Single-event news stories such as a recall effort or an LID project gone bad are one thing; but a steady stream of issues trailing behind us like a slow-moving freight-train signals a city in the throes of turbulence. Here's a short list: Development projects like Date Street, Willow Run, where massive code violations occurred.; LID environmental transgressions allowed to occur or ignored; preferential treatment of economic development interests while giving but a cursory and obligatory nod to the public process; a recall by Rowe, one judge-verified charge of which was secreting the letter from the Dept. of Natural Resources requesting the city's comments on the Powerhouse Project; excluding residents' input in most, and, certainly, major city actions affecting long-term growth (especially during the approval process for the Master Plan on the Industrial Park); firing of city administrator Bysegger without cause; the firing and/or exodus of city employees last year (Colleen Hawkins, the mayor's and administrator's assistant, City Planner Christi Amrine and Asst. City Planner Lara Thomas); operating without key personnel (such as just mentioned) for an extended period contrary to Sultan's code; huge consultants' fees due to the departure of key people; significant legal appeals and lawsuits filed against the city (from many of these events with more to come), the latest of which is the $500,000 Walser-filed slander action against Councilman Criswell; the suspension of Chief Walser without cause…. Do we need we go on?

Although we have not yet been able to secure a copy, a reliable source has told us that negative, slanted newsletters -- similar to those that were anonymously distributed by this group during the last election -- have been showing up on people's doorsteps. Our source also said several of these have been distributed, but she tossed them in the trash because they were "nasty." If anyone knows of someone who has copies of these flyers, we would appreciate receiving them. If these are political in nature (as they are purported to be) but are unsigned, they are being distributed illegally. They must show a contact name/group name and address. The city was blanketed by newsletters from the SCC, whose apparent leader was Derek Boyd, in the Fall of 2001. They were quite libelous to G.R.I.T., calling us "extremists", "eco-terrorists", "anti-government" and other not-so-nice names, then tied Councilmember Raney, then-councilmember Cindy Broughton, and Planning Commissioner Ron Kraut to us, in an attempt to scare folks away from voting for those candidates. Sadly, we believe these flyers influenced many uninformed people. (We have a link posted on the front page of our website to the SCC flyers distributed last year.)

One source confirmed that position numbers 6 and 7 are held by Jeff Everett and Mark Raney, the two most vocal pro-accountability voices on the council. I mean, talk about your coincidences! What are the odds, eh?

Another source has told us that these petitions were expedited through city hall by -- hold onto your knickers -- none other than Mayor Rowe himself -- and hand-delivered to the auditor (by persons unknown) before close of business on Friday so voter signatures can be verified ASAP. According to strict city procedures, the City Clerk is the only one who can legally receive such documents, and Clerk Koenig was on vacation. A different source rumored that the mayor was not keen on "inking" his signature to whatever papers went to the auditor, but desired to use his rubber stamp. Gee, I wonder why he wanted it done that way? One phrase leaps to mind: plausible deniability.

The specific RCW that guides the size of the council in a noncharter code city is 35A.12.010 It states that any city with a population of 2500 or greater may increase council size to seven members (that means it has a choice), but once the population reaches 5,000 or greater, it shall (read: "must") have a seven-member council. The last part of this statute is the kicker: A noncharter code city of less than 5,000 that already has a seven-member council may (read: "it has a choice") reduce the council back to five members, using the following procedure:

Interpretation of statute: The council can reduce its size back to five, but the earliest it could be voted on would be the same election as the vote on Sultan's change of government would occur. Talk about your mind-teasers!

The weirdest ironic twist yet in Sultan's continuing saga is that in the fall of 1999, some council members tried to enlarge the council to seven members (under Ord. 704-99, but it was not passed until 2000, as Ord. 735-00), apparently feeling the same way folks now feel: that too few interests are being served by too few people. We were not active at the time, but in reading the minutes, it gives one an eerie feeling of déjà vu of the events unfolding as we're writing this:

June 14, 1999 Minutes: Ordinance 704-99 - Increase of Council Size: The matter was brought back for reconsideration following the Mayor’s [Bob Broughton] veto of the ordinance.
Councilmember Tuohy: Passage now would insure that appointments would not be made to fill the positions. The city needs fair representation from committees decisions. Majority of the cities are going to larger council to provide more input on planning and development issues. If not passed now but passed at later date would council have to fill positions? yes should do now to prevent appointments.

