Emails: Seattle city attorney’s pot violation was a ‘major offense’
Aug 13, 2014, 3:50 PM | Updated: Aug 14, 2014, 7:25 am
The City of Seattle’s personnel department wrote in an internal email that it considered City Attorney Pete Holmes to have committed a “major offense” when he bought pot and stashed it in his office last month, according to documents obtained through public disclosure.
As KIRO Radio first reported, Holmes purchased two small baggies of marijuana on the opening day of recreational pot sales and then brought the purchase back to his office at City Hall, which was a direct violation of the Drug Free Workplace Act.
Holmes’ office twice denied that he violated the policy, but then reversed position under pressure from the mayor’s officer and after the city’s personnel department informed him that his actions would result in a minimum of one week’s suspension for a “regular employee.”
“Personnel Rule 1.3.3 states that this is a major offense which dictates that it skip the oral and written reprimand process,” Anne Davis, executive assistant to the personnel director, wrote in an email.
Her email was in response to an inquiry sent by Holmes’ chief of staff, Darby DuComb.
“What would Pete’s violation result in for other employees? Oral reprimand??” DuComb asked personnel director Susan Coskey in a July 11 email.
“We are researching,” Coskey responded, “Clearly some level of suspension would be warranted.”
DuComb was incredulous.
“Really?? Is there any history of that in Seattle?”
Meanwhile, the personnel department was flooded with emails from city employees who were clearly upset by Holmes’ actions.
“A complete embarrassment,” one employee wrote.
“I have knowledge that an elected city official has violated the Drug Free Workplace policy, do you know who I report this to?” wrote a Seattle police officer.
“Someone forgot to tell the city attorney,” one employee wrote, after personnel sent out an email reminding all employees that pot was still included in the city’s drug-free policy.
“I am confused and would like some clarification,” another employee said. “Does this include our city prosecutor?”
The personnel department began forwarding the emails to the City Attorney’s Office.
Behind the scenes, one of Mayor Ed Murray’s senior advisers told Holmes and his office that they needed to make things right. Jeff Reading, the mayor’s communications director, sent an email to several city officials with the subject line, “Update on recent CAO kerfuffle.”
In the email, Reading laid out, in bullet points, how the mayor’s office expected Holmes to deal with the situation.
-Acknowledge violation of policy and willingness to accept consequences.
-Apology to city employees and public.
-Statement about how city rules apply to all city employees.
-Statement about how elected leaders are held to an even higher standard.
-Acknowledge and thank personnel department for reaching out immediately upon learning of this incident and taking steps to address it.
-Acknowledge work with personnel on appropriate discipline, which, as a separately elected official, I’ll impose upon myself.
“If Pete doesn’t make these points in his statement, then I’ve suggested that we will need to have our own statement that does,” Reading said. “But all indications are that Pete feels bad and is ready to fall on his sword to make this right.”
Holmes and his staff formulated a plan.
“Pete just left Susan (Coskey) a message, has not reached her yet. He is going to donate a day’s pay ($600) in lieu of a one-day suspension. He is going to donate it to a substance abuse center for teens. He is announcing this at 3 p.m. to staff and at 3:30 to the world,” DuComb wrote in an email.
Holmes would later change the donated amount to $3,000 (a week’s pay), under pressure from the personnel department to bring his punishment more in line with what a regular employee would face in the same situation.
