Former Tacoma mayor Brian Ebersole thinks the City Council should have openly debated the offer City Manager Eric Anderson put before Russell Investments executives Monday.

Here's Ebersole's message, and the responses I received from Anderson and Mayor Bill Baarsma: (See our editorial Wednesday morning).

Ebersole:

Hi David, May I suggest a line of thought for an editorial? As much as I want the Russell Company in Tacoma, I was really bothered by today's story.
Evidently, the city manager has offered 65 million dollars to help keep the
company here. That is a BIG policy decision.

Either he polled the City Council in private beforehand which is doing the public's buisness behind closed doors, or he didn't poll the council which is usurping the role of the elected councilmembers to make public policy. Unbelieveable.There should have been many, many public hearings and much open discussion on this action.

Some would say invest in 12 smaller home- grown firms such as Brown and Haley and Divita. Some{such as me} would say invest a bit in homeless shelters to keep the transients off the sidewalks downtown. 65 million, even if its bet on the
come, is worth a public discussion! And the public discussion should have
happened BEFORE the announcement of the offer of massive amounts of public
money.Not to mention the creation of an International Financial Services
District. Another hugh policy decision that should be made by the council in
public.Now the discussion is biased.
Brian Ebersole

Seago

Bill, Eric,
We assume that the city manager wouldn’t have made the offers of city tax breaks to the Russell Group without the implicit approval of the council. But Brian Ebersole raises a fair question: Is this the sort of thing the council should have discussed and decided publicly before making the pitch? did the council in effect make a decision in private that legally should have been made in public session?

What answer would you give Ebersole or any other citizen who raises this issue?

Baarsma:

Dave: The assumption is correct. There was tacit approval albeit no formal vote or affirmation in detail. It was more of a show and tell with feedback. I believe that everyone is so concerned about the company leaving that whatever Eric came up was ok. The city attorney has assured Anderson that there was no collective decision made.

We had an after the fact discussion today at the Committee of the Whole meeting. I guess the answer here is the stakes are so high that the city had to come up with the best and most reasonable proposal—so in the end, whatever the decision might be—we did our best. Also, with this form of government the only staff support for such a proposal rests solely with the city manager.
Bill Baarsma

Anderson:

To answer your question, as I prepared the proposal for the International Financial Services Area and Russell, I wanted a general sense of the Council’s comfort level of the direction I was heading. I spoke with individual Council Members about the need to eliminate the local B & O tax on international financial services. I did not ask for a vote, but asked that if I were heading in a direction they opposed, that they indicate so to me. I did not ask them to confer with each other concerning this.

Based upon my belief that it was an acceptable strategy, I told Russell that I was prepared to propose the elimination and that, in my judgment as City Manager, it would pass. I included it in the presentation.

Seago to Ebersole:

Brian,
I note that the city's proposal says all of the city's proposed actions are subject to the approval of the City Council.I agree there is the appearance of implicit approval by the council, but I'm not sure that a decision has been made in the manner that would be a violation of the open meetings law.
All of this is far from a done deal.
Dave

Final comment by Ebersole:

Dave, I agree with your analysis. My point is that [1]the city council,not the city manager, should be making this policy decision and[2]they should be doing it in public with public imput. The city manager is acting as though saving the presence of the Russell Company is the City's top priority. That is a policy decision for the Council, not the Manager. He is to carry out the
will of the council, not determine their direction.

What if he announced saving shelter services of Martin Luther King Housing Development was the top priority? Or providing more low income housing? .Or fixing potholes.Or providing more public money for low income city reidents to get higher education? Why bother with elections for council members.If the Executive Council wants to give away private money,swell. If they want to give away the citizens' money, go to the citizens'representatives. Everyone else has to. It's messy. It's humbling. It'ss not business-like, but it's the way democracy is supposed to work.