Council President Sara Nelson Is Wildly Unequipped To Handle Backlash For Attacks On Working People... Again
- Hannah Krieg
- May 14
- 5 min read
Last week’s meeting wasn’t a fluke: Former Council Member Kshama Sawant and her band of socialists have declared war on the Seattle City Council. A few weeks ago, Council Member Cathy Moore (allegedly at the request of Council President Sara Nelson) introduced a bill to lower the ethical standards so council members can vote in their own financial interest, a suspiciously convenient policy endeavor ahead of her attempt to repeal a slew of renters’ protections. Now, Sawant and her crew won’t let the council have a peaceful meeting until they abandon their blatant attack on working people.
While they didn’t convince the architects of renters’ demise, the disruptions in council chambers Tuesday helped expose fractures on the City Council and the weakness of Nelson’s authority on the dais. Overall, the council emboldened their critics: The group left chambers, determined to bring a bigger, louder crowd with them next time.
On Tuesday, the “disruptive” group of public commenters started out strong, chanting a quick call-and-response between many of the testimonies, clapping, and often speaking past their allotted one minute. For a moment, it seemed Nelson learned from her routine mishandlings of rowdy public commenters, telling the group that she wouldn’t waste time engaging with them. Besides, the ethical changes weren't even on the agenda that day.
But Nelson couldn’t resist and eventually she reverted back to her old habit of chastising and thus inflaming the situation.
Eventually, Nelson called on security to remove the commenters. A security guard spoke for Nelson, saying she was “requesting that they leave” to which one of the advocates responded, “we’re requesting that we stay.”
The security guard turned to Nelson and asked if she wanted him to call the police. It wouldn’t be the first time the City Council had sicced the cops on public commenters, an early stain on the civility-obsessed council’s limited legacy. Instead, Nelson called a five minute recess to give her time to strategize. Council Members Dan Strauss and Alexis Mercedes Rinck stuck around, but the rest of the council shuffled out of chambers to a chorus of “Cowards! Cowards! Cowards!” Strauss stayed in his seat, obviously annoyed by Nelson’s handling of the situation. And Rinck joined the commenters to continue her feverish nodding along.
During that recess – which lasted more like eight minutes, but who's counting — the advocates continued their own unauthorized public comment. Local organizer Calvin Priest said that the council is hoping that working people are not paying close enough attention to understand what’s at stake.
“They don’t give a shit about ethics,” Priest told the crowd. “Their real goal, of course, is to go after renters rights, is to go after workers rights…. The reality is, we need to create enormous pressure here because there’s enormous pressure from the landlord lobby — not that these people need any help doing brutal things to working people.”
After a little pep talk from Priest, another organizer asked the crowd who could join them for the next public comment and, "more critically," who could bring a couple friends. The more people they have, the better they can pressure the council, the advocates argued.
When Nelson and her cronies returned to the dais, she instructed the clerk to keep working down the list of speakers, but should anyone make any ruckus, she would end the public comment period — after all, they had already finished their 20 minute obligation to listen.
One more person spoke before Sawant called out, “When renters’ rights are under attack, what do we do?” And the crowd responded, “Stand up, fight back.”
“We are — I’m — I’m ending public comment,” Nelson said with all the authority of a substitute teacher on the last day before summer break.
But the advocates weren’t done. They drowned her out, chanting “Let him speak, let him speak,” over and over again as a man in keffiyeh waited in front of the microphone.
Nelson, admitting defeat, said that council members would retreat to their offices and continue the meeting remotely. Strauss immediately objected, saying that they should simply finish public comment an d move to their business.
“The escalation of the way you’ve managed public comment for the last 17 months has clearly escalated this,” Strauss said. “... I don’t condone disruptions in the chambers, however I do condone free speech.”
Rinck concurred, “Let’s continue with the public comment and hear from everyone today.”
Moore piped up to say, “I disagree. I think we need to follow our rules otherwise there’s no point in having rules.” The advocates did not let Moore — who is literally plotting to throw out a core ethical rule — get away with that comment without a barrage of heckling.
With the council split, Nelson put the fate of the remaining eight public commenters to a vote. Basically every single Council Member asked her to clarify what voting “yes” and voting “no” meant. After four minutes of back and forth, about the time it would take to get through half of the remaining commenters, they settled on “yes” to continue and “no” to discontinue public comment.
Council Member Bob Kettle abstained, Moore voted to discontinue, and Strauss, Rinck, Joy Hollingsworth, Maritza Rivera, Rob Saka voted to continue, many under the unrealistic condition that the advocates be quiet. The last in the roll call, Nelson, clearly not expecting to be overruled and undermined, voted yes to “go with the majority.”
Saka clarified with the audience again that if “this circus continues” then they will shut down the meeting. Nelson, exasperated, cried out, “You guys! You know, I try to draw a line, and then there’s equivocation after equivocation.”
The council allowed two more speakers, both followed by more chanting. Then, the council packed it up to continue the meeting remotely. Strauss and Rinck tried to push back but Nelson said, “you are not recognized.”
The council made their final exit, Nelson's metaphorical tail tucked between her legs, leaving the advocates to another unauthorized public comment. Rinck and Strauss again stayed on the dais.
The advocates asked Rinck why she had not spoken out on the ethics changes. She corrected them and said she was proud to be the first of her colleagues to go on the record against the policy. Further, they got her to confirm that, as the only renter on the body, she would not vote to repeal any tenant protections. Plus, Rinck told Sawant that she would use her platform and office to organize working people against the policies. The advocates only wrestled out a rejection of the ethics code changes from Strauss, a position he’s already made clear. He did not answer when they asked if opposed the looming renters rights rollbacks. He said he had to get back to the remote meeting.
One advocate said he could tell them what he thinks about the renters’ rights repeals next time. The group chanted “We’ll be back, we’ll be back” as they exited council chambers.
Comments