Oak Harbor City Council openly violates state law by voting to uphold clearly illegal City Code regarding firearms in public parks

A Whidbey News-Times article Oak Harbor takes a stab at gun regulation delineates which five of our elected city council members clearly believe Washington State law is beneath them. Their actions smack of being yet another politically motivated attempt to undermine Mayor Scott Dudley, with the ultimate political goal of replacing him with the former sign-stealing Mayor, Jim Slowik, who was labeled a “political bully” and won a “Schrammie” award for his escapades while in office.


A request to amend obviously illegal existing City Code was brought to the attention of the the City Council by interim Oak Harbor City attorney Grant Weed. Weed is a Mayor Scott Dudley-chosen employee. Mayor Dudley and a majority of the City Council have clashed over personnel changes since Mayor Dudley has taken office.

One section of Oak Harbor City Code which appears to be in clear violation of state law is:

“6.14.070 Firearms and fireworks.

It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to carry any firearm or to shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, B.B. gun or use any slingshot in any park without the written permission of the council. (Ord. 214 § 8, 1965).”

Back in 2008, the City of Seattle enacted a similar gun ban in city parks. Earlier in 2012, the Washington State Supreme Court struck down that attempted ban in its entirety.  The Second Amendment Foundation is one of the entities that sued to have the Seattle ordnance overturned. They are the same entity that alerted the City of Oak Harbor about their City Code needing to be updated, and, based on a cursory look at their website, they apparently have a track record of filing lawsuits regarding such issues. It appears the Oak Harbor City Council is openly inviting a lawsuit upon the City of Oak Harbor by refusing to align Oak Harbor City Code as suggested should have been done by Oak Harbor City Attorney Grant Weed.

Even more troubling, the Oak Harbor City Council cajoled recently appointed (and Mayor Scott Dudley-selected) Oak Harbor Chief of Police Ed Green to specify that Oak Harbor police officers would, “at gunpoint”, approach someone “walking around a park with a rifle, which is legal under state and federal law”.

As explained in a Seattle-PI blog titled Is Washington an open-carry state regarding guns? (information provided by the King County Sheriff’s office):

Washington is an “open- carry” state. That means a person may openly carry a firearm (pistol, rifle or shotgun) in public without a concealed-pistol license.”

But, in Oak Harbor, as per the Whidbey News-Times’ article, doing so now apparently will result in Oak Harbor police officers drawing their weapons and aiming them at you, regardless of the fact that:

“This (open carry) statute is very fact-specific, but in general, merely walking around in public with the gun properly secured in an exposed holster does not constitute a violation.”

The Oak Harbor City Council’s actions appears to be intentionally designed to create unnecessary conflict and made-up problems for Mayor Scott Dudley, for Oak Harbor City attorney Grant Weed, for Oak Harbor Police Chief Ed Green, and for all citizens who may desire to exercise their Second Amendment rights as legally provided for in WA State law. While the Oak Harbor City Council apparently wants Police Chief Ed Green to enforce Oak Harbor’s illegal City Code, the King County Sheriff’s office clearly understands that:

“State law controls this area of the law and preempts local jurisdictions from passing more restrictive laws on carrying firearms.”

In response to the 2008 City of Seattle’s firearms ban, Bob Warden alerted authorities in advance that he intended to violate the ban at the Southwest Community Center, and the media covered his doing so.

Would an individual or a group of citizens gathered to march in protest of this illegal City Code actually be held “at gunpoint” for exercising their Second Amendment rights or Right to Bear Arms under the Washington State Constitution at Windjammer Park?


  1. So…
    …we have a City Council that is openly defying the Constitution of the State of Washington by allowing laws on the books that are in direct violation of our Constitution even after being warned by the city attorney that the law on the books is in violation of our Constitutional rights and after a letter has been received by a lawsuit happy gun rights group. Amazing…

    This is just more proof that our City Council needs to be replaced ASAP. The ONLY Councilman that had the fortitude to stand up for the people and the Constitutional principles we all live by was Jim Campbell. I certainly tip my hat to Councilman Campbell.

    I guess we have to live with some of our Councilmen making incredibly stupid statements like Councilman Almberg made until the next election. He stated in the WNT article ““I know we are not consistent with state and federal law, but I’m not going to sit here and say it’s OK to carry guns in our city parks,”. In my eyes that is willful disobedience to our Washington State Constitution and if I am not mistaken in his oath of office he swore to uphold that Constitution not ignore it.

    While this is not surprising coming from our Council as they are known for making faulty decisions based on politics it is indeed extremely troubling especially seeing how this will undoubtedly lead to a lawsuit by either a citizen or the Second Amendment Foundation.

