts all of your endless moralistic posturing in proper perspective. (Hurts, don't it?)