(The Center Square) – Amid allegations of a quid pro quo, the Spokane Ethics Commission voted Wednesday to initiate an independent investigation into Mayor Lisa Brown and the city council.

The allegations claim that Brown and five of the seven council members violated the ethics code on June 16 by reversing their vote on a proposed camping ban after much of the public had left.

Recommended Stories

• House Ethics asks AOC to pay $2,700 for Met Gala appearance that violated gift rules
• Arizona woman sentenced to eight years in prison for remote worker scheme that benefited North Korea
• Trump floats handing out rebate checks from tariff revenue

While the council had spent much of the last year gathering input and proposing different means of overhauling the city’s response to homelessness, they ultimately approved Brown’s approach. 

“There should be a public records request for all communications between the Mayor and council members between 6 p.m. and midnight,” Nicolette Ocheltree, the council’s manager of housing and homelessness initiatives, texted Councilmember Jonathan Bingle that night.

Brown proposed four ordinances in May after the Washington Supreme Court invalidated what much of the city refers to as ‘Prop 1’. Nearly 75% of voters approved the citizen initiative in 2023 to ban camping within 1,000 feet of a school, park or daycare, encompassing much of the city.

The court ruled that Proposition 1 fell outside the scope of the initiative process, but in doing so, it provided the council an opportunity to reinstate it themselves. The conservative minority tried to – twice – but the progressive majority, which includes those facing an investigation, declined.

Instead, they passed two of the four ordinances making up Brown’s plan on June 16. They were scheduled to vote on all four, but residents and business owners filled the room. It all started at 6 p.m. and lasted until well after midnight, with much of the audience testifying in opposition.

Most of the turmoil was over Brown’s camping ban. While citywide, as businesses had asked, it also required up to seven days’ notice before breaking up homeless encampments. Most of the audience testified in opposition and thought they had succeeded after the council rejected it.

However, after much of the audience had left, the council took a brief recess and then motioned to reconsider their initial vote. The majority then voted to suspend procedural rules so they could amend the notice period to three days and put it up for another vote, which occurred on June 30.

Immediately following the flip-flop vote on June 16, the council faced immense backlash. Some accused Councilmember Zack Zappone, who is currently running for reelection, of pressuring former Councilmember Lili Navarrete to change her vote after she initially rejected the measure.

The conservative minority also questioned whether the majority had called Brown to strategize. 

A resident filed a complaint days later, alleging that the flip-flop was an abuse of authority and deceptive. She said the majority misrepresented the public record to manipulate the outcome, claiming a potential quid pro quo, as the city issued a statement on its website announcing Navarrete’s new job on June 17. 

Lisa Gardner, the director of communications and community engagement for the council, had sent a press release to a few reporters on June 16 about Navarrete’s new position, but not The Center Square.

“When Councilmember Navarrete told me she wanted to make a motion to reconsider, I helped her craft it as I would any other council member. The amendment and reconsideration were in response to the testimony we heard,” Zappone told The Center Square on June 27. “Council deferred the ordinance [to June 30] to keep meeting with stakeholders to refine the ordinance.”

Records obtained by The Center Square provide additional context regarding what happened that night.

Timeline

According to the meeting minutes, the council started its June 16 legislative session at 6:05 p.m.

By 9:41 p.m., the officials heard public testimony on Brown’s camping ban and were debating it among themselves. The mayor texted Zappone and Councilmember Kitty Klitzke, who voted in favor of the seven-day notice period, “Appreciate your comments,” according to public records. 

At 9:42 p.m., Zappone responded, “Thanks. Whose number is this? I don’t have it saved.” 

Brown immediately answered, “Lisa – city phone.” 

Then, to much of the audience’s surprise, Navarette and Council President Betsy Wilkerson voted alongside the conservative minority to reject Brown’s proposal and proceed on to the next agenda item.

Bingle, who makes up the minority with Councilmember Michael Cathcart, then texted “WOW” to a number that The Center Square was unable to identify before publishing. Another message said, “I am STUNNED,” to which the person responded to Bingle and said, “Same…”

At 9:54 p.m., Brown texted Zappone, “Call me after,” followed by another to Councilmember Paul Dillon, which read, “Call when you can.” Two minutes later, Dillon responded, “Gonna chat with Lili during recess.” Three minutes after that, Brown texted Dillon again, “Call if you can.” 

According to the meeting minutes, the council recessed from 10:51 p.m. until 10:59 p.m. 