    It is also troubling to see the comments made by Ed Green, our new Chief of Police, after he was informed that the ordinance is Constitutionally flawed. The WNT reported him as stating:

    “When asked how police would respond if someone was walking around a park with a rifle, which is legal under state and federal law. He said the officers would contact to the person, at gunpoint, and ask him or her to secure the firearm. He didn’t say what would happen if the person refused.”

    I certainly hope that someone in the City administration has the common sense to talk with our new Police Chief as he seems to be taking cues from our City Council and their unconstitutional actions. While I certainly agree that our police officers have the right to approach people openly carrying to do so at “gunpoint” is certainly troubling. Apparently Chief Green does not understand that there is no requirement to “secure a firearm” in some certain way in our laws.

    A policeman approaching a citizen with gun drawn because he or she is exercising a Constitutionally permitted activity is only going to end up with a lawsuit against the city or someone dead by an accidental discharge. I do not think Chief Green wishes either of course but statistically police do make a lot of irrational judgment calls after pulling their weapons. A wrong move or a car backfiring could end up with Oak Harbor having a citizen killed for a Constitutionally protected activity….

    My suggestion to Chief Green is to ignore the City Council members who obviously have no intent of following our Constitution and follow the laws of our state in discharging his duties.

    1. “In my eyes that is willful disobedience to our Washington State Constitution and if I am not mistaken in his oath of office he swore to uphold that Constitution not ignore it.”

      What strikes me about this overt act of defiance by these five City Council members is how closely these five elected City Council members are choosing to dance around:

      “RCW 29A.56.110

      Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.

      Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.

      For the purposes of this chapter:

      (1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;

      (a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and

      (b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission of an unlawful act;

      (2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.”

      How is continuing to knowingly uphold a piece of illegal Municipal Code – Municipal Code which is essentially the exact same law which the WA State Supreme Court struck down only months ago, and in one’s official capacity as a publicly elected City Council member – how is that NOT a violation of the oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution?

      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all valid local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _______ according to law, to the best of my ability. [So help me God. (Optional)]
      Signature of Elected/Appointed Official ________________________Subscribed and sworn to before me this __ day of __, 20___.
      Signature of Person Administering Oath ________________________”

      1. I do see your point of view and this is probably the one time ever i see the councils point of view.
        A lot of laws, rules and yes even constitutional amendments were forced into change by the peaceful disobediance of those same laws.
        Change can come from something as simple as where a woman sits on a bus or which counter a group of men decide to eat lunch at.

        If every single municipality in washington state decided not to allow guns in parks then our state legislation would surely change the state law.

        1. There were no actual state laws in existence saying that Blacks must sit in the back of the bus or that Blacks could not eat at the “Whites Only” counter (at least, that I am aware of).

          In any case, if you want to use an analogy that drags oppressive racism into this discussion, oppression of the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners by a majority of the Oak Harbor City Council would be the overt act of oppression UPON law abiding gun owners: not the other way around.

          There’s a legitimate process by which locally elected public officials might influence state legislators to amend state law, but violating their oath of office and/or passing or upholding laws which they know to be 100% illegal is not that process. The City Council could have, for example, as an elected body, brought this issue up with State Senator Barbara Bailey in the past month or so when they met with her.

          The vote taken by those five City Council members is no more a proper or respectable “peaceable disobedience” than if a private-citizen-type person decided to march into one of our K-12 school buildings when school was in session with an open-carry pistol attached to his or her hip while expressing a desire for “hope and change” to the current laws that forbid one from doing so legally. Moreover, law-abiding gun owners would NOT be praising such an act – they would very likely condemn it outright.

  2. My first point to make would be in a sue happy world, one in which many municipalitys are continualy sued over anything and everything.

    I have to consider handing it to this council for taking a stand for whats right and using common sence.

    There is no way an individual should be allowed to carry around an ar-15 while our children are playing at the park.

    (Editor’s note: “AR-15” is a Colt registered trademark, but variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers. Some available calibers for the AR-15 platform are the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua, 6.8 mm Remington SPC, .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG)

    If leaving this ordinance in place is an effort to force a legislative agenda on olympia then i like it.

    If you want to know how out of touch with common sence wa laws are on gun control, sure you do.

    If an individual has a cpl then they can carry a loaded gun arround an elementary school campus in washington state they just arent allowed inside.

    (Editor’s note: RCW 9.41.280 “Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions” provides an exception that is specifically stated to be ” (e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student”.)

    That doesnt even begin to make sence. So cuddos to the council for taking stand now we need to have our state legislation take a stand.