We scoured the 1999 minutes after the June 14^th meeting and could not find where the ordinance (704-99) to enlarge the council to seven members was approved, but found out the day after this update was published that this action occurred in early 2000. Below are pertinent excerpts from the 1/10/00 and 1/24/00 meetings:

Mayor’s Message: Mayor Rowe discussed the growth coming to Sultan over the next few years and the work that needs to be done to make sure the city gets a fair share of the economic benefits. The need for the council to work together and the appointment of new councilmembers. Advised that there will be a hiring freeze until the new council has time to review the budget. The Council will need to look at the need to rezone some areas, city departments. impacts of I-695 and the hiring of a new administrator. There will be a sign in sheet at City Hall so that random calls to citizens can be made to find out how they were treated and Town Meetings will be held to take public input in a relaxed atmosphere.

Continuance: On a motion by Councilmember Porter, seconded by Councilmember Ostrom, the meeting was continued to Friday January 14, 2000 at 4:00 PM.

(1/14/00 continuation meeting was cancelled, due to a lack of a quorum.)

What's the big rush to get this to the auditor? Is it possible the city attorney has found another "loophole" and this could be placed before voters at the November 5, 2002 election? Or is this just more mud being slung at Sultan's already-murky body politic?

We'll answer our own question: It's just one more example of why the City needs professional management, whether under a mayor-council or council-manager form.

But according to Sultan's codes, specifically SMC 2.010, Office [of the city administrator] Creation, this position is a mandated city function, not an elective one: "There is hereby created the office of city administrator, which office shall be filled by appointment by the mayor, subject to confirmation my (sic) a majority of the city council…."

Why hasn't this position been filled?

Oh! I just thought of another reason to answer my own question: All the money the city saved not paying an administrator and his assistant, transfers over to pay consultant fees for planning and engineering projects most Sultan residents don't want anyway.

Recent advice by the attorney on the 45-minute council "debate" on the Boucher short plat, the release of the Willow Run bond, and most outrageously, his "artful dodging" -- even, facilitating -- of the extension of the time limit clearly indicated in the statute for the ballot date on the vote to changing Sultan's form of government, makes it obvious that interests other than those of Sultan taxpayers, are being served.

Something we discovered recently that Sultan residents may find curious is that the City's attorney -- the law firm of Keithly, Weed, Graafstra and Benson -- also represent the taxpayers of Marysville, another city disgruntled with its leadership and direction trying to change its form of government. A coincidence? Or simply back-water towns transitioning into cities?

And as far as being a proponent of that group's efforts we will say -- once again -- we are sort of on the fence about the form of government for Sultan. While we would probably prefer the current form change, we would also hate to see the mayor adding to the already-top heavy 4-to-3 majority. But regardless of the form of government, we believe it's ultimately the responsibility of the citizens to oversee what their government is doing. More specifically, we are ADAMANT that the Sultan government (in whatever form it takes) must: (1) perform functions in a legal, professional and objective manner; (2) be accountable to its taxpayers; and (3) be responsive to its taxpayers.

SKY VALLEY WEEKLY NEWS ACCUSATIONS:

We deny most of what has been reported in the last few issues of Mr. Coy's libelous Sky Valley Weekly News concerning G.R.I.T., Loretta Storm and any connection to the ProSultan group. These assertions are, of course, silly and no one with any intelligence believes them. Nonetheless, a lie not responded to can be interpreted by some uninformed individuals as the truth. So if anyone is even remotely interested, below are some specific responses to his silly claims.

Accusation: Loretta Storm is the "driving force" behind ProSultan.

Truth: Mr. Coy, get some glasses. That dart not only missed the bull's eye, it flew right past the dart board, hitting the cat in the corner.

Accusation: A coyly-written story in the Aug. 30^th issue was worded in such a disingenuous way (and I'm being charitable when I use that word) as to make it seem that G.R.I.T. is in charge of ProSultan.

Truth: We merely received information from their group, as did other media, and published it.

Accusation: In Coy's editorial in the September 6^th issue, he accused me of actually authoring the ProSultan documents.

Truth: We received and reformatted whatever was sent from the ProSultan group to media sources, and in so doing, created new documents or web pages which showed "Loretta Storm" as the document's creator. As a self-proclaimed computer expert, Mr. Coy knew this to be the case.

