The Seattle City Council has just voted to appoint Sally Clark to fill the vacant seat, contrary to the stated intention to appoint a "woman of color". Although Councilmen Della and McIver, who were the most vocal about wanting a "woman of color" voted against Clark at first.
So the Council didn't discriminate on the basis of race, after all, but they still discriminated on the basis of gender, which is also illegal. Worth noting too that Clark's resume is remarkably limited to government and non-profit work. The council would have done better to pick someone with private sector experience. May Clark draw a strong challenger with broader community experience when she runs to hold the seat.
I'll also add that the council now has two openly gay members, which means that Seattle's heterosexuals are now intentionally underrepresented on the council. Good thing this appointment was made before passage of a state law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 27, 2006 10:35 AM | Email ThisThey found a person they can mold into their way of teaching Seattle what's good for them. Laws will will be made in your best interest... after all... you don't know what's good for yourself and what is in the best interest of Seattle. We must decide for you.
Well, you keep voting these people back in... I guess they must be right.
Posted by: Ted Bundy on January 27, 2006 07:17 PMDo I continue to press with the lawsuit bit? Regardless of the council's final determination, the process was tainted. I believe that the Council made the choice they did based on a number of factors, and they were fully aware and cognizant of the fact that I was pursuing legal action. Knowing that they would be setting themselves up for failure, they selected the one candidate that wouldn't appear to legitimize my complaint and their blatantly illegal actions.
I'm not saying that I think I made them do it, but I think they were at least aware that the possibility existed. I may be stupid but I like to think I'm not that arrogant...
Posted by: Aaron on January 28, 2006 01:27 AMThis is just off the top of my head. You definitely want to make sure you are broad in your request....but not too broad or they will deny it. Stefan is very good with these requests. Perhaps he can massage it a bit.
That said, it's unlikely you will get a smoking gun from this request. You know darn well Council members were deluged with e-mails from constituents pushing certain candidates and most likely, Council members responded to some or all of those e-mails. IT'S THE RESPONSE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WOULD CONTAIN EVIDENCE OF BIAS BASED ON RACE & GENDER....that's what you need. I don't think you are even close to the burden of proof with what has been said in the newspapers or based prima facie on the actions.
You may also request tapes of ALL Council and Committee meeting where this replacement was discussed so you can carefully review comments there.
Good luck.
Of course, since "standing" is an important element of getting into court, you have a very real and specific grievance -- not my own generalized disgust as a citizen of Seattle with the City Council.
If you can somehow frame the debate so that the inevitable claims of "sour grapes" -- though why not sour grapes in the face of racism & sexism? -- are minimized. You would be making yourself a big target.
Btw, I don't believe that their final choice of a white woman gets them off the hook as they seem to have admitted (as individuals) that they were looking for a certain type. The only reason one of the other five didn't get it was because of vote patterns.
But, btw, your lawsuit has to ask for something. What would it be? You must be practical I doubt if a court will throw out the council choice because by the time it got to trial court there would have be a real elecection. What you are asking for is a BIG issue.
Posted by: Raw Data Complex on January 28, 2006 09:22 AM