    1. The RCW on concealed carry in schools mirrors federal law which was passed after the Columbine high school shooting. Basically it made it a felony for anyone to carry a weapon on to school grounds. How’s that law working???? People intent on doing evil do not care about laws. The only thing this law did was prevent lawful minded persons from carry legally on school grounds. We value our money more then we do our children. For example Brinks uses armed guards to transport money and precious metals and we say that’s ok, but we scream to high heaven when it comes to placing armed personnel in our schools for the protection of our most valuable thing, our children. Come on use your common sense people.

  3. Shane, the Oak Harbor City Council is “begging” to be sued by violating the personal freedoms and rights of individuals and violating Washington State law in order to do so.

    As for common sense, I see none. If someone is injured in the “victim zone” that the Oak Harbor City Council has created by illegally denying individual citizens their right to bear arms and protect themselves, the city of Oak Harbor will be sued. By their illegally disarming “future victims” the Oak Harbor City Council is “begging” to be sued.

  4. Does anybody realize that Island County has a similar ban for county parks? I contacted Commissioner’s Emersion and Price-Johnson in July 1, 2012 and informed them that this ordinance was illegal because state law supersedes county law. The county ordinance states in part that a person lawfully carrying a concealed firearm in a county park is committing a misdemeanor unless that person is a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties (see ordinance Title IV Public Peace, Safety, and Morals, 9.40.320 Firearms, Weapons, Hunting Prohibited). Commissioner Price-Johnson informed me on December 18th that the county prosecutor’s office is reviewing this ordinance. Six months to fix this ordinance, really!

    9.40.320 Firearms, Weapons, Hunting Prohibited

    No person, except duly authorized law enforcement personnel, shall possess a firearm in any park area. No person shall discharge across, in, or into any park area a firearm, bow and arrow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property, except, when the department has authorized a special recreational activity allowing such use or uses.
    (Ord. C-44-90, adopted April 9, 1990, effective May 15, 1990, vol. 31, p. 60)

    1. “No person, except duly authorized law enforcement personnel, shall possess a firearm in any park area.”

      I was as unaware of this fact just as I was unaware of the City of Oak Harbor’s illegal Municipal Code until a few days ago.

      From one citizen to another, thank you for bringing this discrepancy to the attention of Island County Government and to the attention of those reading here today.

      Really, however, it should have taken about sixteen minutes – not six months – for the Island County Prosecutor to have researched this issue and gotten back with a recommendation to the three elected County Commissioners for corrective action.

      I would suppose, since we’ve had Helen Price-Johnson (D) acting as chair of the Board of Island County Commissioner this past year, it does not surprise me one bit that your communication to the BOICC may have gotten “buried”, never to see the light of day at a Commissioner’s meeting while Ms. Price-Johnson was acting as “chair”.

      Now that you have publicized this problem, I will be curious to see if the new BOICC will take action to rectify County Code in a timely manner or if they prefer to paint a lawsuit “bullseye” on their forehead upon which an entity such as the Second Amendment Foundation can take aim.

    2. I think the portion of the ordinance that speaks of discharging firearms in parks is a good idea. We currently have no county park that I know of where that would be appropriate, unfortunately*. That portion of the code may also pass Constitutional muster. The possession portion is clearly an unconstitutional law.

      *It is sad to see with all of the taxpayer dollars spent on recreation, WCLT spending and preservation in this county that do not have a county range facility anywhere in the county.

    3. So the county has had a common sence gun control law in place for 22 years and they havent been sued over this law. So why do we think that the city of oak harbor is in immediate danger of getting sued by votting to leave a current ordinance in place for a few months while we wait and see what our state legislators do on this matter.

      If the second amendment foundation or any groups of the like are to go arround suing taxpayers after the most recent shift in public sentiment then it will be their undoing.

      1. What is 100% common sense at both the county and municipal level is that their codes and ordinances be 100% consistent with state law in this area, since they have never had the legal right to do anything but reflect the state law as written in this area of the law.

        To my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted for carrying a firearm in a county park. To my knowledge, no one has even been following this illegal county law, because common sense dictates that the county cannot have such an illegal ordinance.

        Now that the issue is being publicized, it’s also common sense that it will less expensive for the taxpayers if Island County just did some paperwork to correct an oversight. Or, they can follow your version of “common sense”, but they would lose that legal battle when challenged, just as Seattle did.

        Moreover, the Island County Prosecutor and the Island County Commissioners would be just as much in violation of their oath of office as the Oak Harbor City Council appears to be if they choose to ignore making this obviously needed change to align with state law.

