In an email sent late Sunday to her fellow council members and The News Tribune, Tacoma City Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg withdrew her name from consideration for appointment to two soon-to-be vacant council seats.

There is currently much discussion about the possibilities of who will be appointed to the Council. My name has been mentioned in the paper and at City Hall; and, although I appreciate being considered for the appointment, I need to remove my name from the rumors, discussions, the press, and consideration of an appointment. This is not to say that I am not interested. I just believe that it is placing undue pressure on the Council. I have to be honest, though…this is not an easy decision for me.

With Councilwoman Julie Anderson set to be sworn in as Pierce County Auditor tomorrow, and with Councilwoman Marilyn Strickland taking over as mayor in January, the City Council is now accepting applications for both seats, the terms of which each have about two years remaining.

Under the city’s charter, when a council seat is vacated, remaining council members have 60 days to appoint a replacement.  If the council fails to do so, the decision falls to the mayor, whose nominee, in turn, must win council approval.

Such appointments are not new to the Tacoma City Council, but several scenarios this time have made these appointment processes entirely different:  For one, the process for appointing Anderson’s replacement could straddle two calendar years and two different councils (the 2010 council, which convenes in January, has three newly elected members).

Secondly, with current Council members Rick Talbert and Ladenburg expressing early interest in filling the openings, questions have emerged about the city’s term limit restrictions and other issues.  I wrote about the turnover scenario prior to this month’s election here.

During the council’s study session last week, which we wrote about here, council members tried to iron out those issues. But left unanswered was which council — the current one or the 2010 version — would make the appointment to fill Anderson’s seat.  Instead, the council decided to begin taking applications and start the process. Where it winds up is yet to be determined.

In her email late Sunday, Ladenburg noted that she feels strongly that the current council should make the appointment to Anderson’s seat:

… I believe that those of us with the most experience should be involved in the appointment of Julie’s replacement.

Here’s the entirety of Ladenburg’s email:

Dear Colleagues,

The last eight years have been a time of much accomplishment and many achievements. I have been fortunate to spend this time with Councilmembers who are competent, intelligent, and dedicated to the betterment of our City. I have worked with you on legislation and initiatives that has moved our City forward and has made us a player in the region. And we brought life to the word “livability”. There are issues that I would like to continue to work on – work that is still not done, i.e. Tacoma 360, Urban Waters, a Clean Technology Zone on the Eastside of Thea Foss, Economic Development initiatives (IFSA, Tacoma as the Entrepreneur Center of Puget Sound, development of mixed use centers, transit oriented development etc), Public Safety issues (gang activity, DOC offender releases into Tacoma, Clean and Safe initiatives, traffic improvements etc) and the Task Force on Street Improvements.

I am passionate about these issues, as well as others, and believe that I have much to give and could continue to contribute to the Council and the City to accomplish these efforts. There is currently much discussion about the possibilities of who will be appointed to the Council. My name has been mentioned in the paper and at City Hall; and, although I appreciate being considered for the appointment, I need to remove my name from the rumors, discussions, the press, and consideration of an appointment.  This is not to say that I am not interested. I just believe that it is placing undue pressure on the Council. I have to be honest, though…this is not an easy decision for me.

Having said that, I would like to bring forward the following three issues:

1.)      This is an unusual time for the Council. As of January 1, 2010, there is the potential of having five new members on the Council. All of us know the time it takes to get fully up to speed. (Jake used the “I’m the newbie” for two years! LOL). We also know that the City is faced with economic challenging times and we need to be cognizant of the potential outfall: rising unemployment, rising crime, negative economic growth, negative impact on housing etc. Therefore, I believe that it is paramount that the City Council has as much continuity and experience as possible. Four new Councilmembers during good times is bearable – five new Councilmembers during troubling times is unacceptable and irresponsible to our citizens.

2.)      Some people have said that a person should be chosen based on whether he or she would work well and get along with the next Council. This is not a social club. This appointment is not akin to pledging to a sorority or fraternity.  Whether they are Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Gama Delta or Phi Sigma Pi material is not pertinent to getting the job done.  The person should be chosen based on knowledge and capabilities.  In fact, when our citizens casts their vote for their choice of Councilmembers, I would argue that they evaluate who would do the best job, not on whether they would fit into a Council click. We owe the citizens the best candidate.

3.)      We have an immediate vacancy (Julie’s position) and another after the first of the year (Marilyn’s position). This current Council has a charter requirement plus a responsibility to fill the first vacancy in an expedited manner. Four of us have been on the Council for nearly eight years. Three have been on the Council four or less years.  We have the awareness of the responsibilities, time commitment, expertise, plus the type of personality it takes to fulfill the requirements of being on the Council. If this decision is delayed until after the first of the year when the new Council is in place, it will mean that both positions will be chosen by 1 member with six years, 1 member with four years experience, 2 members who have 2 years experience and 3 with NO experience on the Council. Remember, they are not picking sorority sisters or frat brothers. They are picking people who will be leading the City during some tough and trying times. Therefore, I believe that those of us with the most experience should be involved in the appointment of Julie’s replacement.

Please take this into consideration as the Council moves forward on the appointments.  Pick a Councilmember that has the most experience possible; pick a Councilmember that has knowledge and expertise; and, fill the immediate vacancy immediately.  Our citizens need us to act now.

Connie