EVERETT — An idea to preclude people serving in other elected offices from being on Everett City Council was withdrawn last week by its originator, City Council President Brenda Stonecipher, after public outcry.
The proposed rule would have come into effect in 2026 for council members running for most elected offices in 2025.
City Councilwoman Mary Fosse, who became a state Representative in the 38th Legislative District, took it as an attack. Fosse would have been the only known council member affected if she re-ran for her council district seat and also ran for state Rep. in 2025.
Last week's council meeting saw a packed house because of it.
Quite a few spoke directly in support of Fosse. Some said it is undemocratic and that the council body shouldn't be able to restrict who they've elected to represent them.
Submitted written comments were split.
One wrote it is not fair for one person to represent the public in two branches of government.
Another wrote that they supported to change the council makeup to districts and expected any council member elected to be her district representative on council would dedicate their focus on City Council.
Stonecipher said she introduced the resolution because she has concerns and objected to any council member splitting their attention away from serving on the council. Stonecipher also mentioned conflicts of interest could occur by serving two groups.
Fosse said to the Tribune that practically all council members have other roles that require time. Fosse said her being in the Legislature gives her knowledge and insights she can bring back that are useful for Everett city business.
She drove from Olympia during the Legislative session to make Everett council.
While introducing the matter, Stonecipher said the intent is not to remove Fosse. It was to control a what-if scenario if multiple council members win second elected offices.
The proposal came forward through informal discussions between Stonecipher and Councilman Ben Zarlingo, Zarlingo said, for an idea Stonecipher wanted to explore.
It was developed without the full council's input because open public meeting laws explicitly prohibit large groups of council members from collaborating outside of public view.
Zarlingo said last week he had supported going forward to having it on the agenda so it could be studied by city attorneys.
The other avenue for the rule is if the city's Charter Review Committee picks it up when they next meet in 2026.