  5. The part of the law talking about discharging a weapon in county parks is not lawful, state law still supersedes this point. It is lawful to discharge a weapon in the defense of oneself, others, and to put down a dangerous or wounded animal. State law already speaks to unlawful discharge of a weapon. Why is this law needed, all it does is confuse and convolute existing laws.

    1. The ATF has published a document titled “State Laws and Published Ordinances — Firearms, 2010 – 2011 — 31st Edition”

      Here’s a live link to the chapter for Washington State.

      One excerpt of particular interest to this discussion:

      9.41.290. State preemption The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registra-tion, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, ac-quisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to fire-arms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and coun-ties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are pre-empted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.”

    1. That certainly would be an approach similar to what was done in Seattle – in order to establish legal standing – to challenge the existing Oak Harbor Municipal Code.

  6. Tell me it isn’t true. We now have a Police Chief, Ed Green who doesn’t know the Law and a city government in violation of the law which means they are violating the 2nd. Amendment rights of honest law abiding citizens? Perhaps The NRA of which many of us are members should send a letter to the Mayor, City Council and Chief Green.

    1. It is not a 2nd Amendment issue that I know of. It is a violation of our state law that preempts local cities and counties from enacting laws that are stricter than state laws. The state has taken the power to enact firearm legislation from the cities and the counties and left in the hands of the state legislators. This is so we do not have a patchwork of laws relating to firearm ownership and areas of restrictions that could allow an unaware firearm owner to be charged with a crime simply by entering another jurisdiction.

      Hopefully Chief Green has educated himself on this law and it’s implications by now. I don’t believe there is any hope for our city council however, the only council person that had any common sense and felt a duty and obligation to follow our laws was Jim Campbell…Almberg was again grandstanding and the others were doing what they normally do by agreeing with Almberg like little cute puppy dogs…

    2. I will tell you it is not true. I met with Chief of Police Ed Green for about 1 hour on January 4th. His statement about contacting citizens at gunpoint was taken completely out of context and was only 1 sentence of the rest of his discourse at the city council meeting on December 18.

      During our meeting Chief Green expressed to me (and another citizen in the meeting) a knowledge of the Washington State Constitution and the firearms laws of Washington State that I have ever seen possessed by a law enforcement officer. He is one of the officials who is working TOWARDS bringing Oak Harbor Municipal Code into compliance with state law. He was the person who presented the amendment to the City Council which they voted to not enact.

      Police Chief Ed Green is absolutely the finest law enforcement officer I had ever had the pleasure of meeting.

      1. Mr Havercroft,
        Thank you for the information. That is good news to hear about our new Chief. All too often we take the word of the Whidbey News Times that they are reporting the whole truth and only later do we find that there has been ommissions. Apparently this is one of those cases.

      2. This calls for my fake look of surprise :-o .

        Thank you for setting the record straight about the Whidbey News Times’ “reporting”.

    1. Please not my apology to Chief Green as the first comment under “Oak Harbor City Council can’t just ignore state law”. The letter to the editor was written and unfortunately delivered to the Whidbey News – Times before I spoke with Chief Green on the issue. I was squarely at fault for that.

    2. Please note my apology to Chief Green as the first comment under “Oak Harbor City Council can’t just ignore state law”. The letter to the editor was written and unfortunately delivered to the Whidbey News – Times before I spoke with Chief Green on the issue. I was squarely at fault for that.

      1. I had the opportunity to speak to Mayor Dudley about Police Chief Ed Green, in general terms, a few weeks ago, well before this local “gun control” issue came to light.

        In my discussion at that time with Mayor Dudley, he spoke very highly of Police Chief Ed Green, indicating he believed Ed Green to be a very knowledgeable man in whom he had a great deal of trust.

        In writing this piece for Island Politics, I rather suspected that our local “news” paper had “spun” this story to make it appear that Ed Green was an ignorant man and that Scott Dudley had very much erred in selecting him a Chief of Police.

        I suspected as much, because, unfortunately, that is simply how the Whidbey News-Times “rolls” when it comes to reporting the “news” in Oak Harbor.

        I am sure the WNT was more than happy to print your letter, which fueled their original and inaccurate “spin”, but I seriously doubt that if you sent them a follow-up retraction letter, based on your meeting with Ed Green, that such a letter would ever see the light of day in the hard copy of the Whidbey News-Times.

  7. An interesting Facebook Forum comment appeared today in the Whidbey News-Times in response to an LTE titled “Disappointed in Oak Harbor councilman’s vote” about this topic:

    “John Havercroft II · Newcastle High School

    Councilman Jim Camplbell (sic) did not vote against gun regulations for Oak Harbor parks. This is no current Oak Harbor Municipal Code that prohibits the carrying of firearms in city parks. The code that did prohibit the carrying of firearms in city parks was enacted in 1965. The municipal code that repealed the prohibition against carrying firearms in city parks was enacted by the Oak Harbor City Council in 1996 (Oak Harbor Municipal Code 6.05.370 repeals the prohibition against carrying firearms in city parks).

