We write today as former leaders of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. The facts and circumstances surrounding the so-called Strippergate affair involving the Seattle City Council are profoundly troubling.
We know enough about this affair to publicly call on state and federal prosecutors to officially join the investigation, use their considerable investigative powers to dig deeper, uncover all the facts, and set the record straight.
An investigation by criminal prosecutors is necessary because our former commission colleagues have reached an insurmountable hurdle of uncooperative witnesses and insufficient investigative resources.
The integrity of Seattle’s city government was attacked last year when tens of thousands of dollars in political campaign contributions were funneled to three council members by individuals who wanted a property rezone at Rick’s, an adult-entertainment business in the Lake City neighborhood.
We believe these contributions, and the improper lobbying happening at the same time, were part of a well-orchestrated, far-reaching effort to influence how council members voted on the rezone petition.
Each of us writing this article has served on the city’s Ethics and Elections Commission. Each of us has chaired the commission. Strippergate is likely the most glaring, most extensive, and most egregious scheme involving potential election-law violations we have witnessed in our city.
The confluence of events raises serious concerns about the propriety of the council’s action approving the rezone and the motives of those who influenced our elected officials to get their way.
Here’s a recap of the facts and circumstances gleaned from our analysis of public records and information obtained through public-disclosure requests.
In 1988, and again in 1998, members of the Colacurcio family — long notorious in Seattle law-enforcement circles — sought a rezone of property they owned adjacent to Rick’s so they could increase the number of parking stalls available to their customers. The city denied both rezone petitions.
Undaunted, the Colacurcios launched a third rezone effort in 2001. As this third petition worked its way through city offices, it became clear the Colacurcios were headed for a third defeat. To avoid defeat, the Colacurcios marshaled their financial resources and political connections.
On October 3, 2002, the city department responsible for land-use issues ruled the rezone did not meet city standards and should be denied. Beginning nine days later, and continuing through December 9, 2002, a total of $9,300 poured into the election campaigns of then-council members Judy Nicastro and Heidi Wills from the Colacurcios, their employees and associates, and their attorney, Gilbert Levy, and his wife, Laurie.
Over the next eight months, tens of thousands of dollars — a staggering amount by city campaign standards — would be given to council members at key strategic points in the rezone process.
After the October 3, 2002, ruling, the Colacurcios appealed the denial of their rezone petition to the city’s independent hearing examiner. On December 11, 2002, the hearing examiner, in a 12-page written opinion, again ruled against the Colacurcios. Their last remaining hope rested with the City Council.
At this point—early in December 2002—the Colacurcios intensified their effort to influence the council.
Former Gov. Albert Rosellini met with Nicastro for a private lunch in early December. Rosellini urged Nicastro to support the rezone, thereby linking himself with the Colacurcios and the rezone petition. Rosellini’s efforts to urge approval of the rezone would increase dramatically in the weeks and months ahead. This at-the-time secret meeting — called an ex parte contact — violated city and state fairness rules related to quasi-judicial matters such as the rezone petition. These rules are designed to protect the integrity of the process so no party gains an unfair advantage.
On Christmas Eve 2002, the Colacurcios officially asked the City Council for further consideration of the rezone request. As chair of the council’s land-use committee, Nicastro would play a key role in shepherding the rezone through the council.
Within weeks, Levy and Nicastro met privately. Levy’s account of this meeting, as reported in The Seattle Times (“Prosecutor orders investigation of Seattle council scandal,” page one, Sept. 1), includes his admission that the rezone was likely discussed. Nicastro denies this, but acknowledges that Levy inquired whether council members not on a specific committee could attend and vote as part of the committee’s deliberations. Nicastro said yes.
On January 15, 2003, the council’s central staff informed Nicastro that the rezone matter was ready for consideration by her land-use committee. A hearing was set for February 21, 2003, then changed to March 4, 2003.
Another $10,250 in campaign gifts flowed to Nicastro and Wills; $1,300 to Nicastro before the original February 21 hearing date, and $8,950 to Wills following the March 4 hearing. All of these gifts were from the Colacurcios and their employees and associates.
A final hearing and vote were set for April 15, 2003. As this date approached, Rosellini and Levy met or had telephone conversations with Wills and council members Jim Compton and Richard McIver. These private conversations and secret meetings, too, violated city and state rules governing quasi-judicial matters.
In an unusual move, Wills attended the land-use committee’s April 15, 2003, meeting and voted as a nonmember. With a 2-2 vote, the matter advanced to the full council with a divided report. Wills’ vote was crucial, preventing a 2-1 vote recommending denial of the rezone.
Now, the last remaining hurdle for the Colacurcios was getting five votes from the full nine-member council.
Within days of the committee’s 2-2 vote, by far the largest sums of money began to flow to the campaign accounts of Nicastro, Wills and Compton. Between the April 15, 2003, committee vote and the end of June, individuals believed to be associated with the Colacurcios or Rosellini gave nearly $40,000, with the overwhelming majority going to Nicastro and Compton.
City investigative records reveal that Rosellini personally delivered much of this money to Nicastro during private meetings, including checks that had been altered by adding a spouse’s name (so the gift met the city’s contribution limit) and others that were laundered to conceal the true identity of the donor. In an interview, Nicastro has acknowledged that Rosellini delivered campaign contributions to her on several occasions during private meetings. Rosellini has denied doing so in interviews with newspaper reporters.
On July 7, 2003, the full council voted 5-4 in favor of the rezone petition. Council members Compton, Jan Drago, McIver, Nicastro and Wills voted to support the Colacurcios. Eleven days later, Compton received an additional $1,825 in contributions from the children of a Colacurcio business associate, a Colacurcio employee, and a relative of a Colacurcio employee, apparently the last gifts in the scheme to win approval of the rezone.
Some suggest this pattern of facts is benign, that campaign contributions like these are common, and that this is the way our system operates. We reject this interpretation emphatically because it fails to answer important questions about the conduct and motives of all the persons involved.
An informal accounting of all of the suspected Colacurcio- and Rosellini-related campaign gifts since the third rezone effort began indicates that as much as $62,000 might have been given to the three council members, an amount significantly higher than has been previously reported. What or who motivated these donors to give, most for the first time, to city campaigns? Why did the children of Colacurcio employees give, and who suggested they do so? Were they the true donors? Who altered the checks? Why did Colacurcio-associated individuals living in Nevada and Texas contribute to Seattle campaigns?
Why did Wills attend Nicastro’s land-use committee and cast such a crucial vote in favor of the rezone? Did anyone suggest she attend, perhaps Levy, who inquired about committee participation rules? So far, Wills’ only explanation is that she was concerned about the Lake City neighborhood.
Did the Colacurcios and their cronies engage in actions rising to the level of criminal bribery or corrupt influence? Did their behavior cause false reports to be filed with government officials? Did they violate city election laws?
These questions, and others, need to be answered. State and federal prosecutors have the power to answer them.
More broadly, as this sorry episode continues to unfold — as the onion is peeled further and further — why didn’t Nicastro, Wills, or Compton recognize the danger signs that were flashing so brightly? Were they deceived by the former governor’s gravitas? What safeguards are in place today to prevent such a debacle from happening again?
Was the city’s ethics law violated by council members who allowed themselves to be ensnared by the improper lobbying and the flow of money? Did their behavior create the appearance of a conflict of interest?
These questions cry out for answers. And that’s why we urge state and federal prosecutors to join this investigation. We dare not leave these issues unresolved.
Timothy Burgess, Daniel Ichinaga and Catherine Walker are past chairs of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. This post was first published in The Seattle Times on September 10, 2004.
Leave a Reply