Accusation: In his Sept. 6th editorial, Coy states that McPherson and Raney are only "figureheads" for the ProSultan movement and that the source for the ProSultan movement can be found "further north…evidence indicates that this is yet another attempt by Loretta Storm and cohorts to control Sultan's future."

Truth: Poppycock. My only "cohort" is my husband, Ray. It's my understanding, as indicated in the press releases coming from the ProSultan group, that Councilman McPherson is the chairman of that group's board, Councilmember Raney its media coordinator or liaison. My only involvement is by acting as an independent information source, a pass-through instrument, if you will, by receiving the press releases and posting them on my website. Why is this so difficult for Coy and other folks in town to comprehend or accept?

Accusation: I and my husband "inundated" city hall with public information requests "under the direction of Bill Trippett."

Truth: Coy needs to find another swan song. As he has always known, we have NEVER been employed by Bill Trippett, although we did charge him a one-time total of $125 in labor and copying expense (mostly out-of-pocket expenses). This amount was applied as a credit against our legal expenses owed to Bill Trippett, who was acting as our lawyer in our first and second lawsuit filings against Coy.

Bill was encountering significant stonewalling by the city in the fulfillment of his own Public Information Requests for his own lawsuit, necessitating a greater expenditure of time on his part. And because we were already at the city doing our own copying with our own copier, Bill requested that we help him -- and the city -- fulfill the tail end of his requests using our copier. (By the way, in case anyone is interested, Ray and I began copying city files before we ever had any contact with Bill Trippett. Because we were being stonewalled and delayed by the city on fulfilling our requests, we took our own copier there, and began copying project files on current and just-completed developments, such as Eagle Ridge. The full extent of the city's participation was to get the file and bring it out to us. All copying was done in full view of city personnel at all times, despite claims by Messrs. Boucher and Coy that "file tampering" had occurred.)

Accusation: Mr. Coy "marries" Mr. Trippett's now-defunct lawsuit against the city with our lawsuits against Coy.

Truth: All we know of Trippett's lawsuit is what we read in the initial complaint document, which were liberally quoted in Coy's own Sky Valley Internet discussion forum in the spring of 2000. We did not know Mr. Trippett then, nor anything of the lawsuits. We didn't care about them then, nor do we care about them now. Coy is simply playing a worn-out drumbeat that no one dances to anymore.

Accusation: We have lawsuits against Kenton Coy and Computer Works that after three court cases and two years, are still not resolved.

Truth: True. Sometimes even Mr. Coy can tell the truth, even if it is in a way that is misleading. In case anyone has any remote interest in this, the "three" court cases are really only two. We had filed a libel suit against Coy late summer of 2000. Then, after he stole our G.R.I.T. name in 2000, we expanded our lawsuit to include that as a new charge, in addition to the one for libel. It was expanded again -- this time into federal court as a Rico action -- due to other despicable acts by Coy, which we will not detail here. When that lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court judge because he deemed it inconsistent with the legal RICO criteria, we refiled in Snohomish County Superior Court, where it currently resides, bogged down in discovery issues.

Accusation: Coy states in his editorial that "…every person who has jumped aboard [the ProSultan Group] in support of the change has an axe to grind with Rowe," then names Councilmember Raney specifically, and G.R.I.T. by reference.

Truth: At this point in Sultan's history, I think many folks have an "axe to grind" related to the city's performance and legal and accountability issues over the last few years. It's difficult, if not impossible, to separate the consequences of events from Mayor Rowe since, like it or not, most of these unfortunate events unfolded when he had The Watch. But if Bob Broughton, Dusty Boucher, Jim Porter, Mark Raney or Perry McPherson was mayor during that same time period, one of their names would now be receiving the spotlight. But the fact is clear that, whether there's a mayor or not, Sultan's future depends on the legal and professional execution of city business. Why is this so difficult for some folks to understand?

Per SMC 2.05.020, each councilmember makes $150/per month ($40 per council meeting with a maximum of two per month, plus $35 for other meeting to a maximum of two per month). And they attend a whole lot more than four meetings per month, by the way.

So, $150 per month per council member times five council members = $750. Seven council members cost $1,050 total per month. That means going back to the old five-member council set-up would save the city a total of $3,600 per year.

And just for comparison, anyone recall how much was spent on consultants last year? I think it was over a million dollars. Saving $3,600 per year on two council seats while burning money on consultants. Now that's what I'd call penny wise but pound foolish.

Loretta Storm, Co-Founder, G.R.I.T.

360-793-6683