    Councilman Jim Campbell voted for an administrative only amendment to the Oak Harbor Municipal Code which would remove provisions that have already been repealed by the Oak Harbor City Council 16+ years earlier.

    The remaining members of the city council who voted against the administrative change would seem to have only one intent behind their actions – an intent to deceive the public into thinking that they are some champions of “gun control for the sake of the children” – and an attempt to deceive a portion of the public who will blindly comply with the repealed code and leave their guns at home – that same portion of the public who would never use their guns to commit a crime with anyway.

    Such an act of deception by a public official made with the intent to deprive any person of the exercise of a right, performed “under color of law”, is a crime in violation of both the Revised Code of Washington and the Oak Harbor Municipal Code. Jim Cambell will not be persuaded to take part in the commission of that crime.”

    Immediately following is the below:

    “Jim Campbell · Top Commenter · City Council Member at City of Oak Harbor

    Thank you, John. I could not have said it better.”

    So, another look at Oak Harbor City Code reveals:

    “6.05.370 Firearms and dangerous weapons.

    The following sections of RCW Title 9 as now in effect, and as may subsequently be amended, are hereby adopted by reference to establish crimes relating to firearms and dangerous weapons under the Oak Harbor criminal code:

    9.41.010 Terms defined.

    9.41.050 Carrying pistol.

    9.41.060 Exception to restriction on carrying pistol.

    9.41.070 Issue of licenses to carry – Fee – Revocation – Renewal.

    9.41.090 Commercial sales regulated – Requirements for delivery – Hold on delivery.

    9.41.093 Exemptions.

    9.41.098 Forfeiture of firearms – Disposition – Confiscation officer.

    9.41.100 Dealers to be licensed.

    9.41.110 Dealer’s licenses, by whom granted and conditions thereof – Wholesale sales excepted – Permits prohibited.

    9.41.120 Certain transfers forbidden.

    9.41.130 False information forbidden.

    9.41.140 Alteration of identifying marks – Exceptions.

    9.41.170 Alien’s license to carry firearms – Exceptions.

    9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms.

    9.41.240 Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.

    9.41.250 Dangerous weapons – Evidence.

    9.41.260 Dangerous exhibitions.

    9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm, carrying, exhibiting, displaying or drawing unlawful – Penalty – Exceptions.

    9.41.280 Students carrying dangerous weapons on school premises – Penalty – Exceptions.

    9.41.290 State preemption.

    9.41.300 Firearms prohibited in certain places – Local laws and ordinances Exceptions – Penalty.

    9.41.810 Penalty.

    (Ord. 1071 § 41, 1996).”

    Yet, if one were to look again in Section 6 of the Oak Harbor Municipal Code, it still says:

    “6.14.070 Firearms and fireworks.

    It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to carry any firearm or to shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, B.B. gun or use any slingshot in any park without the written permission of the council. (Ord. 214 § 8, 1965).

    1. That is interesting…it appears that they have not updated the Park Code to reflect the change.

      That would be an easy one to fix. They would just have to remove “firearm” and “or to carry any firearm” from the Park Code 6.14.070 and that would resolve the issue quite nicely. Of course politics and politically correct thinking will obviously muddy the minds of most our council and until they find a way to blame Mayor Dudley the issue and Park Code will probably remain untouched.

      1. I obviously agree that this vote by the City Council was a political ploy aimed at Mayor Dudley, but, in any case, in order to perform the simple, common-sense task you suggest would fix this issue, an elected Oak Harbor City Council member would first have to be both a reasonable person and also be a reasonably smart person.

        It seems to me we have but one out of seven who has proved himself to meet both of those basic criteria on this issue.

        In fact, the City Council reading packet for this City Council meeting…

        http://www.oakharbor.org/uploads/documents/9123december_4__2012_city_council_agenda_packet.bates.pdf (see pages 45-52 of 199 of that Acrobat .pdf document)

        …stipulated to do just as you suggested, in Municipal Code sections 6.12.10, 6.14.070, and 6.40.180, ALL of which violate the RCWs as currently written.

        The City Council reading packet pretty much explained ALL of what we have discussed here at this article, so EVERY member of the City Council who voted NOT to make these needed changes knew FULL WELL that what they were doing was WRONG WHEN THEY DID SO.

Comments are closed.