At 10:59 p.m., Dillon also texted Brown a single number, “3,” referencing the majority’s intent to reconsider their initial vote to amend the seven-day notice period down to three days. 

Dillon confirmed to The Center Square that the text exchanges did occur, and that he did call the mayor during the recess, but said that the call lasted only a minute. While Dillon previously said he would talk to Navarrete over the recess, he told The Center Square that it didn’t happen.

He claims to have told Brown that he didn’t know where Navarrete was, because Zappone and Wilkerson were allegedly already talking to her in the council lounge. Dillon said he stayed at the dais on his phone, because the four of them meeting like that would’ve violated state law. 

At 11 p.m., Zappone texted Brown, “I think after this,” with another message right after that said, “Ordinance,” according to the public records. He was referring to Navarrete’s upcoming motion to reconsider the camping ban, which Zappone seconded with the rest of the majority’s support. 

At 11:41 p.m., Gardner texted Council Director Giacobbe Byrd, “Smh, This is terrible.”

“I watched that very same person look at Councilmember Navarrete and signaled to make this new amendment,” a business owner testified after the motion. “There’s obviously some collusion happening within the city council members [aside from] Councilmember Cathcart and Bingle.”

According to the minutes, Zappone called for a point of order on Cathcart over “disparaging the council”, as he was upset over what happened. Wilkerson ultimately ruled in Zappone’s favor. 

At 11:56 p.m., Gardner texted Bryd, “He’s right. The public perception is going to [be] bad. This was horrible governance.” 

At 12:25 a.m. on June 17, as the meeting was still ongoing, Ocheltree texted Bingle, “There should be a public records request for all communications between the Mayor and council members between 6 p.m. and midnight.” Bingle responded, “You’re absolutely right.” 

A minute later, she texted Bingle, “I want to file it, but I feel like I will get in trouble and that’s not right,” to which he responded, “I’ll file it. This is stupid.” Ocheltree responded again, “I’m worried that they threatened Lili’s new job after she voted no and that to me creates a toxic conflict.”

“You could be right,” Bingle responded, according to the public records. 

The council adjourned at 1:06 a.m. on June 17, according to the meeting minutes. 

Ethics Commission Investigation

Assistant City Attorney Megan Kapaun told the Ethics Commission that the complaint received about the June 16 meeting didn’t technically violate the section of code cited. The commission is supposed to assume all the claims are true, but those must violate the specific code as stated. 

In a June 30 memo, she also told the commission ahead of their June 23 meeting that, in her opinion, Brown, Wilkerson, Navarrete, Dillon, Klitzke and Zappone did not violate the ethics code as alleged in the complaint, even if it were true. However, they still voted to investigate.

Notably, the entire Ethics Commission was appointed by Brown and confirmed by the council.

According to the ethics code, conflicts of interest, “financial or otherwise, direct or indirect,” are prohibited. The complaint focuses more on procedural manipulation, a lack of transparency and damage to public trust. The sticking point for the commission was the mention of a potential quid pro quo.

The complaint mentions Navarrete’s resignation, effective June 30, and her new job under the Brown administration, working with the Community Health and Human Services Department; however, that wasn’t publicly announced on the city’s website until June 17. 

While based on public records, it seems Navarrete was already offered the position before the June 16 meeting. However, the Ethics Commission still wants more answers regarding the flip-flop vote, whether the council followed proper procedures, and clarity on the timeline and nature of Navarrete’s employment.

“It was regrettable. All of this could’ve been avoided with a deferral in agenda review in the afternoon, but I do feel we ultimately ended up in a good spot on June 30,” Dillon told The Center Square after the Ethics Commission had made its decision.

The council passed the camping ban on June 30, with an amendment from Dillon to remove the notice period entirely; however, the Ethics Commission had already received the complaint.

Dillon confirmed to The Center Square that Wilkerson had wanted to defer the ordinance ahead of the June 16 meeting to allow for more time, but he wanted to get it through. Recognizing his mistake, he said Wilkerson’s request “was the right call.” 

When asked whether he had heard about the investigation, Dillon said, “I honestly have not been following because it seemed like a frivolous complaint.” The Center Square asked again whether the commission had reached out, to which Dillon said, “I haven’t seen anything.” 

TRUMP TARGETS HOMELESSNESS IN EXECUTIVE ORDER ‘ENDING CRIME AND DISORDER’

“What did I miss lol,” Dillon texted The Center Square. 

The commission noted that an independent investigator will conduct the probe into the ethics complaint, and anticipates a report on that in about 45 days. 

The Brown administration declined to comment when requested by The Center Square.