Questions & Observations

By Walter Rice

Does the City Council have a rule that allows the body to “censor” a member (for misconduct? etc,)?

If so, why has it not been used or mentioned?.

Why have the residents not petitioned (or direct action taken by a council member) to sponsor a resolution calling for the Mayor’s resignation?

Is it possible a group of concerned citizens (or a state level regulated body) go into court and seek a temporary injunction against the city of Everett to stop any further building or permitting (at the local level) until such time as (at least some) the myriad of legal questions are cleared up?

Is it not patently obvious that during the public comments portion of City Council meetings that residents are being patronized and no resolutions or fee back? Since such time as the residents pushed for and obtained their rights to be heard at Council meetings during “public participation” in the meetings I have witnessed (which are many, and online) not once….. not once, has a person received feedback or much less, answers, to questions, complaints, concerns or claims. Not once. Which brings me to the next question:

Have Council members made an agreement behind closed doors to uniformly NOT reply, not even a one word reply, to residents inquiries for fear they (the elected officials) would assume some sort of liability by responding? IMO: Residents are not participating in the public participation for the mere purpose of reading a prepared statement. IMO, people want two things: Answers (1) and Action (2). When any question has been asked or comments made the silence coming back from the Council is staggering. Even the few that are known to be proactive are forced into silence. There is much more than just numerous compelling reasons why residents should receive responses to pointed questions about whether the Council body or member agrees to provide it in writing at a later point, then so be it. Simply put, as I see it, the Council, as a body are afraid to take a stand or in other cases, certain members will never take a stand; but that should not preclude the right thing from happening.

More questions:

*If someone were to die (example, at 381 Ferry St) as a result of gross negligence on the part of the City are individual elected or appointed officials indemnified or does the law allow for a persons criminal and civil liability in the face of dereliction of duty or “failure to act?” If not indemnified, and someone does die and it is proven the negligence was partly or wholly responsible on the part of the City… who pays? (loaded question – taxpayer always pay). The person who dies pays the heaviest price for which there is no charge.

*Is state receivership an option for Everett and would it be the only thing to do at this point?”

The participants and their histories are what makes the current affairs so troubling. Those bent on ill intent and self enrichment hear the foot steps. Recent events are evidence that the mentality of the thieves has shifted from “hide it behind the curtains” to “grab all you can on the way out the door.”

With that thought, it would be likely that Everett faces another two years or so of corrupt and unmitigated gluttony without either a resignation top to bottom of the administration or a forced removal by state regulators or voters.

At this stage, the adversities are too many and too overwhelming for the crooked to continue business as usual Residents (voters) are doing exactly what they (the administration) hoped would happen – becoming bogged down in the details and overwhelmed with one egregious violation after another and failing to see the larger picture – and that picture is to distract you for as long as possible (by focusing on itemized detail of each event) while they grab the pictures off the wall and the Persian rugs on the way out the door. The recall effort is one good thing but Everett needs a house cleaning.


Walter Rice is a writer. He was formerly employed by the City of Everett as its Veterans Agent.

Leave a Reply