Edmonds

Citizen Request for ECDC Code update Chapter 20.03 Public Notice Requirements for clarifying the correct Snohomish County Assessor address to use for the purpose of public notice mailing to property owners within 300 ft. of the project and/or development and changing the from owner address to taxpayer address. Please review the attached the Snohomish County Assessor Property Records. 631 Bell St.  Parties has one taxpayer address and multiple two different owner addresses. 711 Daley St. Parties has one taxpayer address and one owner address that is different Snohomish County Code uses the taxpayer address SCC 30.70.070 Adequacy of mailed notice. (1) Any mailed notice required by this subtitle shall be deemed adequate where a good-faith effort has been made by the county to identify and mail a notice to each taxpayer of record and known site address. (2) Notices mailed to taxpayers of record and known site addresses shall be deemed received by those persons if named in an

Edmonds City Council First Executive Session of May 26th 2020 The City Council may meet in executive (closed) session but only for one of the reasons specified in and in accordance with procedures identified in RCW 42.30.110. A personnel matter including a separation agreement is not specifically identified in RCW 42.30.110(1) and therefore is not a legally sufficient reason to meet in closed executive session. The Council discussed the Finance Director Scott James, Separation Agreement in the closed executive session under the guise of potential litigation. When in fact, any potential litigation ceased to exist on May 25 th , 2020, and the seven days from the date Mr. James signed the Separation Agreement, May 18 th , 2020, thus waiving all of his rights to pursue any civil action against the City of Edmonds. On May 26 th , 2020 during agenda item (4) Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas moved to add an Executive Session regarding “potential litigation” per RCW 42.30.1

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL   Prohibiting Non-disparagement Clauses for City of Edmonds Employees.   Whereas, contracts and policies prohibiting or limiting workers from speaking about their employment have drawn greater scrutiny from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in recent years; and Whereas, in early 2013, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that non-disparagement provisions incorporated in employment agreements violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by restricting employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA; and     Whereas, section 8(a)(1) restricts employers from interfering with employees attempting to exercise their Section 7 rights; and Whereas, under Section 7, employees have the right to choose to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” such as discussing wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of work with other employees; a